Hubert Cater

Just posted this in the other thread, this seems to be a Vista issue and can be resolved by doing either of the following: * Disable the UAC control which may not be desirable, or * Change the installation directory to something other than the default under the 'Program Files' directory. For example if you install to C:\Games\Battlefront\Strategic Command (Version) it seems to work Ok. Hope this helps, Hubert

Meance, This is unfortunately another Vista issue. One workaround is to infact disable the UAC control which may not be desirable, or the other option is to change the installation directory to something other than the default under the 'Program Files' directory. For example if you install to C:\Games\Battlefront\Strategic Command (Version) it seems to work Ok. Hope this helps, Hubert

Correct, some of the changes were tested in both environments and so they were included as changes for both releases. Hubert

Hi Arado234, Some good ideas and we just might consider these for down the road Hubert

The original SC2 Blitzkrieg manual pretty much covers the game in full detail while the expansion release documentation naturally cover the additional changes and modifications so there really shouldn't be much of a gap... granted you do have to refer to both manuals to get the full picture. Hope this helps, Hubert

Mithel, please take a look at the supply formulas and calculations for HQs in the original SC2 Blitzkrieg release as it should give you a better idea of how things work. Off hand though if we gave HQs the intuitive value of resource supply value - distance then there wouldn't be much of a bonus of having an HQ nearby and it would likely not interest players in using them much on the map. With the current structure it pays to have HQs nearby as it can increase supply in low supply areas etc., i.e. beyond what a nearby city can provide.

Good question and this has more to do with the AI. Essentially the AI will do a much better job playing with Soft Build Limits turned off wrt its purchases and deployment.

FYI and related to this discussion, there was a considerable improvement to the first patch when it came to games with the Soft Build Limits option turned off... expect a much better game and challenge with v1.01. Hubert

Thanks for the comments and concerns and just a quick note, these bannings have not come out of thin air as they have both been warned innumerable times in the past (the SC and Battlefront Forums have been around for quite some time) and for those of us that have been around long enough it really is not much of a surprise that the hammer finally came down. As for the 6 month length, it could easily have been for life and was very close to that but we were willing to give them a second chance after the designated cooling off period. Let's all keep in mind that the SC forums are for open discussions on the game, strategy and tactics and we always welcome healthy and civil debate. Beyond that, what can I say, the decision is final (I honestly won't discuss it any further) and hopefully we can move on and get back to playing and talking about the game. Thanks, Hubert

Happycat, agreed and we've discussed this internally and as you can see the issue has been dealt with: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1121475&postcount=82 Hubert

Unfortunately no

Mithel, I took a closer look at the v1.06 release page and I can see why this may sound misleading. The v1.06 is all inclusive so it includes all the previous changes made to the game since the original v1.00 release so for anyone that is just grabbing the patch now mentioning the previous manual updates is still applicable but not necessarily so if you are just going from v1.05 to 1.06 sort of thing. Hope that clarifies it a little bit. Hubert

Mithel, Sorry for the confusion, there were actually no substantial updates that warranted a manual revision but for the complete list of changes and/or fixes please refer to the VERSION NOTES.txt. Hubert

No the saved turn that causes the crash should to the trick. I believe this error is actually fixed but it would be good to confirm as the patch is due out very shortly.

Send me a turn right before the forced surrender and I will gladly take a look. Hubert

SeaMonkey, That is the UAC setting but I after reading his post again I don't think he will need to do that as it might be the eLicense control center. Hubert

meance, when you launch the application does it get as far as asking you to license the game? For example, do you remember if you've been able to get as far as the eLicense registration window? If not, then I suggest taking a look at this eLicense FAQ link for a possible solution: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=30 If that doesn't work then I would suggest sending an email to elicense@battlefront.com to see if they can help. Hubert

Good thread and discussion guys and just to add some thoughts on the AI scripting, more or less the AI is scripted to mimic what would be expected in a historical sense when it comes to the island campaigns. I can see the value of the pros and cons when it comes to players fighting for the islands but either way we felt that it was important that at least the AI give players a game that played close to history. So in this case both sides can expect some movement when it comes to the outer islands even if Multiplayer games play out differently. Hope this helps! Hubert

Thanks for the post Willy and to quickly answer your question one of the reasons we made the change was to actually even out the naval combat for both sides. If supply drops each turn you are at sea then it is a great disadvantage to those that move their ships around in anticipation of far away combat. What the new system does is simply reduce supply once you engage in combat and the nice thing about that is that it still takes into account nearby Port holdings in terms of potential resupply. So for example, if Japan decides it wants to engage in the Battle of Midway it can now move its naval units into position without losing supply and maintaining ideal battle 'readiness' for the anticipated naval battle. With the current system, they are free to engage the US fleet but if they don't capture Midway they will be at a disadvantage (in the turns following combat) as they will not be resupplied while the remaining US fleet will be if close enough to the ports at Midway. Essentially we felt that it was a more realistic supply/combat system that the older system simply wouldn't allow for in a similar sense. Hope this helps, Hubert

Ok, how about everyone go back to playing nice or I will lock it up.

Can you try downloading and applying the latest patch for both games to see if that helps? Also, can you try running the game as an Administrator by right clicking on the Desktop icon for SC2 and selecting 'Run As Administrator'. One or both of these should get you up and running. Hubert

Yup, pretty much bang on in terms of the expected timeline!

SeaMonkey, Sorry to hear about your loss. Sincerely, Hubert

Just an update that the US Naval loops will include Canada for the first patch and I believe the off map industries have been addressed as well.

Unfortunately the newer Vista systems sometimes have a hard time with some video card configurations and the SC series and toggling one of the above options sometimes does the trick. Basically these options alter some of the video card setups and as we found one of them is bound to work, i.e. the difference between Full Screen and Windowed is how the video card treats the game, for example, exclusive video card mode or not etc. Either way, just glad to hear it helped and the game is now working Hubert