Hubert Cater

I've made a small update to the v1.07 beta patch which includes a couple of fixes for the recent fixes, a fix for the port control issue after countries surrender and a fix which properly allows Vichy France to surrender after the liberation of Paris by the Allies. The executable has now been optimized with a newer compiler so hopefully this will address some of the performance issues people have noticed. The beta is available from the same location as described in the first message of this thread. Enjoy! Hubert

Hi Dan, Perhaps try disabling the directx for the game as well and see if that helps, open the file called 'SC.ini' in your SC installation directory and changing the line 'DirectX = 1' to 'DirectX = 0' to see if that helps. Hubert

French Units in Canada, disband upon the surrender of France. This is counter to what the manual says. ------------------- PS: In this patch the AI seems to be less likely to attack Denmark (and other minor countries). PS: Hoping for post surrender partisans for Spain / Turkey / Russia, reclaim research chits AI routines for all major powers, occasional UK invasion of Ireland (for plunder & experience) and increased chance of Germany attacking Denmark, Greece, Vichy and Spain in 1939 Scenario. </font>

I'm also wondering if you've applied any mods, the game was originally designed to run 8-bit graphics and should run Ok under this condition but some of the mods are higher level 16-bit+ and might give you a problem on your machine as I've seen this on an older win98 machine I have at home. If so you can always convert the mods to 8-bit graphics using a graphics editor or sticking with the original graphic files. Hubert

I think the distancing algorithm I use is not entirely perfect, if it is an easy enough fix I will look into it. Hubert

Max reinforcement for the unit is confirmed as you pointed out but the fortification strength is normal. The fort in the USSR is a special case that starts at 10 when it enters the war but if it is ever cutoff it will only rise again to a max of 5 regardless of supply situation, similar to the Maginot line which has forts at max strength of 5 Hubert

Hehe... this one goes back to pre v1.0 where I added a few mountain hexes to the game, but I guess I did not do a very good job. Surprising it was only noticed just now Hubert

Not sure about that one, might be related to your monitor but probably not as it only seems to happen once in a while. Perhaps try running at a different refresh rate (maybe the maximum supported at 1280x1024) and see if that helps. Hubert

This problem has been fixed with the v1.07 beta so this could be downloaded for the full version when it arrives or you can for now temporarily turn DirectX off by changing the line directx = 1 to 'directx = 0' in your SC.ini file which can be found in the SC installation directory. The only downside to this is that it might distort your desktop icons when you exit the game so if it does it may just be a choice between which two evils is worse. Hope this helps, Hubert

Ok I think I might know what is happening here, I'll take a look, thanks! Hubert

Glad to see you are still enjoying the game, but I think this may have just been a perceived surprise in the game as I definitly did not add AF partisans. Hubert

This effect was considered but it appeared that the overall effect was positive as the percentage reductions were still all relative and especially on the eastern front it allowed for some more mobility since the USSR could not build up as many Corps as it used to early on. From testing it allowed the Axis to make some greater drives early on, but the difficulty in maintaining them was increased due to the drop in overall number of units since any prior investment in IT reduced the number of units they also were able to build from pre 1.06 versions. Plus with the catch up system, if Russia invested in IT they could close any gaps if necessary with the Axis and if not they still start with a relative Level-2 IT. Exactly, if you still feel it requires tweaking, this can easily be done from the Campaign Editor. Hubert

It's still going to be a while Hubert

Agreed, I'll take a look under the hood Hubert

Nope, this hasn't changed. In general there are a variety of factors coupled with a random percentage so chances are that simply the last game gave you a different spin that what you were accustomed to. Hubert

Moving this to the General Discussion Forum...

