Bill101

One thing that hasn't been mentioned about encircled units, whether in or out of fortresses, is that without a HQ to back them up, and with poor supply, they are frequently easy meat for an attacker. Their morale and readiness will be low, and they will probably also be beyond friendly fighter interception range, making enemy bombing attacks against them more effective. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with the idea of further penalizing cut off units, but I already find them to often be an easy kill. It can also be quite exciting watching the last stand made by your cut off unit as you are thinking "if only it could survive just one more turn, then I might be able to break through and rescue it!"

Without seeing it I can't say for sure, but it might be better to have a decision event control the Surrender_2 script, because then the Vichy decision can easily be linked to happen as a response to that decision.

Ah, I'd not seen that one. I'll have to check it out, thanks!

There are already some options for Germany and the Ottomans in this area that we've implemented, as it is an interesting area. I'm currently reading Peter Hopkirk's On Secret Service East of Constantinople: The Plot to Bring Down the British Empire. Is that the book or is it a different one?

Would just making it impossible for the USSR to rebuild Corps solve the issue? Or very expensive to do so? An alternative is that if you'd like the USSR to be able to rebuild 50% of their Corps, then a work around could be to have the extra 50% deploy by script on the first turn. That way the build limit could be (say) 20 but you could have 40 on the map at the beginning. Admittedly those that arrive by script will have to start the game on or adjacent to a resource, but I would imagine that would be appropriate for many judging by the starting positions in your Battle for Russia mod (which I did play and enjoy a lot).

This is perfectly doable, and I can think of a number of Decision events in the WWI game that will influence the war entry of a number of countries, subject to the beta team's approval of course.

Good points von Brecht and some ideas like you outline are already being tested out by the beta team.

It certainly is possible, so you could use them for such a purpose. I have at times wondered about an option to end a game early, e.g. "you like you're beaten as I've captured point X. Do you want to fight on or surrender?" Things like this, and also for the diplomatic dialog you mention, are certainly feasible.

Yes, Hubert has done a lot to improve the interface and it's much nicer and easier to play with now.

There is a way! If you don't put any text in the Pop up box then they will automatically be answered yes, and thus can be used for either the MPP addition or subtraction.

There will be some minor options allowed so that players can alter some of the details of mobilization, but given that any major changes to mobilization plans would have totally disrupted most countries' mobilizations, any big changes would really be best handled by having separate scenarios to cater for them. But what the players do after mobilization is totally up to them. For instance, if the French so wish they can push into Alsace-Lorraine as capturing it would strike a powerful blow at Germany, or they can deploy to the north to face the German drive through Belgium. Or a mixture of the two. Add in the BEF, wherever the British decide to send it, and there are even more options available. For Germany, if she weren't to attack France but instead march into Russia then she risks allowing the French time to build up a very powerful force which would be within striking distance of the industries of the Ruhr. Take these, and Germany will probably struggle to continue the war. So, a rapid invasion via Belgium is probably the best thing for Germany to do in almost all cases. But it isn't obligatory, so players can experiment a little, at their own peril of course!

That sounds strange at the Maikop, can you send me a saved turn so that I can take a look? You can email it to bill.runacre@furysoftware.com Thanks!

Hi Geofighter It's great to hear that you've been enjoying playing this scenario!! I think the answer is that Japan isn't set to co-operative, and the solution would be in the editor to click on Campaign; Edit Country Data; Japan and then under Status (the second heading from the right) click on the co-operative button. Click ok in the bottom right. You'll then have to save your edited scenario with a new name, so click File; Save as. This should fix it!

I don't disagree with you here at all, but the important thing to note about amphibious operations where the navy plays a direct role in supporting the landing is that the attack was normally preceded by long periods of discussions and negotiations at a very high level to determine what each of the services would do in the attack. This is very different from a situation where a naval unit is sailing by while carrying out its own orders (e.g. sub hunting, or protecting coastal trade) and just decides off its own back to interfere in a land battle that is going on 10-15 miles away. It just wouldn't be likely to happen without prior agreement, and the navy wouldn't really understand the ground situation without being directly informed. This all takes time and normally has to go through higher levels. Obviously this doesn't cater to every single situation that could arise, but it's never really been the done thing for the navy to interfere in the army's business unless the army actually asks for help, and calling on the navy for help won't always be a general's first action when attacked. Imagine the embarrassment if the enemy's attack turned out to be a feint and the general had called on the navy for help? He'd be the laughing stock, and the joke about him would become "oh look, an enemy patrol, we'd better call up the navy!". Thus I think that, by and large, the game has it covered - you can use naval units for shore bombardments to represent their involvement in major amphibious operations and other situations where necessary, but they won't interfere in land battles without direct orders to do so (i.e. when you click on them to do this in your turn).

The answer to your first question is no, and I am 99.9% sure that the answer to the second one is the same.

One major reason would be the reaction times involved and the need for the land forces to call on the navy for help. The land forces wouldn't always want to do this, and even if they did, there would then be the inevitable delay between the unit being attacked and the navy stepping in. I think this is better reflected in the way the game currently works, where unless ordered otherwise, your naval units main focus is on events at sea.

Using the Export Data function under File in the editor, and then importing this data into a new scenario in the Global editor should allow you to import some of the material from your previous campaigns, but this will mainly be the terrain features rather than things like the Combat Target Data. It might be worth experimenting a little but be cautious and be sure to double check everything you import.

I think that having Ethiopia's major as an active allied Major, such as the UK, might solve this issue.

Thanks Colin! That is a very eerie picture what with the man's hands in the air as the shell explodes.

Interesting, any idea on where we can find it?

With a name like that he should be good!!

The Zone of Control penalty is tougher in the WWI game and this effectively prevents units from charging through a gap like the one you're referring to. Most of the time the front lines (when they aren't totally fluid) do tend to follow a path that doesn't require many troops to be used to guard any gaps. Occasionally they don't and a few more units may be required, but it's normally at key points of the line rather than everywhere. Plus, even if the enemy were to attempt to exploit a gap, they generally can't get further than one tile without your having a chance to react. Obviously if the gap you leave is wide enough then the enemy will enjoy exploiting it big time, but so far this hasn't been an issue in WWI testing. The tougher Zone of Control penalty also goes some way to represent the difficulty of exploiting a break in the enemy's lines, which was a common problem at the time. But it doesn't mean that the front lines will be static for long. In fact, the desire to avoid totally static front lines was a significant factor when designing the new map of Europe for this game.

That is certainly not the intention here! The aim is to make a fun game that is enjoyable to play in the political and economic setting of WWI. Of course, it is also a labor of love, but the pleasure of playing the game is also one of its main goals.

SeaMonkey, I think you're going to like some of the changes we have made to the research categories for this release. Not only have we implemented most of what you've mentioned above, but we've also added the ability to turn each category on or off in the editor. So, if you want your infantry to have one of their assigned categories, like Anti-Aircraft, you can change it in the editor so that they can have it. Or you can turn it off if you'd rather they couldn't upgrade with this. To summarise, the range of categories per unit type is still limited, but players can decide whether or not to allow all of each unit type's applicable upgrades to be available in the game. And yes, Infantry and Anti-Tank is now combined into one category so that infantry can upgrade with AA, as can most ships.

Hi Ant Not at all! One unit that played a significant role at Gallipoli, and that also served at Antwerp in 1914 was the Royal Naval Division which was formed largely from naval ratings, raw recruits, and Royal Marines. Of course, the US Marines did play a role in France, but there are also the German Marines who fought in Flanders and the French Fusilier Marins who served on the western front. Rest assured that these aren't going to play a massive role in the game, but they will be putting in an appearance here and there.