Bill101

You could invade Ireland early on in the war, landing a corps there after your airforce, battleships and carriers have beaten up the defenders of Dublin. Don't invest so much in jets unless you've got a massive income. It sounds as though more troops in the Middle East would have been a good move, backed up with some cheaper planes! Trade space for time in the USSR. Don't try to reinforce the front line units, pull them back instead. Invest in anti-tank, jets and anti-aircraft (well, that's my recommendation, others would try different things). Entrenchment is very useful to defenders in this game, so put your Soviet troops in place at least several turns before the Germans are going to reach them. Pull back before you get surrounded too! Don't be always attacking. It's better to build up a line of corps to slow down the Germans than to throw in a few Armoured Groups that might take out a German unit but die themselves in your opponent's following turn. I was never that keen on bidding but giving the UK IT level 1 at the start of the game, an extra 250MPPs to the USA and 500 to the USSR will probably help balance it out a bit. These are just my thoughts and others might disagree, but as most of us have moved on to SC2 you might be lucky to get any more responses. Good luck!

I've finally had a chance to give this a go and I've been surprised at how well it works! I must confess that I was a bit sceptical at first when I saw that a Waterloo mod had been created, but now I'm thinking that it would be good to see more Napoleonic scenarios, possibly some 19th century colonial scenarios too.

I've managed to get round the problem by changing the allegiance of the tile with the capital on it, and then making a new capital where I wanted it to be, but it's a strange problem which I hope won't come back!

SC2, version 1.06, everything's uptodate. I can't see it having anything to do with directX etc. as I only get this problem in one home made scenario, not in any others. It was an intermittent problem until today, so I wonder if I've done anything. The only thing I can think of is that I resized the mini-map by accident.

I'd put a capital in the wrong place but the editor keeps crashing every time I try moving or deleting it. Trying to remove it in the Edit Country Data section doesn't make any difference either. The error message says: "Failed(on_left_button_down): Segmentation violation" Any ideas? Thanks

Thanks for the tips Moonslayer, which will come in handy when I make some original bitmaps but my problem was slightly different. I've finally worked it out now, I was changing images in the right file, but not the right ones. Let's hope fathoming it out didn't give me too many more grey hairs!

Yes, if you mean this file: unit_silhouettes_sprites_3d_mirrored.bmp Both that and the non-mirrored one have been changed, I get the same problem whichever way the unit is facing. I put both files in the bitmap directory where the unit graphics are.

Which file do you edit the silhouettes in? I'm being driven mad by this as I've changed my silhuoettes in the following files in the bitmaps folder for my campaign, and localisation is at 1. unit_silhouettes_sprites_3d.bmp unit_silhouettes_sprites_3d_mirrored.bmp My new graphics work fine, but not the silhouettes as despite having changed them I'm still getting the silhouettes that were associated with the units that previously occupied these slots. If not there, where else? What is confusing me is that when I click on the unit's HQ they highlight ok: But when I go to attack them with an enemy airfleet, the old silhouettes suddenly appear: I've been pulling my hair out trying to work out what I'm doing wrong, so if someone could put me out of my misery and tell me what I'm doing wrong I'd really appreciate it! Thanks

I've not seen that Vedran, but I only play with a few people so maybe I'm lucky. I agree that if someone had a high tech like that in 1940 it would be a bit rough. That said, in two games I played as Axis I got IT level 5 by the middle of 1941 without cheating, so some good results can occur naturally. I still managed to lose both games! And don't forget that if you want a game with me sometime just let me know. [ January 13, 2007, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

I don't think cheating is a big problem. Some players undoubtedly do it, I caught one out last year when he sent me the turn where he captured Paris as Axis and it said that he'd reloaded it six times! Still, cheating will only help if both players are fairly evenly balanced. If one is much better than the other then they will still win, even if their opponent reloads every turn ten times, because it's having a good long term strategy that counts the most.

Actually you can build quite a few fortresses given half the chance! But my question remains, can we amend it if we wish too?

Interesting, why was it intended, and can we change it?

I'm playing the latest patch but notice that units moving into fortifications are still being given level 3 entrenchment immediately. Also, units occupying fortifications that are attacked automatically go up to level 3 entrenchment the following turn, no matter how many times they were attacked in the previous turn. Was this intended or is it a bug? It makes fortified zones very tough prospects indeed!

Is there a way that the deployment of Soviet forces can be fixed in the standard scenario so that Stalin really does get his backside tanned when Barbarossa happens? In SC1 all those Soviet armies were deployed along the frontier, but naturally given the oppportunity to move them in SC2 we put them in better and safer positions (i.e. miles behind the frontier). I would like to play the 1939 scenario with the Soviet forces starting in their historical forward positions, but without relying on house rules to keep them there. The Soviet player should still be able to carry out research and buy new units which they can deploy anywhere they like, but their starting units should be fixed in position until they are at war with the Axis. Can this be added as an option in later patches please?

I think they should be visible. If you build them far behind your lines then unless your opponent is busy scouring the map for them then they'll remain a surprise for a while longer. And what if he does seem them? He can't do anything about them being there, so don't worry. In addition, just because you build forts doesn't mean that you have to fight there. Use them to blind your opponent into believing that you have entrenched units on them far behind your lines, while you are really building up your strength for a counter attack somewhere else. Use your imagination and the fact that they can be seen can be used to your advantage.

If the UK could get a few Home Guard Corps in 1940, weak units that can't be shipped overseas (can this be programmed in?) would this make any difference? I'm hoping that house rules can thus be avoided.

I'm currently playing a game where tile 113,32 at the northern tip of the Suez Canal has been fortified. By doing so, no naval movement whatsoever is now possible between the Mediterrenean and the Canal, neither from friendly nor enemy naval units. Would it be possible to amend this so that the tile can be fortified but friendly naval units can still move in and out of the canal? Thanks.

I agree with the concept as currently defence is useless. If a unit attacks it shouldn't be able to do much more besides, perhaps move one tile if it has motorisation. I'm not sure that I'd allow motorisation to go beyond level 1.

I can't see that this has been raised before (perhaps most people don't play that far?) but when one side win a PBEM game, the loser does not get to see the last turn anymore. After the victor has finished their turn, say for example that they are allied, it saves off the turn so that it needs the allied password to be opened up again. When this is done a video replay of the allies winning will then be shown. Surely when the allies win it should save off their winning turn so that it asks for an Axis password, and vice versa? This is a bit of a shame and relies on some honesty between players, which isn't always a problem, but it would be great if the next patch could fix this so that things end like they did in SC1. Thanks.

Can the convoy routes not be made to appear on the allied player's main map? It would make things so much easier and let's face it, the allies knew their own convoy routes!

Male, 33, England.

Hi Alex I'll still play SC1. I've just been playing one mirror game of SC2 at the moment to get the hang of it, but see no reason why I won't play SC1 every now and again too. Bill

I see the point of this, but the Siberian transfer always has an effect on the Axis player's morale, an effect that wouldn't exist if it was just factored into Russian MPPs. Let's keep the transfer in because it's a boost to Soviet and a blow to Axis morale. Just as it was in real life, even if the reality of the transfer was slightly different.

Yes, I've had that too while viewing a video. We got round it by my opponent replaying his turn, but it could be very annoying. Hubert:: I've kept the file if it's needed.

Yes, I've had that too while viewing a video. We got round it by my opponent replaying his turn, but it could be very annoying. Hubert:: I've kept the file if it's needed.