Idea: USA vs Axis Europe Option in SC2

[Edwin P.]

The Fantasy Axis Invades USA Scenario

In Sc2 the Allies will automatically surrender if the UK and USSR fall to the Axis.

Though, it will not come to be , I would like to see an option for a human player to continue playing for 2 years if the USA remains unconquered.

Example 01: Human Axis conquers AI controlled UK and Russia, popup occurs - USA offers to sign peace treaty. Human Axis player accepts, then game ends. Human rejects then game continues with production of USA rising to 500% AND USA receiving Pacific Fleet (and scripted partisan uprising in Russia).

This would allow the human Axis player to continue the war against the USA and its vast economy to see if the Axis can truely conquer the USA.

Example 02: Human Allied player loses UK and Russia to Allies. Then Popup occurs - Germany demands surrender of USA. If the Human allied player accepts then game ends. If the Human allied player rejects then game continues.

This would allow the Human player to play as the USA against Axis controlled Europe and to see if the USA can liberate Europe from the AI controlled Axis Alliance.

---------------------------------------------

NOTE: Proposed USA BONUS's if War Continues Past surrender of UK and USSR

USA Production Bonus: 500%

USA Naval Bonus: Pacific Fleet

USSR: Partisan uprising in USSR if UK or France or Italy liberated leads to appearance of 10 to 20 partisan units in USSR if Allies are AI controlled.

-----------------------------------------------

Allied AI Variants for USA vs Germany/Italy Controlled Europe (with France, USSR and France surrendered)

4 Strategy Variants for Allied AI

1 or 1&2 or 1&3 or 1&2&3 :eek:

Allied AI Option 1: Standard Battle for the Atlanic

Allied AI Option 2: Surprise, American Invasion Fleet appears in Red Sea poised to liberate Egypt. (Scripted - aka Siberian Transfer but USA units appear in Red Sea)

Allied AI Option 3: Surprise, American financed Red Army from Siberia appears in the East as partisans rise up in their support. (Scripted - aka Siberian Transfer but at a random time)

The USA Allied AI will randomly select one of the following Variants if this Scenario is triggered:

25% Allied AI Variant 1: Option 1

25% Allied AI Variant 2: Option 1 and 2

25% Allied AI Variant 3: Option 1 and 3

25% Allied AI Variant 4: Option 1, 2, and 3

Thus, an unpredictable endgame against the AI if this scenario is triggered.

---------------------------------------------

AI Strategy for AI Axis vs surviving USA

AI Option 1: AI attempts to conquer USA

AI Option 2: AI focused on defending Europe

AI Option 3: AI aims to conquer remaining European countries.

Axis AI Strategy 1: Option 1

Axis AI Strategy 2: Option 2

Axis AI Strategy 3: Option 3 then 2

Axis AI Strategy 4: Option 3 then 1

[ November 28, 2005, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

UPDATED Allied AI Strategy Variants for USA vs AXIS Subjugated Europe

Allied AI Option 1: Fortress America (a purely defensive strategy by the AI)

Allied AI Option 2: Liberate Europe

Allied AI Option 3: American Invasion Fleet appears in Red Sea poised to liberate Egypt. (Scripted - aka Siberian Transfer but USA units appear in Red Sea. If successful then neutral Turkey may join Allies.)

Allied AI Option 4: American financed Red Army from Siberia appears in the East as partisans rise up in their support. (Scripted - aka Siberian Transfer but at a random time and place (north or middle or southern Russia) with partisan units also appearing.)

The USA Allied AI will randomly select one of the following Variants if this scenario is triggered by the Human Axis player rejecting a peace treaty with America after defeating Russia and the United Kingdom.

20% Allied AI Variant 1: Option 1

20% Allied AI Variant 1: Option 2

20% Allied AI Variant 2: Option 2 and 3

20% Allied AI Variant 3: Option 2 and 4

20% Allied AI Variant 4: Option 2, 3, and 4

An unpredictable endgame with 5 possible Allied AI strategies if this scenario is triggered.

The human controlled Axis player will be unsure if or where the American Liberation forces will strike in their campaign to liberate Europe from Axis control.

Updated USA Bonus Explanation

USA Pacific Fleet arrives in the Atlantic

---- Uses Modified Siberian Script for arrival of US Navy Pacific Fleet in Atlantic.

---- USA launches Europe invasion only after Pacific Fleet appears.

---- Needs AI Routine for Liberating Europe and timing of said Liberation Invasion, in addition to routine for securing control of Atlantic and defending North America.

[ November 28, 2005, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Mr.Dozer]

i think this would be a waste of time scenario.

if you hept it like original map your going to be fighting subs surprise attacks and hours of drop on beach and having them slaughtered.

if your going to increase USA ptoduction by 500%m this better be something that starts out that way because i would be pissed to beat USSR, UK, France just to deal with all this crap.

nice thinking out of the box but would not be a scenario for me.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

I pretty much agree with Dozer. I like, enjoy and admire the amount of detail and imaginative concepts you always find in these things, but in this case I can't see it as an actual historical possibility.

