Bromley

I've an imperfect understanding of this one, but I believe it's Supply>=5, even if surrounded. So a unit in a city is okay even if the city is cut off (if the city hasn't been bombed). A unit in a coastal town/fort that is reduced but that has a >=6 port is similarly okay. A unit in Tobruk, say, where Tobruk fortress has been damaged by bombardment is destroyed for good as the port is only 5. The cut off thing works except where there are other cities designated as "capitals" for supply purposes. I.e. I find it hard to cut supply in the centre of Russia because of Stalingrad, Grozny(?), etc. [ December 25, 2006, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

I wasn't explaining too well last night. If it's [2,4] the game, each turn, randomly chooses a number between 2 and 4 (inclusive)= x. The range, for that turn, then becomes 0->x. Next turn the same thing happens but x is recalculated. Same for the number of units allowed within that range before the condition is satisfied. That explains why, for example, sometimes the Siberians trigger and sometimes, with the exact same unit placements, they don't. It's not a big problem as the range on that condition is only 1, so you can still cram a lot of units up on the border off Russia, especially if Romania is on board. Just to confirm, [6,8] would mean that 5 units would be 100% safe. Merry Christmas!

IIRC, the range variable is just that - variable. So [1,1] means "take a range of between 1 and 1" (i.e. always 1), whereas [2,4] means "each turn, take a range of between 2 and 4" (so one game someone might be at range 4 for many turns and not trigger the condition, whilst the next game it triggers on the first turn). Range zero is always included. EDIT: The unit variable is the same. Say you want to send units towards Moscow without triggering the Siberians (unit variable [3,5]), you will always trigger them with 5 or more units, maybe trigger them with 3 or 4 and never trigger them with 2.

3. Not really. I tried a 1940 Barbarossa strategy that worked quite well in 1.02 (corps were better relatively than in later patches). It probably wouldn't have worked even then against experienced people, but cetainly wouldn't have worked more than once. Under 1.04 two out of three of my 1940 Barbarossas were stopped (all against experience players this time). The third might still succeed (my opponent has been having internet problems, so the match has stalled). 4. Yes. Minor corps (and even armies) are pretty useless in combat though, so not such a big problem.

Almost every game that I've played the US transfers its fleet because the Axis get Spain. But what happens if the US declares war on Spain? If the UK had been knocked out and the US felt it needed the additional naval assets, would it technically be possible to get the transfer by declaring on Spain? I believe so, but I've been wrong before . ; USA ; This event will be called (by the game engine) when either Spain is Axis or ; Axis units occupy Spain { #NAME= USA Transfers Naval Assets From The Pacific #POPUP= US Transfers Naval Assets From The Pacific #FLAG= 1 #TYPE= 1 #AI= 0 #COUNTRY_ID= 3 #TRIGGER= 100 #DATE=1948/01/01 #DESTINATION_RESOURCE= 6,23 ; Axis units within range of Madrid #CONDITION_POSITION= 57,25 [1,3] [1,1] [1] #UNIT= 9 [10] [1] [Washington] #UNIT= 10 [10] [1] [Wichita] #UNIT= 11 [10] [1] [Ranger]

SeaMonkey. Won't the LW be training somewhere anyway? At least that stops them training on Malta or, worse, Egypt. Plus, if they're used vs Trondheim I'd have thought that the Axis have to transport an HQ or risk losses. If you can survive the initial landing, there's always a chance that you can operate the corps out of Oslo, further wasting LW time as they reposition again. If you're referring to anti-ship missions, Terif has said that that costs the Axis more than they gain.

The French navy won't be around. The British could defend Norway with the navy, but they then forgo the turkey shoot as the Axis approach Brest and run the risk of not spotting a Sealion. Still, worth a corps in Oslo to slow the Axis down (you may be able to rebuild it). I like leaving a corps in ?Trondheim? (northern town), as it takes a concerted effort to kill it and in the meantime you block access to the convoy.

I've seen Terif say that you should walk west from Poland rather than operate. You save MMP but also he didn't see any advantage to an early attack on France. Either the weather is against you and you end up taking France at about the same time or the weather is with you and the US readiness rises sooner. I've only played against him with me=axis, so I didn't see his standard moves (if he even has any in SC2), but from comments he made about my play I think he takes out Egypt before Barbarossa (for access to the Middle East resources). Likewise, I think he takes any minors that have no/little impact on readiness, i.e. Denmark, Norway (if Allied occupied), Tunisia, Algeria. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a cheeky Ireland attack in there as well. Not too sure when Greece & Iraq/Syria/Iran get it in the neck. Presumably all other minors become viable options once the US has joined.

Nice one Edwin. That sounds right(another reason to integrate the Commonwealth into the British forces ). Actually, from a balance POV, I don't suppose it matters as if the UK fall the British will place rebuilds in Egypt. With that El Alemain fort, they can slow the Axis down a fair amount (I'm facing 3-5 air, INF 2 Italians (hopefully without HQ though) and an INF 2 German army. Killed the panzer though and I don't think he's ready for 1941 Barby, so it's not all bad ) .

