Baron

I have gotten WAW to play on my Vista laptop. When I run it on my son's I get several different errors: Failed - initial mode surface out of memory Failed initial mode surface Special Allocation Failed initial mode surface 0x800a0035 I have tried running in windowed mode running as an admin running in xp compatability mode updated to patch 1.6 The laptop is Vista 64 bit, 4 GB ram, ATI Radeon HD 3200 graphics Any help would be appreciated.

This shouldn't be that hard to answer - is v 1.05 still available for download or not?

I had several games going when my hd crashed on my pc (BTW I just sent a ticket on elicense concerning this). I would like to continue them. I like the fact that the game keeps getting updates but I must say it can be a pain. I remember one time having 3 versions going at one time. Since there is now a repository at Battlefront why not post the different patches there?

Where can you download version SC2WAW v1.5?

To the guy who hates the small Hawaii garrison - open the editor - change it, save the campaign with a slightly different name - play. It would take 5 minutes to change.h This may come as a huge shock but not all people like to open the editor and change things. It is a jaded and oversuggested "miracle solution" Ludi simply pointed out some issues with the game - alot of these issues have been around since SC2. I think the land portion of this game is extremly well done but the naval aspects are still lacking. The fact that you can move air units across the globe with no real way of getting them there is also absurd. This is a "beer and pretzels" game but that doesn't mean it can't be improved upon without ruining it. How about making the Pacific Islands apart of the victory conditions? Why not add "convoy lanes" for opportunity movement of aircraft? Why not fix it so that you have a supply unit (think fleet train) that loses a point of supply for every unit it is adjacent too that takes reinforcements? This unit could be built and moved anywhere a ship could go - it could reinforce air & naval units. It could also be attacked and give the Japs or Allies something else to attack. This would mean protecting them would be important and would make a long distance invasion feasable and more "realistic". For those that like the game as is fine but others would like to see it improved upon. I would also suggest reading some books on the War in the Pacific it would really enlighten some of the posters here as to the real world difficulties that both sides faced and what they could possibly have done.

please send turns I'm up and running again

Sorry for the delay in turns everyone. My Hard drive died in my desktop and when I unlicensed my laptop to move the license to a newer laptop it is giving me an error message. I have sent 3 emails to support but have not yet received a reply. As soon as I do I'll be up and running again. Please send the last turns sent to me. Sorry I didn't email everyone individually but with the hard drive gone so is my address book

So does a fighter, that is in an entrenched tile, benefit from its entrenchment value if it intercepts an enemy air attack?

Does this apply to air attacks? I seem to remember that mt German fighters seemed to benefit from fortifications even though it was an interception or a straight out air attack on them.

The US subs won the war by destroying the Japs merchant marine. In this game the sea lanes are very easy for the Japs to control at least until air power destroys the ports. The subs seem pretty much useless right now. I have lvl 4 subs on silent being bombed into the depths by the Japs and they never seem to get away (at least not as often as they did in WAW). The worst part is when those same lvl 4 subs run up against Jap destroyers that are level 1 and still come out worse than the DD's do. Has the formula been changed that deals with the diving to escape and plain old naval combat between subs and surface ships? It seems to me they are pretty much a waste of resources right now as they stand.

AZGungHo - you were right, the older I get the more the old "brain housing group" forgets or maybe it is the increase in brainfarts but the 1st MarDiv did participate in taking "The Rock". I also agree with your sentiments that the value of the islands is being way over simplified here. Sure some of the battles were mistakes Peleliu and the return to the Phillipenes are the most glaring examples. The truth of the matter is that by 1945 after taking all those islands and building the huge armada that was sweeping the Pacific we didn't need to take anymore islands but it took years to build the experience, equipment and flat out learn how to supply those forces over those huge distances. Fact is in 1942 even if the US had the knowledge it didn't have the equipment to just skip all those islands. The reasons the battles were fought for those islands was because the islands were needed. To this day I'm shocked that MacArthur has received the "free ride " that he has. He was directly responsible for the debacle in the Phillippines during first months of the war and the unnecessary return to them in 1944.. I guess we needed heroes back then because his bad decisions cost a hell of a lot more lives than the people blamed at Pearl Harbor (Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short).

I think Big Dog is onto something. I've noticed no loss of readiness on ships in transports(I have not checked with amphibs). The reason the US took islands was to build bases to support air power to cover the next invasion. As it is now load up your invasion force and then sail it 10 turns across the Pacific to get to your target. I'd propose a readiness and moral loss hits while a unit is in amphib mode and transportation mode. Make these big enough to make the islands important to fight over. The 1st MarDiv fought from Guadalcanal until the end of the war yet it was only involved in 3 invasions (Guadalcanal,New Britan, and Pelilu) this was due to the time it took to rebuild and prepare for the next invasion. The US can steam roll the Japanese with pure numbers but if the units are in no shape to fight after being at sea for so long then you would have to fight for the islands. Please excuse the spelling I'm tired!

