Concord Dan

Started another game USSR at 85% in Aug '40 - No Diplomacy happening. What would be causing this?

Thanks for the post ev - I just tried the editor and it appears that level 5 is the max research level. We are using thrawn and loving it. Thrawn mod is where the research problem really shows with the simu. turns. We have been toying with the idea of making max research dollars to only allow 2 or 3 tech areas to be researched at a time. (in addition to the Thrawn ver 2 limit of one chit)

Could you please slow down research. Or better, allow the research percentage to be adjusted. Thanks

Diplomacy is different than Research. Even though you may see %64 chance as the Axis, the actual percentage is dependent on the number of chits the Allies have spent. From the Manual "At the same time, your opponent could also be purchasing diplomacy chits to influence the same country. In this event, the difference between the cumulative friendly diplomatic pressure and the cumulative enemy diplomatic pressure will determine the percentage chance for a diplomatic result. The general idea is to allow for counter-diplomacy as well as for more interesting diplomatic results under fog of war whereby diplomacy chit purchases remain unknown. Therefore diplomacy and counter-diplomacy will have a realistic and often frustrating feel, as you may never be sure of what your opponent is doing and why your diplomatic efforts may have failed."

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, even limiting Chits to one still allows for maxed out units in the '42 - '43 range. I really need to reduce the percentage each chit provides.

After playing 70+ TCPIP games, it appears the research is way too fast. Normally, we have Level 5 Tanks IW and Planes by '42. Thanks for any help.

Could be a programming thing since as far as I know Armies can not damage port level. Maybe we can get a Q&A with Hubert someday.

" but causing enough damage to make the vessels inactive for long periods of time" This is the key. The damage prolly represents the effect we are seeing in the game. IMO, This could also represent damage to docks and facilities etc. which would make your 10 ship a 3 ship. I agree about the ships in port not leaving when city captured. In one game my opponent tried to see how long he could keep alive a Brit destroyer in Brest after the fall of France. ( He was hoping for 1944 lol )

"All in all, the German artillery alone is responsible for sinking 44 naval units, including, except of those covered above, submarines L-1, M-72 and M-96, torpedo boats N 103 and N 123, trawler N172 and many other." This was just at Leningrad. Link to article. http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlesWW2artyleningrad.htm

The OP was not giving the law. He was simply ASKING for Industry Standard forum rules be applied. No doubt some of the posts here recently have cost Battlefront customers. As you can see I have been here a long time with few posts. I support Battlefront with my $$$.

The subs lost many men to weather. In addition, with limited batteries and storms lasting many days, is was impractical to stay submerged for any length of time. There are 53 UBoats MIA - Some undoubtedly to weather related accidents. A couple of incidents from http://uboat.net/ "An incredibly sad event befell U-106 on this date. When the replacement watch opened the tower hatch in rough seas they found out that the entire previous tower watch of 4 men had been washed overboard. [Oberleutnant zur See Werner Grüneberg, Fähnrich zur See Herbert von Bruchhausen, Oberbootsmannmaat Karl Heemann, Matrose Ewald Brühl]" "The first man lost from a U-boat in 1943 was during a storm when one man was washed overboard while saving the I WO. Also the commander was wounded and so the boat was brought back to base with the IWO in command on 16 Jan. "

As a person with RSI in my hand, I agree. Hotkeys Good - Mouse Clicks Bad - Any younger guys, take breaks from gaming every 20-30 minutes. After 20+ years of gaming, like me, your hand will show the wear.

WINNER - and probably the most historically accurate at this level of abstraction.

1. As in a higher member number means you have not been around as long as a lower number. Hence, a higher number denotes a younger age. Nooob lol - Kidding aside, I estimated his age based on his reply and the sentence score which indicated 8th grade. 2. Given your description of an HQ, what weight do you give to the single leader in the final HQ rating? Put another way, who were the Germans flying out of the Stalingrad pocket? Generals or technicians. 3. Why named? Historical Flavor. It is a GAME after all and a very ABSTRACT one.

Looking at your member number what are you? A 13 year old:) You do not understand or have failed to read the manual. Let's attack the poster. Your juvenile drivel aside, do you really believe a HQ unit represents a single leader?

From the Manual - "HEADQUARTERS Generally a strategic unit that provides leadership and logistical support to subordinate units, a Headquarters (HQ) unit might be as large as a Corpssized unit – containing reserves and combat support elements to support major operations – or smaller and more mobile such as those deployed by both sides to North Africa." It does not represent a SINGLE leader or his abilities. Hubert should have just given the HQ labels like 'Army Group B' etc.

Another explanation is to view the HQ as command infrastructure. The German 9 HQ is labeled Manstein. It could be that this represents top leadership/effort. So, a different label could be 'Manstein/Guderian' or 'Command Effort A' The Weiss group would then represent 'Command Effort D' etc

LOL You have been discussing this issue for 2.5 years? What a colossal waste of time. The strength of the game is the editor and ease of modding. A reason for leaving a simple leader out is to encourage players to explore the editor. Don’t like Weiss change his name to Kuniworth. A question for you, why are you trying to force your opinion on the rest of the players?

WOW In LESS time than it took you to post about missing leaders, you could have added them yourself. The editor is really, really simple to use. Everyone should at least try it. The AI scripts are separate from the editor and a little harder to understand.

Looking at the scripts I believe that this game will eventually have a GREAT AI. The AI is easy to modify. Once a weakness is found, all players can suggest and implement an improvement. Also, the complexity of the AI looks to be limitless.