Okay, so I was stupid and left London open to a para landing (although he took a chance doing it as he couldn't see London). So I'm now defending Egypt. It's all going as well as can be expected, but I seem to be missing my Commonwealth units. Per the Events, I'm pretty sure that by 4th May 1941 I should have at least a corps and, in all likelyhood, the HQ. I've pasted the events below. I take it that garrisoning both Alex and Cairo shouldn't prevent the units' arrival? Interestingly enough, that's my lot as all of the other units are set to appear in 1948, by which time Egypt will have held or fallen. Is that last bit a typo in the file or is it to prevent the rebuild-in-UK exploit mentioned in the patch readme? ; Commonwealth HQ Arrives in Egypt { #NAME= Commonwealth HQ Arrives In Egypt #POPUP= Commonwealth HQ Arrives In Egypt #FLAG= 1 #TYPE= 1 #AI= 0 #COUNTRY_ID= 17 #TRIGGER= 50 #DATE=1941/03/01 #DESTINATION_RESOURCE= 112,35 #CONDITION_POSITION= 109,32 [3,4] [1,1] [1] #UNIT= 0 [5] [0] [Commonwealth] } ; New Zealand Unit Arrives in Egypt { #NAME= New Zealand Contributes Forces To Egypt #POPUP= New Zealand Contributes Forces To Defense Of Egypt #FLAG= 1 #TYPE= 1 #AI= 0 #COUNTRY_ID= 17 #TRIGGER= 100 #DATE=1941/03/01 #DESTINATION_RESOURCE= 119,32 #CONDITION_POSITION= 119,32 [3,3] [1,1] [1] #CONDITION_POSITION= 109,32 [1,2] [1,1] [1] #CONDITION_POSITION= 112,35 [1,2] [1,1] [1] #UNIT= 1 [10] [0] [6th New Zealand] EDIT: Just realised that I wasn't understanding the DATE entry correctly. It's the failsafe date (i.e. the date after which the condition checks are assumed to be fulfilled, whether they are or not). So a 1948 date just means that the conditions will never be automatically overridden just because a certain date has been reached (as 1948 is beyond the end of the game). Therefore, the Aussies and Indians can still arrive, if the condition checks are met (i.e. Axis proximity to certain towns). Doesn't answer the main question, but Edwin does that later. [ December 19, 2006, 04:51 AM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

ATM Germany (and Italy) shouldn't bother with Industrial tech. See BioWizard's post here for why that is. Should Industrial tech apply to conquered territories? I'd assume "yes".

You're both right . There are some Soviet cities that don't trigger partisans when unoccupied. As they're type 2 events, I assumed that they continued regardless of whether the USSR was out of the fight or not. Might be wrong though.

I was a little surprised at this. If the Allies invade Ireland they get "US Congress etc.", but if the Axis invade there's no problem. Presumably there's no real-life argument for not including a US activation event. Is there a game dynamic argument? For example, the Axis takes a big risk with a Sealion, so Ireland is treated as a freebee and any further US activation would make the whole process too expensive diplomatically.

The Master speaks on Intel (look for the Terif posts). I'm pretty certain that Terif or someone similar also demonstrated that IND for the Axis was not a viable option. I can't find that one though (looking for it was how I found the Intel one ).

I might be wrong, but I believe that the prevailing opinion is that Intel isn't worth investing in.

Done. Thanks Hubert .

AFAIK, not. Not that it's ever bothered me, but I've seen others posting about a desire for a Norwegian neutrality sea zone.

Setting. Russians amphib and take Bucharest. Romanians surrender. Their units were holding Minsk and Kiev, so those cities were returned to me the next turn (or possibly at the end of my turn). Interestingly enough, they weren't scorched, which makes sense. I had a Russian HQ at [106,17] (south of Kiev). It should have been at supply 10 because it could draw supply from Odessa or Kharkov. However, it was at supply 8. I believe this was because the game had assigned it to Kiev, which was at supply 3 or similar. I've not noticed this happening before when playing the Axis in Russia (i.e. my HQs have always attached to the best supply city rather than the nearest), so I'd guess that this is the direct result of the Romanian surrender. Anyway, not a huge issue. I have the save file if anyone needs it. EDIT: I was playing 1.02 in this game and it's apparently been fixed since. Sorry . [ January 07, 2007, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

I doubt it. Wouldn't the AI need extra attention to cope with the two modes?

Not necessarily SeaMonkey, unless you mean that the only way to incorporate it because of the way the game engine is is to implement unit deselection. Even then, BioWizard's suggestion about the waypoints may still be doable. I've bumped into times where I'd have liked to chose the path over a clump of my units (normally at sea where I'm trying to avoid being spotted by someone I've engaged in order to lay a trap for them).

I'd be happy if that condition had to be attached , but would it be necessary? After all, we can already rotate front line and rear units, just in a clunky manner (i.e. shifting the line up or down).

Alternatively you could have a permanent (if small) morale boost to give players favourite units (esprit de corps). The problem with that is it's not visible though (unless you look at the battle honours), so it'd just make understanding the game workings harder.

I wasn't sure how to search for this one, so apologies if it's been discussed to death before. Is there a logical or game-engine reason why two units can't exchange positions with each other? Naturally subject to both units having enough MP to move to their target tile. If not I'd like to suggest it if there's another patch. i.e. if I want to move a corps into a just built fortification and I want to move the engineer to the tile that the corps occupies.

Just to clarify, you can just copy and paste rather than do a new install.

Why? If he can do it with Italians in NA, why can't he do it with Romanians in Russia?