Bill101

Hi Mathias All patches include the previous patches, so 1.02 includes changes made in 1.01. Bill

Hi Amona Regarding the strength of the naval units, the Indomitable only represents one carrier (whereas most naval units in game represent 2-3) and she could only carry 45 aircraft whereas Japanese carriers generally carried significantly more. Originally she was slated to have joined the Prince of Wales and Repulse in the Far East, and I have read that it was probably fortuitous that neither she nor the Hermes (which was considered as her replacement) did join Force Z because she would have proved no match for the Japanese and would have likely suffered the same fate as they did. In truth, it would be more correct to say in the Decision text that the Indomitable is under repair, rather than being recommissioned, as she suffered some damage after running aground in the West Indies. With the Royal Sovereign also representing just the one ship, then having it at half strength also makes sense, particularly as it was old and slow. You are definitely correct in thinking that they would need to be at full strength to be of any use against the Japanese, as the problem the British had was that they couldn't spare enough resources to make any difference in the Indian Ocean at the start of the fighting there. So their arrival at half strength is intentional. I hope this explains things better. Bill

Hi Amona I see what you're saying and there are three potential solutions that we are currently thinking about, all of which are easy to implement: 1) To increase the cost of upgrading with AA from 5 to 10% for all land units. 2) Making it possible to only research AA up to level 2 rather than 3 as currently. 3) Allowing Ground Attack Aircraft to be researched up to level 3 rather than 2 as currently. I think that probably the first and then the third are the most attractive, as the second option would render strategic bombing even more effective. Bill

Hi Mathias I certainly hope to, I love playing WWI, but it won't be for a while! Bill

Thanks Strategiclayabout, I was about to start doing the same when I realized there was another page to this thread and you'd beaten me to it!

Hi sokulsky Good point and I'm certainly happy to consider including Polish formations, though we wouldn't be able to prevent the Polish Legion in Austro-Hungarian service being used against whoever the Central Powers decide to use it against, i.e. if they want to send it to the Western Front or Palestine. Off hand, I think that representing both the Legion in Austrian service and the Blue Army as Detachment would be appropriate, as even though the Blue Army received a lot of recruits, between its formation and the end of the war its role on the western front was smaller than might be represented in game by a Corps. Anyway, I'll do some more research and see what I can come up with! I totally agree with you on including historical flavour! Bill

Thanks Amona, you're right in that it's unecessary to have two partisan spots very close together unless we want to represent a major uprising. In this case, I think that we just need to remove one.

Hi CSS The strength of the HQ is now a factor in the supply it can provide to units, so if it was damaged that would explain it.

Thanks Amona, I've noted your suggestions for the future.

I love the marking system!

Hi Amona You are totally right about the US Carrier builds and we'll make some amendments. The question of the Japanese land forces is a more complicated issue, particularly given the different scale at which the Pacific campaign was fought, and we'll certainly consider this, but any significant changes will probably take some working through and are therefore more for the future, as much testing and adjusting would need to be done. Bill

Hi The morale loss will only kick in if the Dutch swing to 1% or more in favour of the Entente, whereas 0% is exactly neutral. The calculations for the MPPs are worked out before the diplomatic hits, so the result of the diplomacy will take effect next turn. PS Keep up the great AAR!

Hi Strategiclayabout Good points, and these appear to be oversights so we'll get them corrected! Bill

The things to bear in mind are that Russia will gain 2,500 National Morale points when Romania joins the Entente, though good news for you is that they would lose it when Romania surrenders, and that Austria-Hungary will lose 50 National Morale points per turn for as long as Romania is fighting on. I'm glad you're the one having to make the decision rather than me!

Hi If you go to the game's folder, there should be a file in there called sc2.ini In that, you can change the setting for full screen to the following: #FULL_SCREEN= 0 Save and close, and that should hopefully get you up and running! Bill

Hi Yoyodyne Thanks, very glad to hear how you're enjoying the game, and it's not likely that we'll add any more campaigns as with the Breakthrough expansion our WWI game already includes 30 - including a Gallipoli campaign. There are also some mods, and it's possible that modders may develop some more as time progresses. Bill

It's very interesting seeing how the western front is different due to the delayed Belgian invasion. Keep up the AARs, very enjoyable!

Hi Amadeus, we do hope to introduce these in future as they are good ideas!

Hi Clausewitz, we had a section on this in the WWI forum, and hopefully it will help answer your question: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=107356&page=6 Specifically, in your example it won't help US advances, and will act against all Axis research. Bill

Hi The end date of a campaign can be changed in the editor, if you open the campaign, click on Campaign -> Edit Campaign Data, and change the end date to a later date. However, this alone won't be sufficient and in addition to the above, the easiest thing to do will be to switch off the Major and Minor Victory scripts when you start a game. To do this, start the game and when you come to the Options screen, select Advanced -> Scripts. Click on Victory and deselect these scripts by unticking the boxes on the right. You could of course edit those scripts instead, but if you set a significantly advanced end date then I'd like to think that one side or the other will have been beaten by then! Bill

Hi I think that with Infrastructure, it might be worth it for the USA to invest in it early in the game as it reduces the cost of transporting units across the Atlantic, and also of operating air units to Europe. In theory, it would benefit the UK too to invest in this early in the war, but given the threats facing Britain in 1940-42, I doubt it would be a good idea. Germany, facing a war on two fronts, might benefit from it in the long run, but facing other demands and with more immediately pressing research needs, such as improving its tanks and aircraft, it may not be the best spend. That would really have to be decided depending on the situation. Intelligence is definitely a good one to invest in, as not only does it help your research, it will also provide you with the locations of various enemy units at times, and this can be especially useful during naval battles.

Hi Yes, you can either edit the campaign in the Editor by increasing the Build Limit for that unit type, or play with Soft Build Limits. This enables you to buy more units, but the cost for that unit type increases for all those you buy above the build limit for that unit type. Bill

Hi We've been discussing this as we agree that you do have a point about when you can attach/detach in comparison with when newly attached units benefit from that attachment. What we propose to do is to maintain the requirement to attach/detach before moving or attacking, but to make it so that the benefits accrue immediately rather than in the following turn. Bill

Hi Glad you got it sorted, and in the Gallipoli scenario I decided to focus on the landings and the fighting on land. Bill

No problem akmatov, and it's good to hear how you're enjoying the game, please spread the word!