First off, I have been having a harder time understanding the planning scripts. That said, could someone confirm my understanding of the US build up script? Here is the script ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ALLIED SCRIPTS - Build Up Sea Transport (USA) ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; Sea Transport: { #NAME= USA Build Up Sea Transport - Liverpool (Build Up In England) #POPUP= #FLAG= 1 #TYPE= 1 #COUNTRY_ID= 3 #TRIGGER= 100 #LEVEL= 0 #PLAN_ID= 3 #SIZE= 5 #LENGTH= 0 ; Liverpool #GOAL_POSITION= 60,13 #DATE= 1942/01/01 #STEAL= 0 ; Set friendly positions: ; 1st Line - Washington D.C. #FRIENDLY_POSITION= 2,23 ; Set variable conditions: ; 1st Line - USA politically aligned with Allies and not surrendered ; 2nd Line - France politically aligned with Allies and surrendered #VARIABLE_CONDITION= 3 [2] [100] [0] #VARIABLE_CONDITION= 2 [2] [100] [1] ; Set tactical conditions: ; 1st Line - Washington D.C. not tactically threatened (dummy condition) #TACTICAL_CONDITION= 2,23 [3] ; Set dummy activate position (no units at position 0,0) #ACTIVATE_POSITION= 0,0 [0,0] [0,0] [0] ; Set dummy cancel position (single neutral unit at position 0,0). This is not possible as no ; unit can occupy tile 0,0 so event will not be cancelled due to #CONDITION_POSITION #CANCEL_POSITION= 0,0 [0,0] [1,1] [0] } My understandings/questions 1. Since this is a #TYPE= 1 script, it will only be executed once. Correct? 2. In addition, the LENGTH= 0, it will only send 5 units to the UK for one turn. Correct? If the above questions are answered in the affirmative, then I see why the Allies do not invade France. First, the US will only send 5 units to the UK. Second, The invasion script will never fire if there are not 20 units in the UK.

After studying the following 1. My 1st game as the Axis at 100%, which I won in Sept 1945. 2. The purchase and research scripts. 3. Posts here of peoples 1st impressions. I have discovered what appear to be 2 problems that need to be addressed regarding the scripting system. 1. The scripts texts (purchasing, research, etc) fire one after another without regard for the amount of MMPs spent by the prior script. IE If the purchasing script spent all of the MMPs then there will be none for the research script or others. 2. The lines within the scripts fire one after another without regard for the current force structure or the prior lines. IE If the purchasing script has an line #HQ= 25 [1], then the purchasing script will buy a single HQ 25% of the time each turn assuming there are available MMPs. Since the order of purchases has HQs at the start of the list it is easy to see how the AI would rarely purchase Tank groups further down in the list. Observations 1. At the end of my game in Sept. 1945, The US and UK were still at 80% industry. They had infantry weapons around 3 and AT around. The US had zero tank groups. The forces were comprised mainly of Corps. How this happened; the purchasing script spent most of the MMPs on the first items in the listing. (Corps are listed right after HQs). Then, on the few turns the purchasing script did not spend all the MMPs, most of the research went into infantry weapons since industry is at the bottom of the research script. So, there was never any research spent on Industry for the AI. 2. Another poster mentioned when playing as the Allies, that the Germans seemed to have more HQs than needed in Russia. How this happened, the Germans have a purchasing script with #HQ=25 [1] for around 12 turns. This will yield around 4 HQs purchased during that time. HQs being 1st in the purchasing script. Suggestions 1. Add a parameter limiting the amount MMPs a script type can use each turn. IE Purchasing script can only spend 50% of available MMPs, research only 25% etc Example #MMPS 50 meaning this script will only spend up 50% of the current MMPs. 2. Add a 3rd parameter to the purchasing lines (Currently, the 2 parameters are % chance of purchase and # to purchase) The 3rd parameter would be a comparison to the total on the map. Example #HQ= 25 [1] [5] this would allow a 25% chance of a single HQ purchase assuming there were not already 5 HQs on the map.

In reading the rules and playing, it is obvious that that the game has solid foundations. Despite the US sitting out the war, I had fun. I look forward to the improvements.

I just finished my 1st 39 camp as the Axis with a major victory at 100% difficulty. My victory was greatly aided by the US. At game end, they had 3 corps and 3 aircraft in England. Problem is they had 22 Armies/Corps in the US mainland. Looked like the only reason for units in England was that there was no more room in the US. Couple of other things in the AI that seem to need attention in my game. 1. Looked like the Allies did not utlize tech in upgrading or purchasing units. 2. The Brits just sat in Egypt with only IT as opposition. Looks this will be a great game once some of the probs are cleared up.

Yes, I remember UNDER FIRE and Fire-Brigade by panther games for the IBM PC both copyright around 1988. Under fire for the PC was a alpha version at best. As I look at my Under fire, I see stiff requirements - 256k Ram, DOS 2.1 to 3.2, monochrome or color graphics card. Also, the game came packed on 2 5.25 360k floppies, 9 scenarios, 12 tank types ... "on the cutting edge of computer wargaming in months and even years to come," Computer gaming World. Fire Brigade The Battle for Kiev - 1943 was a good game at the time. It also has 2 5.25 floppies. Some other earlier PC wargames were put out by none other than Sid Meier and Microprose - "Crusade in Europe " and Decision in the Desert" about 1985 [This message has been edited by Concord Dan (edited 08-12-2000).]