Robby1

Hubert, I hope that you find these suggestions helpful. Also, I think GC is a great game, so please don't take these suggestions as any kind of criticism. - Forgotten units: At the end of the game, it is not uncommon to see that the AI has left some useful assets in a remote part of the map. For example, in a recent game in which I played the Allies, Japan left several ships and some army units sitting in Rabaul doing nothing, even when Japan was under dire threat. When playing Axis, it is not uncommon to see that the US has left units in areas where there is little action, even as it was in desperate need of those units by the end of the game. This issue does not seem to be as big of a deal with Germany or the USSR, but it is definitely there for the UK, Japan, and the US. The AI should be told to move these units where they are needed. - Dumb transports: I know you are fixing the problem of transports sailing dumbly into a known threat. I just wanted to flag a twist on this problem. When playing the Axis, I had subs stationed right off of UK ports, totally visible to the UK. Nevertheless, the UK started amphibious transports, which I then picked off immediately. The patch should correct for dumb commencement of amphibious transport as well as dumb movement after transport has begun. - Latin America: Playing Axis, and after most of Latin America had joined the Allies, I was able to go from country to country in South America, conquering one after the other. I was expecting a US naval task force to come down and destroy my transports or US air units to be operationally moved into South America or US land units to transport in, but the US did nothing. This would seem to be both historically unlikely and just bad strategic playing by the AI. - Peru: I got Peru to join the Axis via a decision event. Peru is weak, isolated from Germany, and close to the US, so I thought that it would quickly be conquered by the US. Instead, the game says that the US is enforcing League of Nations sanctions, and the US ties up a carrier and a sub for something like 10 turns. All they do is show up at Lima's port and reduce its value, leave, and then come back and repeat the process. This seems to be a waste of valuable US assets. I am not sure if this is an intentional penalty you want to impose on the US, and if it is, then I am fine with it. But if it is not intentional, I would think the US should get the option to invade Peru once the US DOW on the Axis.

I want to emphatically endorse Honch's suggestions. I was going to suggest an independent pro-Axis Ukraine, but Honch beat me to it. Three other ideas: An option for Japan or the USSR to sponsor a coup in Mongolia. The upside is an ally, MPPs, and strategic territory. The downside is the mobilization of the other side. An option for the US and Japan to invest in forward operating bases in the South Pacific. This would be similar to the Penang and Nantes options currently available and would be historically accurate. I would reduce the repair capabilities on the smaller islands in the South Pacific to strength level 5 or 6 and no upgrade capability, unless the occupying power invests resources to build a real port. If the player invests, the island port would come up to the current level 8 capability. I posted elsewhere that I think a huge mod to the Axis of Evil scenario would allow for either the USSR or Germany to turn on one another when one the Axis is played by a human. This would introduce an element of uncertainty throughout the entire game and I think it would enhance the scenario dramatically. Although this would be a variable event beyond the player's control, certain decision events could be inserted that would increase or decrease the probability of a betrayal. For example, the option for Germany to end subsidies to the USSR or a computer generated demand by one Axis power for aid and assistance could increase the chance of betrayal. At the point of betrayal, one of the Axis would become an AI player.

Having just played through a few games of Axis- High Tide and Axis of Evil, I had a few suggestions for tweaking in the upcoming patch or in future patches: AoE - I played as the Allies for the first time. It is a very enjoyable scenario. However, there was one major glitch and one possible minor glitch that I noticed. The scenario only really works if both Axis powers are very aggressive, moving quickly to take advantage of their pact and gobble up as much territory before the Allies can fully mobilize. However, in the game I played, the USSR failed to declare war on China, its main prize. It took over Manchuria and then spent a lot of turns swiping ineffectually at Japan and the Korean peninsula. It massed significant forces on the Chinese border and could have swept in and claimed a lot of MPPs, but it never declared war. The result is that the entire game was rendered artificially easy. All the Allies had to do was finish off Germany, which is not hard given that there is no action going on in the East, and then go after the languishing USSR. IMHO, a DOW on China should be automatic once the capital of Manchuria is taken. DOW on other Asian states should take place more or less automatically as the USSR advances through China. Every Asian state should be up for grabs and it can inject an exciting element of uncertainty as to which state the USSR will go after. But however it is set up, the USSR cannot be allowed to stall and then wait around to be clobbered. The one possible minor glitch that I noticed is that US vessels get no readiness/morale boost when they park in Japanese ports. They can fully repair, upgrade, and replenish their air wings, but their readiness/morale levels don't improve. When I move the same US vessel to Wake Island or the Philippines, the readiness/morale goes up. Similarly, US vessels get readiness/morale improvement when parked in UK or French ports. I don't know if this is intentional (perhaps to reflect the fact that US sailors aren't given much hospitality in Japanese ports) or whether it is just a glitch. On Axis- High Tide, I find it hard to win with the Axis. That is not, in and of itself a problem. However, I was puzzled as to why many Axis units begin the game in a weakened state. In particular, many Japanese naval units are at reduced strengths going into Midway. Why is that? Their main naval losses as of June 1942 were in the battle of the Coral Sea, which took carriers Shokaku and Zuikaku out of the later battle of Midway. But all the other carriers, subs, and other surface vessels should be at full strength, no?