I can't believe I suggested you post here in the forums..... sheesh. Now you'll get the answer you want and the Russians won't come to my rescue!!!

Colin 1, I'm in the beginings of my first game as Allied so I don't have much experience. I'm good for 25-30 turns a month if you want to play. I'm interested in any others that want to play also. taz@swva.net

I have been playing a SC2WAW game and for almost a year even though I have Leningrad its port has never recovered beyond 3. Is this supposed to be like this or is it a bug?

I'm just going to to have to go with the old standbye 732

Are there plans to release the Pacific Theater game in 64bit? or update the othe SC2 games to 64 bit? All these great processors and no games to take advantage of them......

Several good suggestions mentioned: variable victory conditions Countries suing for peace at certain levels (UK under 75 BRPS in ATR terms) Gambit options Red Vs Blue game /scenario I loved Blitzkrieg and still have a copy or two around here someplace along with about 100 or so other games from the "good ole days" I have been hoping somebody would do a scenario on it using the editor. I personally want to see a better naval game and some sort of other penalty (like BRP's ATR) for declaring war on everybody under the sun. Sure you might have to move the assets in place but a lot more goes into an invasion other than driving your tank across the border.

Man this is sounding great! I would also like to see a "world wide" game at some point. I'd also like the naval rules to be incorporated into WAW and PDE. It has alway been my biggest complaint about the game. Having said that it is by the the game I play the most and I must confess addicted too

I remember reading somewhere that the Germans actually attempted some sort of nuclear explosion - I believe it was near Riga in 1944. From what I remember it was an incomplete reaction and although it produced a big bang it wasn't close to either "little" or "Big" Boy. I would actually like to read more on that particular subject. I do know that Norweigian partisans sank a ferry with the equipment needed in a deep fiord. The Germans were attempting to relocate the factory back to Germany.I think the the factory produced "heavy" water although I have no idea why you would need that for the bomb. Not my cup of tea - I'd rather know what the maximum effective range of the assualt rifle I'd be using was

Just curious as to why the need for two different accounts? Is it not possible to import the user account data (those we have been using for the forum for example) into the new customer account? I think I understand what you are trying to achieve but if you are going to the expense of a new system why not really make it customer friendly from the start and have 1 account and password to remember not 2 different one. I'm not being critical but I work in IT (networking and desktop mostly) and I'm just curious.

Excellent article and very well written.

I like the idea of adding Manchester and of checking a units supply level to determine the victory conditions. I agree it is early in the patch process to make drastic changes but some of the changes mentioned should be being play tested to find out how the changes would effect the balance. I did not realize that limiting an AT level for example could not be done for one unit exclusivily. Of all the ideas submitted I like the increased cost for upgrades the least. When you are talking hundreds of points per turn I'd pay the extra 20 or 30 points to upgrade the TAC air because they are just so powerful. Hubert, thanks again for checking in on your community and working so hard to make the SC family of games so great!

Welcome to the party Sweed! Be prepared for "the look" from your wife though. You will probably be getting it from the hours of SC2 that you are about to get addicted too

Right off the bat the biggest ramification I can see of not letting air/naval forces (I like the idea of indirect attack units added to this list also)destroying the last factors of a ground unit is - Malta. There would be no way to take it unless it was garrisoned by air units. This brings up another issue that I’ve suggested before. Ground units in amphibious mode should be able to attack directly from the sea. If the defending unit is destroyed then they could advance into the newly vacant tile if not they are destroyed. This would open up huge possibilities of doing a Pacific Mod and make Malta vulnerable even with a new rule where the last ground factor can’t be destroyed except by another ground unit. As far as AA let them fire twice a turn – just like a tank. If they are too powerful when at tech 5 with 2 shots a turn then limit the tech advancement of AA to something like 3 just like is done with AT guns. Sea Monkey has a very valid point in that air power was certainly devastating at times in WW2, on those occasions though one side had air superiority and towards the end of the war air supremacy. If one side is able to achieve this in the game I think it should have devastating consequences but not too the point of totally destroying ground units. TAC air should really only be devastating to armor. The accuracy in that time period was not sufficient to be really effective against other types of units. Infantry, AT, Artillary all dug as a matter of training and thus were better protected than armor or mobile units in the open. I would suggest limiting TAC’s soft attack to 3 regardless of how far it’s AT improves. This still makes them powerful against all ground units but only really devastating to armor. Finally I like the idea of holding the victory cities at the end of your opponent’s turn as being the standard for victory although I think this should only apply to the major powers. Great dialogue guys – this is how all the changes have come about that make this game so addicting. These ideas are what get tested and HC works so hard to implement – Thank you Hubert!