But Hitler did, of course.

His plans against the United States were pretty much an extension of some theoretical studies by Imperial Germany going back to the 1880s. The hypothetical ideas were hatched at a time when the United States had neither a powerful navy or army, and nobody on earth had an air force (some still doubted even at that late time that such a thing would ever exist). The Imperial plan was to land a large corps or small army on Long Island and march into New York City. Pretty much what the British did during the American Revolution.

After that, it was assumed, the U. S. economy would be crippled. This was an accurate appraisal because the Great Lakes-Eerie Canal-Hudson River-New York Harbor route was still vitally important.

As it was only the sort of plan all war departments study and afterwards lock away in a safe, there was little in the way of follow-up.

Decades later, during the early thirties, Hitler began thinking in terms of invading the United States after conquering the UK, France and USSR. By then, of course, the situation was completely different from what it had been a half century earlier.

But it's still an interesting idea and I like the ideas you've put forward. Personally, I think it would have been a naval war without land action on U. S. soil.

The only land action I can imagine would be in South America and Greenland. Germany would no doubt have attempted to displace the U. S. interests in countries such as Brazil and Argentina. I think they'd have had a very good chance of doing that -- especially using bases on the West African coast, along with the Canary Islands (Spain) and Cape Verde Islands (Portugal). Same with Greenland, after seizing Iceland, in the North Atlantic, naval supremecy would have decided the issue. I think it would have been less important in the South American actions -- the island air and submarine bases would have been the deciding factor in that area

-- In summary, I'd love to see this kind of scenario played out either on a global map, or one of the entire Western Hemisphere. I think the South American actions would be incredibly interesting. I don't know if there's a jungle terrain in SC2, but if there is the whole thing is in business.

-- -- If it's played out on a North-South America map with Japan assumed to have held it's own in the Pacific -- or perhaps entering the war much later, when the United States was tied up in the Atlantic War we just discussed -- it would become all the more interesting. Once more, I don't see Japan trying to conquer the United States, not even the West Coast, but focusing on Central and South America in alliance with Germany. In that instance, of course, what happens in the other three parts of the Pacific would need to be carefully considered.

As usual, I don't think Japan would have a realistic chance of succeeding unless it already realized it's basic goal of adding China, S. E. Asia, Indonesia and the Phillipines to it's original empire of Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.

So, maybe it's a matter of the United States fighting for control of South America against Germany and engaged in the South and Central Pacific against Japan, exactly as in the historical Pacific War.

-- So we can figure this super world war as taking place around 1948 through the early fifties. Can we figure there are A-bombs? The H-bomb was first detonated in 53-54, but in this case I don't think it would have been developed.

-- -- If the U. S. steered clear of the war in Europe and didn't fight Japan in the Pacific, we can assume it would have developed differently in the early to mid forties. FDR does not get elected to a fourth term. The USA probably does not make any dramatic strides in beating the Depression and, perhaps, changes it's entire policy after being burnt on FDR's Lend-Lease; seen now as a vast waste thrown down the hole when Britain and the USSR were defeated and bankrupted.

In light of that, I don't think America would have been conducting the Manhattan Project, so there's no A-bomb and no H-bomb. Unless either Germany or Japan developed them.

** Now look what you've started, Edwin.

[jon_j_rambo]

The Germans couldn't even take the UK, they lost the air war.

A better scenario is "Red Star Falling", with General Patton leading US & Nazi forces against Russia in 1946

[JerseyJohn]

There was an interesting analysis of this on cable recently, I think it was National Geographic, the best look at why Germany didn't destroy the RAF over Britain.

Briefly it went something like this:

1) The airfields in Southern Britain were very well placed and selected for the exact kind of defense that they were called upon to make. Most of them were laid out during the 1920s and some had paved runways, eliminating many of the landing and takeoff damages that the Germans were having across the channel.

2) The radar network was only part of the British observation network, it was augmented by thousands of civilian observers all over the country. The civilians, with excellent optical equipment, were instrumental in giving positive identification of the incoming formations. This was as important as the radar itself, between the two of them the British had the first air defense network in history and it gave them the decisive edge.

3) German air superiority was a myth. The British had an equal number of fighter planes and of comparable quality. As the battle wore on, German losses were made worse because pilots bailing out usually came down in England, where they were captured and lost to Germany. RAF pilots bailing out were back in the sky within hours.

4) The Spitfire over the Me 109 is also a myth, the two planes were exactly equal, each having the edge in different categories. -- Spitfire's were used in dogfights, Hurricanes in attacking bombers, Stukas and ME 110's, and it was very well adapted to fighting all three.

5) British aircraft production was rising while German aircraft production was dropping. This was directly attributable to a stupid decision on Goering's part.

Summary:

It would have been all but impossible for the Luftwaffe to have won the air battle for Britain. The flip side is that the RAF fared no better when trying to bomb occupied Europe. The Spitfire's range was as limited as the ME 109 and it was unable to escort British heavy bombers past the French coastline. Germany also had radar, of course, and used it effectively. The RAF and Luftwaffe both turned to night bombing at about the same time and for exactly the same reasons, daylight losses were ruinous.

