Hubert Cater

Agreed with Terif that more units does not necessarily make the game better. For example, Italy, historically, had a 10-1 man advantage when it first marched on Egypt in 1940. With the current setup and with those extra Italian units, any adept Italian player, would take Egypt each and every game. Alternatively if Italian units were weakened via the CTV tables then you would simply have many weak and useless Italian units on the board and I am not sure that is really all that desirable either. As mentioned before it is always a careful balance between what happened in history and playability and with the current setup, while not perfect, I would argue that for the most part you get the romance of what happened in the North African Theatre, i.e. the Italians need a little finesse to be effective, they need a little help from the Germans as happened historically, and the Brits need to hang on for dear life just to keep the Axis at bay until more Allies come on line.

Minty, Anti-air increases for cities will only help against Strategic Bomber attacks.

norvandave, My guess is you are looking for Dave Maurer's 1941-42 North Afrika campaign. This is included in the default set of campaigns for both Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare (updated version). To load it you should see it in the list of selectable campaigns in the SELECT CAMPAIGN dialog. Hope this helps, Hubert

SuomiKp, no v1.08 was already included in the original bundle when downloads first became available whereas the v1.08 patch announcement was simply delayed so as to not interfere with our Weapons and Warfare announcements. No need to download the new patch if you have already downloaded the bundle.

HvS, I am a robot... I never sleep. This ends today's transmission. Hubert P.S.

Also just wanted to mention that if we went with a stronger UK and let's say for argument's sake it still fell to the Axis, and this is without the compensatory US and USSR activation scripts, then it would basically be game over each and every time. With the current implementation there are pros and cons and in most cases it does not necessarily mean an immediate end to the game which I think deep down most players actually prefer... again it is a tricky balance between history and playability and despite its perceived faults I think what we have is pretty close to achieving the right balance. Perhaps now with these slight additions and additional risk for the UK player a Sealion may become more realistic and subsequently more attractive but still maintain that very elusive long term playability and excitement for both sides.

HvS, I've thought long and hard about either adding additional resources and/or additional units for the UK but one problem I always run into is that it potentially makes them too strong in the early years, i.e. either in Egypt as they could transfer their assets there or potentially at home. While I can certainly appreciate that some may feel the current setup is not perfect it does at least recreate the feeling that the UK is vulnerable at home until probably 1941 and that Egypt is also precarious requiring careful attention so that it too may not be lost. Essentailly it forces the UK player to play very carefully (and not recklessly) for the first few years until the Soviets and the US enter the fray. It is a very careful balance and as noted in this thread very tricky to get just right.

Unfortunately I would need the turn before it happened but I'll keep an eye out for it in the future.

Gentlemen, Just reading through some of the responses here and for reference as far as I know the scripts wrt the capture of the UK Home Isle and the transfer of the Government to Egypt as well as the increases in US and Soviet readiness have not really changed since Blitzkrieg. Additionally, and just off the top of my head the current scripts are essentailly based on what was done for SC1 so the only real change here is increased difficulty in taking Egypt due to some of the map changes for WaW. My current feelings are that if it worked before it should still work now and as Foko has mentioned having a weakened GB that receives reduced MPP from only having Egypt should in the long run benefit the Axis, not to mention that controlling the UK Home Isle makes things more of a challenge for the US to get a foothold onto mainland Europe, but from what I hear it sounds like there may still be room for improvement and I am always open to suggestions. The only thing I will say is that most changes need to be carefully considered as there are always fallout effects to even the slightest of tweaks and/or additions. So how about this? One thought, and again the easiest set of changes on my end, is simply to penalize the UK a bit more should they lose their capital and this can be done with a few slight adjustments: * any country that has a capital transferred will take a morale hit similar to the current rule for when a country surrenders. Additionally the opposing forces will gain in morale similar to the same surrender rule * any country that has a capital transferred to a disconnected area loses its current production/queue items (complete wipe out) unless the transfer location is connected to the current location of the capital (pre-transfer) or to any of the Industrial Center locations for that country. For example if the UK moves its capital from London to Manchester there is no loss of production but if the subsequent move from Manchester to Alexandria occurs all current production is lost. * * * These are or course generic changes and would apply in all situations like if for example the USSR has its capitals moved etc., although in most cases in the USSR production would not be lost as a result since they have quite a few Industrial Centers (strategically located) but they would suffer from the morale losses for each occurrence. What do you think?

Minty, sounds like an odd error and not something I've ever seen before. Are you sure it is not the case that there was surprise contact and the sub then attacked the destroyer taking no damage in return? This is possible if the surprise contact does not favour the hidden unit, i.e. the Carrier. In this case the player or the AI in your case, is free to attack any unit it chooses after the surprised contact.

