France, Total Surrender, No Vichy.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Bill101:

I'd also want all of this that has been discussed to be an option, rather than something that's built in that we can't change.

The more HC makes features of this game options, the better.

[Edwin P.]

I was thinking that to make the programming easier, if the Allies want the French to fight on they need to expend a Diplomatic Chit on the French before before the Germans take Paris.

Then instead of creating Vichy, the French will fight on if the Germans offer Vichy unless the Germans decide to expend a Diplomatic chit on the French after taking Paris.

Of course, if the Germans decide not to offer the French a Vichy option then using an Allied Diplomatic Chit on France will have been wasted.

[ April 22, 2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Bill101]

My worry about this is that keeping the colonial possessions of France in the game might help the Axis more.

For instance, they won't have to declare war on Vichy France any more, thus helping keep the USA and USSR off their backs for a while.

Italy should be able to take out Algeria pretty easily, and the defenders of Egypt will have to guard Syria now too.

The plus side for the allies, apart from the extra fleets and maybe a corps or two, will be the ability to use Beirut as a base to take Iraq earlier than usual.

Despite these reservations, I am actually rather keen to play this out. I guess we could model it with SC1, though we'd have to use the editor, starting the game in mid 1940 just after France has fallen. Does anyone fancy giving it a try?

[JerseyJohn]

Bill

My fellow poor misguided history nut, are we really certain General Rambo meant it that way just because he happened to say it!

Agreed, it should all be an option, which is the only way I intended it to be. We would prbably be able to alter the specifics through Hubert's expanded editor.

As an option I'm sure in actual play there would be times we'd all go either way on it depending on circumstances.

[Bill101]

John

No, we can't be sure of how Rambo meant it, but I certainly had a good laugh reading his message.

Seriously though, it probably would be a good idea for some of the top competition players to be involved in the playtesting at a later date, as I really hope that we can play SC2 without having to use bidding.

They are certainly far more likely to pick up a lack of game balance than I am.

[JerseyJohn]

Bill

Yes, that's exactly as I see it. What made his remark humorous, for me, is it only told half the story. The suggestions for the patches came equally from both the "players" and the "historians" camps and that's the way it should be. Looking at the improvements already in SC2 at least three quarters -- The Russian Winter, Expanded Editor, Realistic Weather Zones, etc & etc, were suggested by the supposedly 'weak' players, so those remarks are nonsensical and I know General Rambo well enough, as most of us do, to see when he's joking around with the rest of us.

But I agree about playtesters, they should be people who play the game often and well and have a feel for the way it should work. I'm not one of the better players and have no desire to playtest unless needed -- and there seems to be more than enough people who want to so that's settled. But like yourself I enjoy making suggestions about aspects of the game which, to me are equally valuable.

Looking at the suggestions being compiled here, I think most of them are very thoughtful, and most of them are being put forward by the 'historian' camp.

Kuniworth, to me, is both an historian and a player and he's making many fine observations and suggesstions.