Jump to content

HiCom, CoS & SC AI Handling of Situations.


JerseyJohn

Recommended Posts

Yes, just move a transport onto the arrow and at the end of the turn the transport will begin its journey to Egypt going around the Cape.

If Egypt falls to the Axis before the troops arrive they will turn around and return to the South Atlantic.

[ November 30, 2003, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blashy

The Allies can't use the arrows for sending ships around Africa, only troops, and it's a one way trip.

If the Axis captures Suez the arrows vanish the following turn and anything in transit turns around for the West African coast (I've heard, though I've never had it come up). Leading to odd situations where, conceivably, a unit could be in the Red Sea and have to sail all the way back again because that specific port was taken. It's really an abstract idea.

The arrows weren't in the original game and didn't appear till around v1.05 I believe. The idea, including the inability to send ships around or to send anything back in the opposite direction has been debated ever since. Many of us feel a similar system for the Axis, going from the Baltic to the Western Atlantic, only for submarines and warships, would make a good addition, simulating the route via the Norwegian fiords, Arctic Ocean and Denmark Straights (Greenland/Iceland Passage) out to the Atlantic used by the Germans.

As Edward says, the AI, playing the Allies, will never send troops to Egypt via the Arrows. As a matter of fact, the AI will never send troops from England or the U. S. to Egypt via any route.

CoS, on the other hand, regularly reinforced the Middle East and conducted regular campaigns out of it, often with United States troops. Additionally, it utilized the simpler system of sending units there, around Africa, using the much simpler "reserve around the Cape" system. There is not equivalent in SC.

[ November 30, 2003, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans passed ships freely along the Norwegian coast throughout the war, so I guess blockading it looks easier than it actually is.

The main danger for the Germans came from air attacks, but it was a long trip from Scotland so targets needed to be selected carefully. The Tirpitz was caught anchored in a fjiord undergoing repairs and sunk by specially constructed hull buster bombs in shallow water.

German shipping generally kept on the move and wasn't attacked; Royal Navy units didn't come too close because numerous U-boats roamed the area, along with land based aircraft making it a very dangerous sea zone.

German vessels and subs headed for the Atlantic would move far to the north and used the fog laden ice flow waters for concealement while en route to the Denmark Straights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be satisfied with a map similar to this one, minus the stump North America, replaced by Iceland in the north and the Canary Islands in the south. Disproportionate distances would be fine as long as they're far enough from mainland Europe to be reasonably realistic.

That, combined with good off-map options that would affect action on the main map.

Example, (Edwin type alternative history action) Vichy joins the Axis after either the British seizure of Syria or the shelling of it's squadron at Mirs el Kebir, Axis gets remaining Vichy fleet (in Toulon if Mirs attack sparked it, or at Toulon and Mirs if Syria sparked it) along with control of Madagasscar., allowing a reliable link for German and Japanese subs; possibly increased anti-commerce action in the Indian Ocean, etc. ...

The UK or an activated USA basing an airfleet at Iceland would reduce Germany's success in using the Baltic arrows for the Baltic-to-Atlantic loop. Basing a naval and bomber unit there would mean almost certain interception. Germany can attempt an invasion of Iceland, but only if it possesses Denmark and Norway, using the Baltic Arrow route and specifying Invade Iceland. The larger the invasion force the greater chance it would have of succeeding. If successful, Germany would possess a North Atlantic Air and Naval Base west of the British Isles!

Spain joins the Axis, or is activated as Axis in a scenario, and Germany has a Naval/Air base at the Canary Islands in the South Atlantic. If Spain is invaded and Allied units land there, it remains Allied after Spain falls, if not it would be Axis, but without a garrison, like Spanish Morrocco.

Things like that would make for a more interesting game and were actual concerns or factors during the war.

[ November 30, 2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, we need a full map that you can edit.

This gets repetitive, with an editable full map you could make many scenarios.

Pacific or Atlantic only, Germans vs. Russians only, the island battles in the pacific, chinese & japan conflict, Normandy only, march to rome, so many it goes on and on, would make SC2 a game that would have a long lifespan and very attractive to more buyers ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blashy

The reason it gets repetitive is we've discussed the World Map idea several times during the past year and in the end almost nobody wanted it!

Originally I was in favor of the idea, but the first argument against it was the fact that 90% of the playing area -- North and South America, most of Africa, the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, the Eastern Pacific, Sibieria, etc & etc would have virtually NO action, EVER! It would just be huge areas to scroll through.

Secondly, the game scale doesn't lend itself to the Japanese War, not if you want to include everything from the American West Coast to the African coast of the Indian Ocean, the Bering Sts and Aleutian Islands in the North to New Zealand in the south. Take some measurments on real maps and you'll see that most of it is only ocean dotted with small islands. True, some of those islands were marked with significant battles, and were important strategic bases, but it wasn't the same kind of war and would require a basically different game engine.

So, I don't understand what you mean by a full map? Are we talking a world map? In which case I don't agree with you. On a global basis, unless some really tedious scrolling is incorporated, the action would be reduced to Army Groups! In itself that would be enjoyable and probably easier to play, not a bad idea but also not SC.

I suspect we're talking about two different things. What I'm talking about this game -- SC -- perfected, including a better scenario editor. What I'm not talking about is a single game that covers both theaters and the entier globe.

Global War is fine, but an entirely different concept from either SC or Cos or HiCom!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I would like to see an event editor included in SC2 so that ideas like JerseyJohn's events for Allied Attacks on Vichy France or Spain joining the Axis could be easily added, the addition of such a feature would delay the release of SC2.

That said, the concepts that JerseyJohn put forth for the inclusion of "realistic" alternative history events would greatly improve the gameplay of an already great game system.

PS - Global War was also the name of an old SPI game that covered WWII on a global map at a scale that was significantly larger than that presented in SC.

[ November 30, 2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blashy

The reason JerseyJohn and others (including myself) disagree with you, is that you are not asking for an improvement to SC.

You are asking for a game engine, based on SC, where you can create your own scenarios.

At the simplest level, the unit scale between a Pacific and European theater cause you to end up designing abstract levels into it. Having to be abstract because of the scale of the game, has just destroyed any useful design to reflect some of the subtle differences between various WWII units.

Think about it... if you stick with a 50 mile hex and a Corp unit of four (4) divisions, how will you represent the US Marines? By Pearl Harbor, there were only two (2) partially trained Marine divisions. While four (4) more were raised (total of six Marine divisions by '44), they were built using 40% cadre from existing Marine divisions.

And what about the Japanese "Marines"? It would be proper and more accurate to refer to them as "special naval landing forces". They were in battalion (1000 to 1500 men) sized units, rarely operating in multi-bn units.

How do you represent a Battalion, Brigade, Division, Corp... four different scales of units in a 50 mile hex?

By definition, if you use a division sized unit, you are really in a operational level game. Then you have Strategy (div/corp) and Grand Strategy (corp/army). You can't force all of them into one "game" system, without making abstractions. And if you go there, you might as well play a WWII module using Civilization III.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...