Two responses to Grong's observations: I completely agree with him about the problem with naval units going one after the other into a discovered threat. I don't think that is limited to Allied units seeking to retake the UK or the Dutch East Indies. I think it is a more general AI issue. If the patch can tackle that problem, it would be a big improvement. I am not sure I agree with Grong about limiting the dates in which there can be a trigger for home guard units. I thought that having this set up as an automatic event triggered by a perceived proximate threat acted as a deterrent to either power (the US or Japan) to get too aggressive too early. For example, following Pearl Harbor, there is a temptation on the part of Japan to send its armada westward to wipe out naval units in California. The trigger of the US National Guard acts as a deterrent. As Japan, I might still want to go ahead and attack, but there would be a consequence to doing so. Without that deterrent, there really is no reason not to park the armada off the CA coast for a while, which of course never happened historically. Ditto for the US making dramatic naval thrusts near the Japanese home islands too early. This didn't happen historically (other than the largely symbolic Doolittle raid), and it makes sense for there to be some penalty if the US chooses to do so in the game. Also, when they do appear, the Japanese home guard show up in a weakened state, reflecting the fact that it was a rushed, panicked reaction to the proximity of US vessels. That could have realistically happened in 1941 or 1942. I do agree that the home guard/National Guard trigger should be based on proximate surface ships and not subs. But the date shouldn't matter.

I respectfully disagree with David. Variability adds to the game; it doesn't detract. So long as the variability is bounded by the facts on the ground, it is a plus. The formula which links surrender probability to the number of surviving military assets keeps the variability grounded. Now, this may be frustrating at times when you don't get the quick surrender you had hoped for. But such is war. There are no guarantees. You can never be certain that your enemy won't decide to fight on. If you gamble on a shoestring operation to seize a capital, with no backup plan in the event of a recalcitrant enemy, then you should suffer the consequences.

". . . any nation to go from belligerence to non-belligerence and from one alignment to another, depending on certain events etc." Exactly, dhucl. It is really just an extension of what the game does now, as individual countries swing in one direction or the other based on the players' actions. The only caveat is that it should be grounded in historical and political reality. It would make perfect sense for Germany to turn on the USSR (and of course, that actually happened) or vice versa. But it wouldn't make much sense for Germany to turn on Italy or Manchukuo to turn on Japan.

@Bill101: The possibilities for decision events in Alliance of Evil are endless. But honestly, the ultimate twist in the game, which would make it truly awesome, would be if Germany or the USSR could turn on each other. Frankly, when I first played it, I was expecting that something like that might have been written into the game. If you had that as a contingent event, and if you were playing as the Axis, you would always have to worry about how much you should sacrifice for your "ally," how far you should stretch your forces, and how vulnerable you should leave your cities. I could see this working in one of two ways. You could have one of the Alliance partners be friendly AI from the beginning of the game. Alternatively, the player could start out playing for both the USSR and Germany, but if the betrayal event is triggered, one of the two would convert to AI. Perhaps the player could be given the option of which power he would continue to play. Anyway, I am not sure if this is feasible, but I think it would make for a fantastic and original GC experience.

Hubert: I apologize for the ambiguity in my post above. When I played Alliance of Evil, I did see decision events. I just didn't see any decision events unique to the scenario. I did, of course, see the usual ones, such as creating Vichy France or establishing a Danish protectorate. I meant to say above that I didn't see any new or unexpected decision events, given that history was playing itself out in a radically different way. Just to check my criticism, I just now went to the manual appendix to see if there were any unique decision events scripted for AoE. I see that the vast majority are the standard ones, although according to the manual, there are a few that are unique to AoE, such as German subsidies to the USSR and Japanese subsidies to China. However, when I played as the Axis, I was not presented with these decision events. When the game started, Germany was already subsidizing the USSR and Japan was never asked if it wanted to subsidize the Chinese. If I had been asked, I would not have had Germany subsidize the USSR (with 25 MPPs, if I recall correctly), since the USSR is bringing in more MPPs than Germany to begin with. Also, historically the situation was the opposite; the USSR shipped oil and other natural resources to Germany right up until the eve of Barbarossa.

As I have now played through the entire game several times, I had a few additional observations: - The intermediate difficulty level seems just about right. As I noted in my previous post, the expert level creates a huge and unrealistic resource imbalance by 1941. The beginner level was too easy for me. The intermediate level gives you an ample challenge w/o overwhelming you. - Two criticisms: First, I really enjoyed the series of creative and thoughtful decision events in 1939-41. So I was disappointed to see that they largely disappear after 1941. Also, I did not see any decision events in the Alliance of Evil scenario. Second, while I find the AI in GC to be an improvement over past games, it unfortunately commits the same error as has been seen in all of the prior SC games. The AI sends transports blindly forward, even when there is a known threat ahead. I have had situations where an AI transport on the move unexpectedly comes into enemy contact with a battleship or cruiser and is immediately destroyed. But the AI doesn't acknowledge the loss and do a course correction for the other transports in the convoy, nor does it take any action to eliminate the threat before moving the other transports forward. The AI just moves the other transports forward and each one in turn meets the same end from the same warship. This doesn't happen that often that it materially impacts game play, but it is still a glaring failure by the AI. Hubert, I hope that this is something that can be fixed for future games.

