Some Comments, Observations, Bugs & Suggestions...

[Gronq]

First of all full marks to a very 'playable' game. I've enjoyed it tremendously over the past few weeks.

Some minor features which would be useful to have:

1. Spotting range highlights on the map for strategic bombers (all air units in fact).

2. Highlighting tiles that a unit can move to which are currently occupied by other units. For example, this becomes a problem if you move a unit and subsequently find that another unit which you had in mind to occupy the vacated space cannot move there.

Possible bugs?

1. During a recent game as the Axis I had no units in Japan. US subs subsequently moved in to attack convoy routes in Japanese 'home' waters which activated the homeguard units. This was quite early in the game and, effectively, meant that I got a number of 'free' units without there actually being a threat to the home islands.

2. The Allied AI is obsessed with attacking the UK and Dutch East Indies if they've been conquered, without any regard to units based there. For example, as the Axis you may have a number of naval units stationed in UK home waters (or around Australia/Dutch East Indies) which the AI will just keep running into even if another unit has been blown up that same turn. It seems that they AI doesn't retain knowledge of the position of naval units 'discovered' during the turn if the previous unit was completely blown up. You may, therefore, end up in a situation where an amphibious unit runs into a battleship, gets completely blown up, next amphibious unit comes along, gets completely blown up and so on...

Additional Scenario

One scenario I particularly enjoyed with Patton Drives East was Storm of Steel which kicked off in 1938 and gave all parties a chance to be a bit more innovative. Would it be possible to do something similar to this for SC2G?

Apologies if some of the above has been mentioned previously by other posters.

Again, many thanks for a good game and all the best!

[Hubert Cater]

Hey Gronq,

Glad to hear you are enjoying the game

1. Interesting idea but I'll have to think about that some more as the same could be argued for most unit types.

2. This is actually already possible, if you look at the upper left corner of the information bar it shows you the 'Movement Cost' for all tiles that you can reach, with or without friendly units on them.

Bugs:

1. Good catch and I've changed the earliest date for Home Guard arrivals to 1943 as it was previously 1940

2. This has now been adjusted for the first patch and the AI should do a much better job at these types of landings unless of course every possible landing tile is covered etc.

For additional scenarios we don't have anything currently/officially planned but I believe there are a few mods already in development and I suspect some will be along the lines of what you have suggested as soon as the Repository is back up and running, hopefully soon!

Hubert

[Gronq]

Hello Hubert,

Many thanks for your reply.

In terms of the features:

1. This would be particularly useful over water so that air units can be effectively placed to spot subs and amphibious landing craft, especially in the pacific. At the moment you have to manually count tiles. It's a nice to have, I suppose, but certainly not essential to gameplay.

2. Oh yes, it's all clear now. I'd missed that one...

Finally, one very minor item which I forgot to mention in my previous post but which I feel I have to point out since I'm Swedish.

The insignia for the Swedish units is upside down. The Swedish armed forces insignia is two yellow crowns sitting above a single yellow crown (please see Swedish Air Force insignia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Airforce). This could, of course, affect gameplay dramatically...

All the best!

[Robby1]

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.

[Hubert Cater]

Robby1, thanks for the feedback and the Transport issue should indeed be fine now under v1.01 and regarding the Home Guard, good points and I think the issue is that sometimes the AI sends out subs to the Home Islands and in this case a few free units for Japan that early in the game does seem to be a bit of a bonus. I agree though for human games you are right, let me see if I can model it out for either the AI or multiplayer games.

[heatrr]

Since I am new here, please bear with me.

First off, I played Strategic Command a year or so back but eventually pushed it aside to play some other games. With the release of Strategic Command Global Conflict, my interest has been reinvigorated and I bought Global Conflict and have been steadily playing it since. Awesome game so far.

Here are a few of observations:

1) The AI opponents recieve a unit and then are able to move newly recieved unit the same turn new unit recieved, whereas I recieve a new unit and cannot move it the turn recieved. Example: US gets CV Wasp and moves it in the same turn recieved (typically to the closest harbor for upgrading). Likewise, I get the Bismarck and cannot move it in the same turn recieved.

2) Why does the Soviet AI build naval units in the Caspian Sea? To me, makes no sense.

3) AI needs to make better use of diplomatic points. I would wager that if scenarios did not have already preassigned diplomatic chits, the AI controlled countries would not use diplomatic chits. Example: I have done about 8 variations of the World at War and have repeatedly adjusted the US entry percent chance from 13-15% to well over 80-85% only to watch the UK fail to actively diplomatic chit US into war entry. In fact, not only has the UK failed to bring the US into the war with the increased US percent entry, over time, the US steadily drops in its percentage chance to enter the war...every turn thereafter (i.e.: I have checked every turn in these enhanced and edited scenarios to witness the adjusted US entry percent decline from a set 85% to 68% over a number of turns - which I no doubt believe the continued 'US isolationists' message has a reducing affect/effect).

4) The AI, in general, needs to be tweaked. If I have subs in the convoy route from Canada to UK, why would Canada continue to send out transports when I repeatedly sink them or when I have a sub sitting off Canadian ports, especially when not playing or using 'fog of war' and I know the AI can see what I see under the no fog of war option? Again, makes no sense and reminds me a suicide bomber who would repeatedly continue to run in and blow themselves up...if you get my point.

5) Also, as to the AI being tweaked, whether in several edited variations of World at War, the Soviets (i.e.: before entry into war against the Germans and eventually the Japanese) repeatedly fail to reinforce their Eastern flank/front/position with the Japanese and solely only reinforce their flank/front/position against the Germans.

6) The French are pansies...in that once one of the Maginot Line hexes are breached, the haul arse back to Paris when a human opponent would simply reinforce the positions surrounding the breached Maginot Line hex and hold the remaining two (being there are a total of three Maginot Line hexes). AI tweak....

Anyhow, I love the game and continue to edit scenarios to overcome AI deficiencies ... without touching the 'bad voodoo' AI scripts.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Actually most French players would in fact rush their Maginot units back to Paris if the Belgian front is breached-they do no good just sitting there drinking their wine. Of course if the rail line is cut...

The Caspian Sea shouldn't have a port-easy fix.

[heatrr]

And once those remaining Maginot units move back to Paris, their defensive value is gone, making them open to being shredded. Anyhow, yeah, too much wine and cheese is not good, especially in a war environment.

[Hubert Cater]

1) Unit script arrivals will occur at the end of a turn so likely the Wasp arrived at the end of your Axis turn and then the AI was able to move it on its turn. Is this not the case?

2) Agreed with John that removing these ports will help, otherwise likely those ports were the only ones that were not threatened and probably why the AI put them there.

3) Problem is that this is scripted via the AI scripts, none currently exist for the UK to influence the USA, so if you adjust the settings of the game then it is suggested to adjust the AI Diplomacy scripts as well.

4) Generally the AI does play under FoW but some scripts will trigger only depending on enemy unit positions etc., and this is probably why the AI keeps running into your transports as it technically does not know they are there if hidden. That being said I have implemented a few tweaks so that once a hidden position is revealed the AI transports will now avoid this unit and naval and transport routes will now travel more intelligently avoiding enemy ports and likely enemy naval unit positions etc.

5) I think this is the AI simply trying to reinforce where the greatest threat is, and if it has to balance between two fronts it will attempt to protect the weakest areas as well as close to capital as a top priority.

6) What John said