Thanks arado234, and just a reminder that to have the UK government move to Canada is still an option in game. Once in game and once the campaign is selected navigate to Advanced->Scripts when presented with the OPTIONS dialog. From here all you need to do is edit the SURRENDER #1 events and turn on the 'UK Moves Government To Canada' event while disabling the UK Moves Government To Egypt' event. Just a note that this alternative was considered for the official sequence but it was found that it would be next to impossible to ever force a UK surrender whereas if the UK government moves its capital to Egypt it is still a reasonable possibility... which I am guessing, from most responses here, is what players would logically prefer.

Glad you like it guys as the work David did for this campaign was just too good to not include in some official capacity for Blitzkrieg . And who knows... if you guys like it enough we just might have to create a WaW port for this one .

John, this might just be an Editor setting as you can specify some countries to not be upgradeable. Perhaps this is the case but Bill can always confirm this when he pops back in.

Sorry you are correct as I never double checked the numbers... still I understand the argument that if a sub were to attack a port the defender in port should receive the defensive bonuses of the port as part of the encounter. The only reason it doesn't is because of a game mechanic where the hidden unit becomes the attacker, i.e. during the surprise encounter, but this should not be a source of penalty for the exchange.

I have a system similar to your but with a dual core... I run it at 1920x1200 without issue.

Unfortunatley it is not a repeatable error on my end so difficult to track down.

IIRC the issue was with subs ramming into ports. A surprise encounter would occur and since subs attack and defend high, a hidden attacker in port, despite the surprise combat bonuses would usually lose much more than the ramming sub (unless it was a destroyer). By giving the port defense bonuses for the return fire calculation it eliminated this particular exploit.

Agreed. This needs to be reconsidered also. This may be part of the AI performance issues I've been seeing, where the AI has a bad tendency to overextend itself with disastrous results and unnecessary loss of MPPs. Ok I just looked at it again and this does not increase the losses for the surprised unit rather it simply decreases the losses for the hidden attacker on return fire calculations. Maybe the lopsided results just make it look like the surprised units were taking more losses than they actually are, i.e. the losses are the same relative to Blitzkrieg as this aspect has not changed.

Off the top of my head I'm not sure either as there was a lot going on prior to release but looking at the notes it looks like this was implemented for units hiding in port (which I can see the argument for) but maybe the spillover effect is too much when it comes to land combat? Although I could see the same argument that was used for units in port to justify a similar rule for units in cities, fortifications etc. on a surprise encounter.

PanzerMike subs can increase their dive percentage via research.

Lars it is the other way around, the current implementation is that subs can pass through enemy ships on their movement and not vice-versa. Basically the silent mode proposal, i.e. where subs cannot attack convoy lanes, is just an extension of the current implementation. This gives subs a chance to sit on a convoy lane without actually raiding. Traps are not the only reason for this, it could also be to get all your subs into position, maintain the current supply level etc., etc. Essentially as a player you may want your subs to sit on a convoy lane without actually raiding, for whatever reason, so this is just an implementation on how to achieve that option.

This could be part of an Axis strategy where it is in the convoy lanes as part of a trap since the Allied player may think it is a safe passgage due to 0 raiding reports. This implementation gives the Axis player that particular option as it was for Blitzkrieg as well.

Well this is a bit subjective since in WaW the UK actually has an extra naval unit versus what they had in Blitzkrieg. For example, instead of starting with 2 Cruisers around the home isle they now start with 1 Cruiser and 2 Destroyers. Granted the numbers have changed a bit since Blitzkrieg in the sense that the UK, in the North Atlantic and around the Home isle, still have just as many effective anti-sub units, i.e. Destroyers now rather than Cruisers, but in turn have one less Capital ship to face German capital ships. That and the UK capital ships are no longer as good sub hunters as they were in Blitzkrieg so it really depends on how you use your units and which enemy unit you are battling. Keep in mind it is a careful balance and if you give the UK too many naval units then it may be very difficult for the German player to re-create the early successes in the Battle of the Atlantic. I am always open to suggestions but I'd rather hold off on this for a little while longer as strategies and tactics still play out, i.e. with Egypt a bit more defensible it may be advisable for the UK player to send (temporarily) a portion of its Med. fleet home to protect against Sea Lion as an option. Now this may not always work against top players like Terif and it very well could be that an extra Cruiser might just do the trick but either way it might still be a good idea to see how things play out a bit more before making a change that may unbalance it in an unforseen and undesirable way.

This is just the easiest implementation otherwise there would be much more graphics to implement for all the different layering combinations... too many that I wouldn't even want to think about it. That and it might slow down the game from another angle as it would require that much more video information to be stored in memory regardless if it is being currently used in game. Essentially layers may slow things down because it is just more items for the game engine to draw. This may not have been as noticeable in SC2 but since we have more layers just think of it like an artist that needs to draw that much more on the screen in a short period of time while you are trying to scroll the map etc.

Ok I will take a look in case there is a faulty check there as they should be able to upgrade as well.