I generally don't like alternate scenarios that are far fetched. But the neat thing about the Alliance of Evil is that it does not require you to believe in something highly unlikely. Germany and the USSR already did the highly unlikely thing when they entered into their pact in 1939 and then adhered to it for 2 years. All you have to do is imagine that they continued the existing arrangement. Like any cartel, they would come the realization that they are better off cooperating and dividing the spoils rather than attacking each other.

Nupremal, I really loved your last global mod. It was very well done. However, each AI side had a critical bug which undermined the whole mod. The Axis AI would fail to conquer France, since it didn't know to circumvent the Maginot Line. That one error stops the whole game. When I played against your Allied AI, the flaw was that the US never moved its units to battle in Europe. I only mention this b/c you do such good work, I would hate to see the GC mod suffer the same bugs.

I apologize if someone else already mentioned this, but the UK carrier Indomitable is also misspelled.

Hubert: I agree that the bonus units accorded to the AI are not great in number. Its just that in combination with the 20 percent MPP bonus accruing every turn, the result is overwhelming by as early as 1942. You can't destroy AI units fast enough. I gave the AI a good mauling from 1939-41, but by 1942 the map was still flooded with AI units. The result is that the AI never has to make any hard decisions. For example, an AI Germany at the Expert level could easily fight on both fronts while having extra units to spare for Africa, a massive Atlantic fleet, and could dip into an ever-expanding reservoir of MPPs to fully fund research. When the AI is given so many resources that it can do everything simultaneously and to the max, it really changes the premise of the game IMO. Anyway, I have checked out the lower difficulty levels and I find them more playable. Once again, you guys did a wonderful job on this.

If you are an experienced player of other SC games, you might initially think that GC is just Blitzkrieg pasted together with Pacific Theater. But as you play, you see that it is not that. The sum is greater than its parts. It is a much more complex game, which challenges the player to manage a host of priorities and crises across the globe. The AI is much smarter. I would almost say it was creative in its aggression. When I took for granted that the AI would act in a certain way, based on my experience with other SC games, it surprised me. I loved the challenge. And the introduction of many decision points and political variables ensures excellent replay value. So all in all, this game rocks. On the negative side, I would note two items. First, I am pretty sure that there was a serious error in setting the difficulty levels. I played at the Expert level w/no experience bonus. I played once as Allies and once as Axis. At a certain point in 1942, I would stop the game and turn off the fog of war to see what was really going on. Unfortunately, it seems that the Expert level simply floods the AI with massive amounts of MPP and free units. The number of enemy units on the board in 1942 was just ridiculous and completely inaccurate from a historical view. There were excessive enemy units on every front, and the enemy was sitting on several thousand spare MPPs to boot. All at an early point in the game and regardless of whether the AI was Axis or Allies. I don't mind a challenge, but it is sort of a pointless exercise to fight such an overwhelmingly skewed battle. I will try playing at lower difficulty levels in the hope that these scenarios are more realistic. Hopefully, there will be a mod or a patch that will moderate the Expert level somewhat. The other item that I didn't like was how some units are virtually invulnerable. I am thinking of the Chinese in particular. I understand that they were resilient, but how can one corps go undamaged after 4 or 5 attacks from armies and special forces with enhanced infantry? At one point, I thought this might be a bug in the game. Anyway, the two points above notwithstanding, I think this is a fantastic game that really takes SC to a whole new level.

Just wanted to add my 2 cents: I agree that garrisons would add realism to the game. I also agree with HC that you can't just allow unlimited garrisons as there would be no "cost" for governing ever-expanding territory. I agree that the solution is to allow garrisons, penalize the player with reduced corps, BUT allow for several (say 3 or 4) weak garrisons to be created at the cost of 1 corps. I disagree when HC says that it would all come out the same (i.e., the build penalty for corps would be the same as having no garrisons but imposing the burden on the player of using corps units to protect cities). As it stands now, you have to use multiple corps, and sometimes air and army units to destroy many of the partisan units, so allowing the player to create multiple garrisons at the cost of one corps would be a much better bargain than forcing him to use corps and armies to extirpate partisans.. I also want to second a comment above that the partisan units (at least in the Pacific Theater game) are too uniformly powerful, especially given how numerous they are. They pop up right in major cities and then it can take a major effort to eliminate them. In some PT games I have played, they popped up in a capital city and "liberated" a conquered country. I think partisan units should form outside major cities. Most partisan units should be a nuisance; a few could be more powerful, like Tito's partisans. BTW, I can't wait for the game to come out. I also look forward to a good WWIII/Cold War scenario either as an expansion from Battlefront or via a mod.