You'll have to forgive me as it has been a while since I thought about this aspect of the game in complete detail , and part of my original analysis was probably incorrect as well as you've noticed, but I think the meat and potatoes of it all was that in any system there will be a list of tradeoffs. With the current system there was no need to make any adjustments to the game mechanics like action points and combat effectiveness of the units during different times of the year. What you currently get is longer periods of combat during the warmer summer months of the year and quick progression during the winter months where not a lot usually happened. So for example without making a single change to the game mechanics it was easier to match events like the 6 week victory over France etc. (I know this does not happen every time but for the most part is possible on default settings against the AI) Now with a general 2 week system the number of overall turns would be pretty much the same and the amount of MPP collected at the end of each turn would make more sense, BUT a lot of the game mechanics would have to change to smooth out the expected game play. Taking France in 2 turns would be very difficult (Axis first and last turn plus Allied middle turn adding to 6 weeks) without making tweaks like combat bonuses for summer blitzkrieg, increased action points etc. and so on. The flipside would have to happen in winter, decrease in action points to slow things down in the winter and a lot of this would take a lot more time and testing to make sure it all works out as compared to the current system. In general I would not say that the current system is perfect, there are other styles that could be used such as impulses or perhaps even a combination of the above 2 described systems, but either way I would still be in favour of longer turns during late spring/summer/early fall times of year with shorter turns during the winter. While I realize some would like to see completely normalized turns, I look at this way for the main reason of optimizing game play. For example, as it is now, it takes a lot of patience and discipline as an Allied player to not become too involved for almost the first 2 years of the war as you watch the Axis run rampage all over Europe, where if you now introduce a system where winter months are longer and less mobile you risk enhanced boredom during gameplay. As you've said there are also flipsides going the other way such as increased partisan activity and I guess the trick is in balancing out all the best available options. In general though, not to worry as I realize some would like a more normalized system, so I will hint that the current system is under consideration for review and change Definitly something to think about My pleasure Hubert

Interesting analysis as I've never noticed this before but nonetheless correct. This was not ever intended but consider it a secret play feature available to all sides under the same conditions. Hubert

As there was a similar issue reported in another thread I'm going to guess it may be the same problem. The problem was that the PBEM file was set to 'read-only'. My guess is that this was caused by either e-mail program as they may be automatically doing this to protect users from potentially malicious files. In this case I suggest zipping the PBEM files before sending as it usually eliminates 99% of these problems. Hope this helps, Hubert

Ken might not have entered a password on his first turn, and if so he will not be prompted for one after that. Just for everyone else in case they encounter a similar issue, the problem was that the PBEM file was set to 'read-only'. My guess is that this was caused by either e-mail program as they may be automatically doing this to protect users from potentially malicious files. In this case I suggest zipping the PBEM files before sending as it usually eliminates 99% of these problems. Hubert

ryddle Please send me the problem file, I would like to take a look. Send to support@furysoftware.com Hubert

Could you send me the contents of your PBEM directory, including the name of offending file as well as the password so I can take a look and see what the problem might be, thanks! Zipping it all up will be fine. Send to support@furysoftware.com Hubert

This is the same for all countries, any time a capital is captured, regardless if it is the first or second time to fall into enemy hands it is treated as a surrender. True but only the ones on French soil, the FF units that might still be in the UK etc., will not surrender. This depends on which side you are refering to and which resources. If it is Axis occupied France they will increase up to max of 8, if it is Allied liberating France it could return to max 10 without holding Paris only if there is a direct link to another major capital which would have to be Moscow. This could happen in two ways, direct from Moscow to France through Poland, Germany etc if such an Allied line of hexes exists, or actually through North Africa, if you can draw a line from Moscow to Iraq, all the way to Spannish Morroco, across the Gibraltar straight, through Spain and up to France. The Gibraltar straight is considered a link of land hexes. Could be, the transfer system was designed to more or less execute when you need it, sometimes earlier then when is absolutely crucial, and sometimes later to add spice and incertainty to game play. It may not be perfect but is under consideration for revision for future versions. Hope this helps, Hubert

Congrats Bill on this excellent body of work! Hubert