hoolaman

Queenslanders do that too, ay? Think of it as a "Can I get an Amen?!", or "Know what I mean?". It's heaps good eh.

And we know you have the power, oh Sergei.

Lol, yeah I can see sgt goober slapping his forehead saying: "oh, so it's fire mines then dismount troops!".

The variables for subs already allow for plenty of tweaking and balancing, but the fact that spotting is 100% when inside the appropriate range makes it hard to reflect the fact that real world subs also got more and more stealthy the more the technology developed. I'd like to see much shorter spotting ranges for early levels of destroyers/cruisers, maybe starting at 10 and going up in +5 increments. Also tactical air should have some spotting range for subs, and later, some combat abilities. The ASW in the atlantic in WW2 was a really interesting technological arms race and it would be nice if that could be reflected in some way. Really the anti-shipping submarine role should become more obsolete at higher levels and have subs as recon and missile platforms.

Yes (me), I have reported it, and I have even managed to make it happen and captured a save after the fact, the problem is, I'm not really sure how I did it! Any tips to reproducing this would be most helpful for a comprehensive bug report. Edit: Actually don't worry I've got it now.

I think I recall Steve saying there would be no French for CMSF 1, back when the Nato module was announced. The French have so much unique gear that they'll alway be a long shot I reckon. Doing German gear in addition to the US gear already in, leverages into a bunch of countries, but the French stuff gets you the French. Still it would be nice, they really would round off a CMSF-2 European Nato based war.

So how did this come about? Do you have a save or recall the orders you used to get there?

I've played up to about 80 turns with the first beta build online and experienced no problems.

First. Looks like a good one!

I reckon a persistent server based game would work best. Games stay open and visible on the server for people to join or add their turns to. This would be the best way to get a lot of players which shows the game at its best. The problem with EoS is that a single turn is such a small fragment of gameplay that you would take a whole year to finish a game by PBEM. Even IP games take many (many) hours to resolve.

And yet combat can run through two or three turns? Duration might only be a result of a tight battle but the number of "rounds" per turn still is vital to understanding how it works.

This is in now, use the scroll wheel button (as in push down click Button 3 on mouse.) Can also be reversed to "grab" in the preferences section.

Holy Crap I never would have found that (is it documented anywhere?). That definitely makes the gameplay zip along.

I don't think attrition is directly related to how combat is calculated. It is an effect rather than a cause. The only combat stats I can see are: value to hit against a certain class of unit defence (including modifiers for terrain, entrenchment and "docked") speed? So how does it stack up? When a battle takes two turns what is happening under the hood?

Actually I posted this in another thread before reading this. I'll definitely second this request, to the point of putting the ruleset editor in the beta and allowing us to post and trade rulesets.

Finland is not there because even just the flag would severly unbalance the game.

As for question 1, I'm sure I've seen cities grow slowly over time, but I don't know how to promote this. Obviously plenty of things make them shrink. I'd like to see the ruleset editor open in the beta, considering the license expires at the end of october, its not like it'll give the game unlimited replayability and it would sure help with the "testing" we are doing here.

Call the UXO team because that's still offensive.

Yeah I noticed this one too. The offers definately need to expire.

Cruisers historically had a speed advantage compared to battleships, they could hit as hard but didn't have the armour. I believe cruisers are the same speed as battleships in EoS and inferior in every other way at comparable levels. I think all naval units should be faster from a gameplay POV. There doesn't seem to me to be a balance issue if they all cross the map faster. Crusiers though should easily outrun battleships at all levels. Subs should have a small chance to hit but score big when they do. Carriers could be more useful on a more open sea map, haven't bothered using them yet.

Good update, plenty of cool stuff there, delete last order is very helpful. BUG?: When I zoom IN with the scroll wheel it also scrolls the screen hard to the left. Another suggestion around zooming. Perhaps you could have the middle mouse button a toggle between high, default and last-used zoom.

I pretty sure the AI is taking a lot longer to plot and process orders in the new build. I loaded a save game from before and the orders are taking like twice as long.

Seems a simple and good idea to me.

Gameplay pov maybe, but in reality you are only trading between nations which are either friendly to you or not. Germany and Japan were isolated from supplies of food and oil late in the war, they couldn't just go to the open market box. However once again I get the feeling that the demo map is giving a false impression of what the game is capable of. Custom maps could give an abundance of food and a shortage of iron, it all depends what resources you put where really.

It might be a good idea to disable the "open market". After all where does the money, the oil, the food even come from? Being able to freely trade excess iron for cash and then buy oil makes shortages really not a problem. If you limit trade to only between players or maybe have a "pot" for the open market where only cash and resources that have been sold onto the market can be bought?