Bill101

Hi When you make your changes to the campaign, the scripts might need to be checked before it will allow the "save as" to be made. It would be best to check this first, as although doing so shouldn't normally lock up your system, it can take some minutes to do this. You can see if the scripts need checking after making your amendments by clicking on Campaign and then Edit AI scripts (and afterwards) Edit Event scripts. If any script types are showing with an * next to them, then the engine will need to check them before you can hit "save as". Press Update * and it will check them. I hope this is it, but if not please let us know. Bill

It can make the passage of troops to Africa safer, but from my experience the urge to attack enemy units sometimes means that most or all air assets are used for combat, so attempting to ambush enemy transports is still possible. Or you can use a naval unit to set a trap. I rarely find that I have enough units to both recon the sea lanes and attack enemy units, so something has to give. In an early beta game of Gold I lost my Runstedt HQ because I was so keen on using the Luftwaffe to help me capture Tunisia that I naively assumed that he could sail safely from Italy to Tripoli. It was a very painful mistake to make. If I had launched a recon mission to check his sea route was clear, then I wouldn't have captured Tunisia that turn. So tough decisions remain!

I think that the intelligence it provides by spotting hidden enemy units still renders it a very useful field of research, especially when an enemy transport or naval unit is revealed to you, so that you can go and sink it!

I've encountered this occasionally, but found it to be unrepeatable as it happens so rarely. If it is happening a lot for you wlape3 then it would be great to know if you can work out a pattern, so that this issue can be finally put to bed.

Hi Just a couple of things to add to Strategiclayabout's answers: 3) The main determinant on retreats is the strength of the targeted unit, so that if it is less than 5 it has a chance of retreating unless it is defending a capital, city, fortress or is entrenched. If none of these apply, then it might flee for safety when attacked! 6) The switch for Raiders has been in since, if I remember correctly, Global Conflict. The option is now under players' control because if you want to move naval units to where there is a convoy, and lie in ambush, the last thing you want is your ships to do some raiding and give away your position. Bill

Hi Thanks for this and I think that the stats in game are correct, but the text needs amending. But we'll check.

Hi Sharkman If you have a saved turn from a few turns before the USSR enters the war I'd be happy to take a look. Please send it to Bill.runacre@furysoftware.com, and let me know what patch you're playing with. Thanks Bill

Hi Thanks for posting this and we'll get looking into this. Very odd indeed!

Oh well, great to hear it's sorted anyway!

Hi I've just checked and it would appear that the change has been missed off somehow, so we'll have to include it in the next patch. Thanks for pointing it out. Bill

Hi Yes, it should be cumulative as the MPPs provided by the convoy route should be reduced by the raider, providing it is set to Raider mode, while it will also reduce the strength of the port. Not if you're placing units on the tiles marked with merchant ship icons, providing you're at war with the country they belong to then there should be some effect, especially if they are there for several turns. Sometimes the effect on port strength will be very minor, and as ports repair at 1 point at the start of every friendly turn, it may take a few turns to notice much difference. But if you see a problem when you try it without fog of war, be sure to let us know and we'll get it fixed.

Hi Yes, that is generally the case, but I recall that there might be one or two exceptions to this, like at Nauru in the Pacific where income from the mines may also be affected. You will need to have the Raider on the tile marked with the raiding icon. The convoy will operate at full effect unless the Port drops below strength 5. Then there will be no income.

Keeping Belgium in can be hard, and to a large extent it's dependent on what the Germans do. They could easily have taken them out if they hadn't set their hearts on marching on Paris in August 1914. I will normally pull back both Corps and the HQ to the Ypres area, while leaving the Detachment in Antwerp. The Ostend Detachment and the French Marines and any other units that can be found might be added to these, but the amount of reinforcements depends on the overall situation on the western front. I will also always defend both Ypres and Antwerp to the utmost. Even if they fall, the Belgian defence will have bought some time for Britain and France.

Hi BlitzCanuck If you can log-in to your Battlefront account (not your forum account, but the account you would have set up to purchase the games) then I think you should find the license keys in your account area. Otherwise, I'm sure the support will help you soon!

Yes, that's pretty much the key to it, so that understrength units will never fight as well, all other things being equal, as full strength ones. This is another reason why elite units that have been reinforced above strength 10 can be really quite powerful.

I always play with this on, and am pretty sure it's the norm. Long term planning is therefore crucial.

Thanks Amadeus. This is something we can think about and as there are alternative opinions here, it would be good if any other players could add their thoughts/ideas/strategies.

Hi Meteor Thanks for mentioning this and we'll take a look into this. Bill

Hi Amadeus How would it have been if the Italian navy wasn't there in your game, as I guess that Gibraltar must have fallen to the Axis to allow them to sail out into the Atlantic? Also, where is the RAF and is it in a position (when the weather is better) to bomb the enemy vessels? Things do look a bit rough but I wonder how much difference the Italians are making, and the RAF could make here. Thanks Bill

I've been reading today in James Joll's The Origins of the First World War (3rd edition) about how the UK felt that if they were neutral in a continental conflict involving Russia, then if Russia were on the winning side it was thought that it would make claims on the Persian Gulf, and this would directly affect British interests in the area. This factor made the British unlikely to remain neutral in such a conflict. The other interesting snippet, is that in 1910 Russia stated that they would like the Berlin-Baghdad railway to be extended to Tehran in Persia, along with a line connecting it to the Baku oilfields. This would have been to enable exports to the Persian Gulf, cutting transport costs, so it would presumably have included a line south from either Baghdad or Tehran to the sea.

Hi Kommandant I've been thinking about this and you may be right, and I've added this to my list of points to consider for further changes.

Thanks for the information Peter. I am aware of Terence Zuber's controversial status. I first came across him when looking at his book the Myth of Mons. I find this sort of thing quite interesting, because it's always good to reassess the evidence to see if our assumptions are correct. I've looked at his book on German war planning on amazon and the good thing is that it does appear to discuss the various ideas, including French war planning, so it might be interesting just to have a more in depth study of war plans. For that reason I'll take a look at Mombauer's book too. Back to the subject of a war starting in 1917, could it be possible that the Berlin-Baghdad railway could have been much nearer completion by then? If so, then its strategic implications could be quite important in the near east, and at the very least it would make a British campaign in Mesopotamia a rather difficult operation indeed.

I think that might be the same bug I noticed when I was commanding Marc's forces and had your Soviet Corps surrounded at the mine north of Rostov. If so, the good news is that it's fixed!

I was wondering the same Peter yesterday about whether German planning would have been significantly different in such a situation. One book I have been thinking of reading is Terence Zuber's The Real German War Plan 1904-1914. I don't know if anyone on here has read it and could let us know if it offers any insights to this question? Balkan politics is also an important factor, because both sides had hopes of getting Romania and Bulgaria onto their side. What if one or the other had joined earlier or joined a different side to what it did historically? The passage of three years could have led to such a situation, especially given that Romania did have grievances with Austria-Hungary over the treatment of Romanian's in the Empire's territory.

Great to hear Rara, and once you've got the hang of it further, bump it up harder!