Bill101

Hi! In some campaigns, like the Somme, the HQs can have more than 5 attachments, so what's happening here is that one of them is commanding a lot of units, while others therefore have less to command. In the main flagship campaigns like 1914 Call to Arms the HQ attachments will have a maximum of 5. I hope this helps! Bill

It's definitely interesting and it has got me thinking!

Our WW2 games use different rules triggering Minors to surrender than our WWI games, where we've made them tough fighters. I guess that we are only really talking about Norway and Sweden, as I think all the other Minors can be more easily invaded and conquered. I'll have a think about this, but I wouldn't want to make it too easy either. In the meantime, you can always remove a few units via the Editor before starting a game.

That's a good point Sapare, and there are potential solutions to it by using scripts to force a surrender when the capital has fallen. Though if both Belgium and Serbia fought on in WWI, the latter when their whole country was lost, on what grounds can we say that other Minor Countries might not have done the same, especially as aid from outside the country would have been quite likely? Only it might feel a bit tough on Sweden and Norway to penalize them to surrender when their capital falls, when we don't treat those countries which share a land border with their invader in the same way, i.e. as you've seen, it is harder to conquer a far flung country like Norway than it is to conquer Serbia. Everything did of course change in 1939-45!

Interesting posts and we are currently testing out something to hopefully better reflect France 1940 and make it feel more historical. Once that has been released it will be interesting to see and compare the effect with your own tests here. This has been an issue for a while and I hope that we might be moving towards a solution!

It's getting closer!

No, but they will prevent the ports from providing supply, through representing a blockade.

I don't know off hand if such a rule is possible, but I wonder if removing Antwerp from the capitals list is a solution. As then, not only will it be worthwhile retaining a unit in Antwerp, but Belgium will not surrender for as long as another Belgian unit is on its soil, i.e. at or around Ypres. Thus giving us the historical situation we are hoping to achieve?

Yes, definitely, and thanks for the AAR!

It's an interesting question you raise Ashes Fall about amphibious landings, and although I can see that a landing in bad weather would have risked deaths, injuries and chaos in the landing craft, I wonder how much of a factor that was compared to the loss of airpower that the bad weather entailed? Essentially, that works both ways and for the Allies, attacking without having air support could be more of a problem? This subject is certainly worthy of discussion, and going through the records of amphibious landings in both wars to see just how much the weather played a role.

This does sound a bit strange as the only explanations I can think of for the port being at 2 have all been listed above. Hopefully you will have time for the port to repair to 5 so you can get your forces away?

The idea is that the weakened HQs are in a state of disarray, so they aren't working very well at what they should be doing: coordinating supply and leading their forces. Thus by reducing their supply distributing value, there is a really strong incentive to reinforce any damaged HQs as soon as possible. This makes them even more valuable in some situations where previously pockets of troops cut off in an advance had the potential to survive virtually indefinitely unless the HQ was destroyed, because as long as the HQ existed with them they could always reinforce back up to full strength. Now, coupled with the new supply rules, cut off units are much more vulnerable, which is how it should be.

As Mike says, we still use miles here in Britain.

They are certainly up against the odds, especially when some of their divisions get cut off by the advancing Prussians like in our game!! Just to clarify for all: we are currently beta testing a Franco-Prussian campaign that will in due course be released.

Hi Micha It's currently in testing, it's fun to play but needs a few more tweaks before it'll be ready for release. Hopefully not too long though! Bill

Some of my favourite scenarios to play are those "up against the odds" type impossible to win situations, such as Isandhlwana; Poland 1939, or playing as Germany at or after DDay. As DrunkenLuftwaffe said, the challenge is in the gameplay rather than in the result.

No, if it struck in the winter of 1941-2 then that's it, it won't happen again. It can happen later, but that's only if it hasn't happened before, i.e. if you managed to delay war with the USSR for a long time.

LOL, though I'm not even American!!

Hi David Sure, I'd be happy to take a look if you have the turn still, i.e. from before you attacked? Email it to me at bill.runacre@furysoftware.com and I'll take a look. I presume it's Gold and the latest patch? I'll also need your password (if applicable). Thanks Bill

Hi Sapare I totally agree with you on Antwerp, that isn't an intentional design. For Cattaro, I've just run a quick test and both ports are giving out supply as they should. The only thing I can think of is whether the new port supply rule was kicking in, but this should only affect land units: A quick check in game is to send a low on supply naval unit to Cattaro, and look next turn at its supply level. If it's in the port and at 10 supply then everything is fine. Bill

Hi We've looked into this and it will be fixed in the forthcoming Breakthrough patch. Bill

Hi Sapare The WWI map is approximately 1 tile = 20 miles, while the Assault on Democracy's Global map is approximately 1 tile = 50 miles. Bill

Glad to see I'm not the only one who does this!!

Hi David This is an interesting case and worth investigating, and I suspect that the mountains have played a big role here. I have a few questions to check for other variables: did your Soviet tank move before attacking at all? Also, I presume that the attack wasn't over a river? Regarding the experience gain from attacking, yes, there is a small gain from it. Bill

They are from the upcoming Global campaign that will be included in the soon to be released Assault on Democracy.