Bill101

I think that PowerGmbH's solution should work, as it may be the existence of the text in the POP UP area that is preventing it from working as you would like. That does mean that the player will have to make a long term decision early on, and not regret it.

Hi Mike I still think there might be a way to do it, as Type 2s are returned to a dormant state every turn, because they check again for their trigger conditions being met. But to work, it might require both the Decision and its related scripts to be a type 2. Going back to my original suggestion, as far as advising the players of raiding is concerned, one could have a Pop Up script, again type 2, to advise them that it has occurred. I'll await to hear from you, with a little hopeful optimism! Bill

Hi Mike The Decision will trigger the relevant supply script, and I think that setting the Decision relating to the Atlantic to be Type = 2 should work best, as then it will fire every turn when it's condition is realized. This does mean that the Allies will frequently have to take this decision. Or, so that the Allies aren't bugged every turn by having to make the same decision, you could ask them earlier in the scenario whether they will agree to cover all costs incurred using one Decision. Then your second Decision is triggered by the relevant conditions, and depends on the answer to the first. This second one could charge MPPs without needing player approval if it doesn't have any Pop Up text. You would also need a third Decision, which is if the Allies said no to the first Decision, and this would handle what happens when raiding occurs. I hope that makes sense? Bill

I sure know what you mean Mike!

Hi I think the best thing to do will be to submit a ticket to the helpdesk and they'll help you as soon as possible. I'm not sure if there is another solution, but unless someone else turns up with one, there's no harm in submitting a ticket as it might be the quickest solution. Bill

Thanks for the reply Ludi and I'll see what I can come up with. One thing that would be tricky to do would be to stop the US from complaining about the blockade at the same time as either unrestricted attacks or commerce raiding are taking place elsewhere. But I'm not sure that it's necessarily unrealistic for the US to complain to the British about the blockade at the same time as they are complaining to the Germans, as going from memory I think they did this during the war. But I guess that the most important thing is that we get the balance right between the effectiveness of unrestricted warfare and its effect on both the UK and the USA. Sapare is definitely right in saying that things are on a knife edge!

Hi It's not possible to have a totally open ended end date, but in the editor the campaign's end date can be extended quite significantly, and I would imagine easily for long enough to enable a global conquest. At the same time, some of the scripts would have to have their dates changed. This would apply for any Failsafe dates in the scripts (if you open them all and search for Failsafe) and also for Minor Victory conditions in the Victory scripts. Adjust them to be whatever you set as the end date for the campaign, e.g. 1st January 1980, and you should then able to play for as long as you want to. Best to do this on a copy of the original campaign, so start by opening the campaign in the editor, hit File and Save as, and give it a new name before you start editing. For AI-AI games, if you press F3 on your keyboard before starting a game against the AI, then when you start the game the AI will fight out the game while you can watch or get on with other things. Good luck, and have fun! Bill

Good point, that makes complete sense and I'll add that in.

Hi Von Rocko Is it that you don't have your license key? If so, by logging into your account on www.battlefront.com you should hopefully be able to see the key relevant to the game. If that doesn't work, or isn't the problem, then the best thing to do would be to submit a ticket to the helpdesk at http://www.battlefront.com/helpdesk/ Bill

Hi Regarding Romanian war entry, here are the relevant factors. Note that these don't take into account player's use of diplomacy: Any surrenders to the Entente cause a 3-5% increase in Romanian activation towards the Entente. From 1st Jan 1916, there is a 50% chance of a 20-35% swing towards the Entente if there are Russian units within two tiles of Klausenberg, Przemysl or Rovno. There will also be a 50% chance of a 3-8% swing per turn thenceforth, for as long as there are Russian units within two tiles of Klausenberg, Przemysl or Rovno. Finally, an Entente capture of Gallipoli would swing Romania by 30-45% towards the Entente. I've been immediately attracted to the idea of making Romania lean towards the Entente if Austria-Hungary gives away Trento-Trieste, as Romania had designs on some of the Empire's territory, e.g. Transylvania, and this move would have awakened their own ambitions.

Hi I noticed your other threads so just wanted to check if you've got this sorted or not? The error message usually means that either the file was created in a different game, i.e. the base game rather than in the Gold edition, or that they're using a different patch to you. But if neither apply please let us know. Thanks Bill

No, it's a no-go zone in the game, so you'll have to skirt round it.

I honestly thought we'd mentioned it before, but probably not with any great headlines. A bit like here, it's just in the text, but one day, we'll shout it out loud and proud!