Scenarios:

Brother Rambo, your suggestion is also good. There's no reason why any idea anyone has can't be worked into a scenario, especially as there will be a variety of options regarding eras, weapons and all the other variables.

For instance, regarding the Battle of Britain, the first functional German jet was flown in the spring of 1939. The German braintrust decided it should be further developed after their short war against Poland. There would be plenty of time because as soon as the winter ended so would the war, the UK and France would offer a peace treaty and Germany would go back to developing new aircraft. At least that's the way Goering, Milch and Hitler saw it. Suppose they waited a year, worked on their prototype and started their war with jet fighters? I think the Battle of Britain would suddenly have been fought under radically different circumstances.

-- Of course, we can already simulate things like that with the SC1 editor. But it should be a lot better with the one SC2 will have.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Mr.Dozer:

i would be ------ to beat USSR, UK, France just to deal with all this crap.

nice thinking out of the box but would not be a scenario for me.

Note that as proposed this would be triggered by the Axis player at his discretion. A popup box would ask the Axis player if he accepts the US peace offer. Accept it and the game ends normally.

[SeaMonkey]

I'm not opposed to this concept Edwin, but instead of a continuation, I could imagine a string of campaigns/scenarios based on the struggle of democracy vs fascism.

We could take the real world political/economical struggles that communism and capitalism went through in places like Korea, SE Asia, and the ME for examples.

The campaigns could be as a result of a very shaky armistice between the Axis and the USA and then reappear as a continuing escalation of hostilities, perhaps finally erupting into WW3.

A couple of things like the A-Bomb and Japan would have to reckoned with, but a nonlinear linking of theater actions could be envisioned as a continuation of the conflict.

Of course this would be a huge project for one designer, better to be approached as a group cooperation.

[Mr.Dozer]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

The Germans couldn't even take the UK, they lost the air war.

A better scenario is "Red Star Falling", with General Patton leading US & Nazi forces against Russia in 1946

they lost because hitler changed bombings from airfields to homes. thats why they lost.

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn,

I like you concept of a war in South America. Really different and unique. And naturally the accompanying historical background was superb.

As you said the game would need Jungle Terrain, and in my view impassable Mountain terrain tiles too for sections of the Andes Mountains.

Jungle Terrain Idea

- Enemy can't spot you unless you are adjcent.

- Air Units can't be based in Jungle Terrain, unless Engineer builds airstrip.

- Armor units can't enter.

[ November 29, 2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Thanks Edwin, excellent take on jungle and impassable mountains.

Your terrain paramaters are very interesting, an historical parellel to what happened so often in the Pacific, where as in Guadalcanal, the fight was over which side would gain possession of a vital airstrip built in very contrary conditions.

Hopefully Hubert has an allowance for such terrain conditions in the scenario editor.

Player defined terrain?

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Mr.Dozer:

[battle of Britain] ... they lost because hitler changed bombings from airfields to homes. thats why they lost.

Not true, all of which has been posted earlier but I'll run it by once more.

The battle of attrition was working against the Luftwaffe, it was losing more pilots and aircraft than it was replacing. The RAF was incorporating valuable lessons learned from the Polish and French campaigns. One of those was keep fighters in protected areas, two to a pen, making it very difficult for German straffing and bombing runs to knock out more than a few of the parked aircraft. Additionally, with radar and spotters working so well together, most of the available fighters were in the air intercepting their attackers.

Vitally important was the fact that damaged German aircraft seldom cleared the channel, resulting in the death or capture of their crews; this was proving ruinous for the Luftwaffe. The R. A. F. had no such problem as their own downed pilots were recovered on home territory and quickly returned to their squadrons.

-- In short, the Germans couldn't have won unless they'd already taken part of Southern England and had those airstrips, at the very least to serve as recovery zones for their own pilots. Further, they'd have needed them to shorten the distance to targets, allowing their fighters to effectively engage in dogfights without too quickly running out of fuel.

-- -- Another misconception, German fighter range. Most calculations have been done in a straight line from the bases in France to the the targets in Britain. However, the fighters used up much more fuel while dogfighting, most German escorts barely made it home on empty tanks. Even at that they were only able to spend a few minutes in actual combat before having to head for the channel.

As the British had exactly the same problems when attempting to attack occupied Europe, the only conclusion is that aircraft technology in 1940 just wasn't far enough advanced to allow for that kind of campaign. The German effort was doomed the moment they expanded it from the original objective of controling the English Channel.

[SeaMonkey]

Just a few more months and the E-7 variant of the Me 109 would have appeared with its 66 gallon drop tank.

Ohhh what might have happened with that extra fuel?

[stoat]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Just a few more months and the E-7 variant of the Me 109 would have appeared with its 66 gallon drop tank.

Ohhh what might have happened with that extra fuel?

Not to mention a larger number of FW-190s.