Hi Firstly, I love these discussions as this is a good chance to see where we're at in terms of features and balance. I thought I'd provide some figures so that we can properly assess things and see what may need changing. The Effects of Unrestricted Attacks Germany gains 75 National Morale points per turn per sea area (e.g. the Bristol Channel, the North Channel, etc) for using unrestricted naval warfare. The UK loses 75 National Morale points per turn per individual trigger point when the Germans are using unrestricted naval warfare. The strength value of ports near the trigger points will be reduced when unrestricted naval attacks are in progress, and when the port strength falls below 5 the port will cease to function, and British income will fall by the value of all the convoys travelling to that port. Once unrestricted attacks cease, port strength will increase and once it's back over 5, British income will rise as the convoys start arriving again. The Effect on the USA Unrestricted attacks have a 50% chance per turn of a 3-5% increase in US mobilization. As a naval unit will be on the trigger point for both a Central Powers and an Entente turn, this actually equates to a potential 6-10% increase whenever unrestricted attacks are carried out. The sinking of the Lusitania will increase US mobilization by 5-8% when it happens (it has a 50% chance per turn starting from the 7th May 1915, if unrestricted attacks are being used). There is a 2% chance per turn of a 1-2% increase in US mobilization due to German naval units being between Ireland and the USA. This allows for the small annoyances caused by German commerce raiding which followed the rules. There is a 2% chance per turn of a 1-2% decrease in US mobilization due to the Distant Blockade, with a 4% chance of a 1-2% decrease in US mobilization due to the Northern Blockade. Thoughts It was my impression based on feedback that a lot of players weren't using unrestricted warfare as they didn't want to annoy the USA, so in implementing the changes for patch 1.04 it was my intention to make unrestricted attacks a more attractive option. It is of course possible that they are now too attractive an option! The random nature of a 50% chance per turn of increasing US mobilization could be replaced with a higher, even 100% chance, though possibly coupled with a wider variation in the actual effect on the USA, e.g. a range of 1-5%. While I don't think that commerce raiding that follows the rules should necessarily trigger any substantial increase in US mobilization, we could increase the chance of a German naval unit which is between Ireland and the USA causing annoyance to the USA from 2 to 4% a turn. Or some other combination... but this really is a tricky subject because significant increases in US mobilization will increase the UK's convoy income, so unless unrestricted attacks are continued, the UK could end up benefiting more from the unrestricted attacks than the Germans. There's such a fine line between the two, though the National Morale effects of unrestricted attacks are always in Germany's favour, unless of course their vessels are sunk.

Hi Thomas Sorry you feel this way about the tiles, and the only good news I can provide on that front is that in the future when SC3 is released we will be returning to hexes. Bill

Hi Ludi My understanding is that the only thing that should stop a sub in silent mode, is a Destroyer (with a 50% chance of doing so). However, if the sub in silent mode would end its move adjacent to an enemy vessel, or would have been spotted by a Destroyer behind a friendly naval unit (including a sub) then the sub in silent mode will stop at the first enemy unit. Could this be the case here? Thanks Bill

Hi Sapare There are a number of Ottoman cities that act as Industrial Centers: Erzerum, Trabzon, Adrianople. This means that they provide supply of 10 and new units can be deployed at them, even if the location has been cut off. This is because high supply relies on the rail network throughout the rest of the map, but due to the lack of railways in the area, this part of the Ottoman Empire would never have more than supply of 5, which would be just too low. So, just cutting them off won't reduce supply, you'll need to bring up the heavy artillery, or the bombers the Russians have, and pound them. As for Italy, she will surrender rather than withdraw from the war, so if you're playing as Entente there is a strong incentive to send British, French or US units to help her. Otherwise the Central Powers will get a very good base in the Mediterranean!

Bombers can't be used to supply an army, and you're right in that a unit's mobility and action points will decrease as it's supply goes down.

Yes, the Pripyet marshes and also the cities (I think every one) will need to be covered.

It shows who is online and who isn't. Green = online.

Hi Conan To answer your questions, the cost is the same whether you buy a unit with the upgrades, or upgrade it later. But with damaged units, those with upgrades will cost more to repair, so from the financial perspective it is better to repair them before upgrading. That's an interesting idea on swopping! Bill

Hi Mike Yes, the National Morale loss is equal to the MPP cost of the unit, so reducing their cost will reduce the impact on National Morale when they suffer casualties. That's an interesting idea with the Subs and DDs, though 30% is quite a cheap rebuild cost as it's less than the default for ground units in good supply. You'll have to let us know how you get on with this. Bill

Hi Gian You're right, the tank icons (and aircraft icons too) will change as you research and upgrade them. Thus if you see the enemy has Tigers and you've only got T-28s, then you're going to have a tough fight on your hands!

Hi Mike The way a scenario could be adjusted to suit larger unit numbers would be to increase the starting National Morale figures proportionately. That way there is more potential for each country to cope with the larger casualties. With the Garrison units, it might be a good idea to lower their cost so that their loss doesn't upset anyone's National Morale too much. Bill

Hi Sapare This is an interesting question you raise, and I presume it's something done shortly after the Ottomans enter the war? What I could do is add in a check so that Greece swings to the Entente if any Ottoman naval units leave the Sea of Marmara. The swing could vary percentage wise, so that only if they are extremely lucky would an Ottoman amphib reach Greece before Greece has joined the Entente. Thus the chances of this are dramatically reduced, but for a bold and adventurous player there remains a tiny % chance of success. How does that sound? An alternative would be to give the Greeks a Detachment in Athens right from the start. It's certainly a safer solution.