Hubert Cater

Not a bad idea at all! Hubert

No problems! 1. a) Maybe, this would be something I would have to think about a bit This at first does sound like a good idea, but I think that it would lead to some cheating as you would then eventually see your opponent's position and strategy through the AI, well if playing FoW 2. Yup, this is one of the reasons I included the reload counter to limit cheating a bit. 3. Paras will be considered for a future version 4. This is another maybe as well, I still prefer the idea of only allowing you to decide if a unit retreats or not considering the scale, but something to think about. 5. This is a trade secret still 6. Something to think about Good one! Hubert

I unzipped the file into my PBEM directory and was able to load it without any problems, it was the Allied first Turn and I was asked for my new password. Maybe your opponenet did not unzip it or is using an older version of SC? Hubert

Only with FoW, can't give everything away! Hubert

It's an interesting idea but to be honest these would not be the easiest changes to make, even to have as options considering AI, playabillity and balance. To address some of the issues you seem to have been experiencing, as you've noticed the key is to not allow your enemy to rebuild weakened units and to destroy them outright, but all is not lost if you fail to do so, careful management of your forces and you will continue to gain experience from combat in the field, while consistently reinforced units lose experience and their ranks are filled with green troops. This will also have an affect on future battles, plus if the defending units are attached to an HQ, that HQ's experience will drop resulting in a lower combat morale bonus passed on to subordinate or attached units. The opposite of course occurs for your own units. In the long run, the tide will eventually turn in your favour so long as you can maintain the offensive. As to the quagmire, I can only assume you speak of the long and drawn out battles on the eastern front, if this is the case it is to be expected since the battles were in fact long and hard and lasted almost 4 years, yet despite this quick battle victories are possible and may just require an alteration of your strategy within the current game system. Don't believe me, I'm sure some of the SC Field Marshalls here can give you a serious run for your money, and if not I may even be persuaded to enter a challenge or two once the TCP/IP patch goes live Let me know if any of this helps. Hubert

OK something to think about. Hubert

OK just to make sure we are on the same page here , the version number should show on the bottom right hand corner of the MAIN MENU regardless of version, be it the original version from CD or if updated from the patch. The version number appears as a grey text that may not be immediately visible due to the mostly grey background of the MAIN MENU screen, and by MAIN MENU I am refering to the initial menu screen for NEW GAME etc. It would be curious if it does not show the version number on the MAIN MENU screen as it would be the first time I've heard of this. Is it possible that the bottom portion of the screen is cutoff when playing the game and your screen needs to be manually adjusted through various monitor options? I realize that these suggestions may appear very trivial but I am just trying to narrow down what could be the problem. Also just to double check that the patch has been properly installed, could you verify the timestamp of the 'SC.exe' file in your installation directory. If the patch was applied properly it should read 05/09/2002 1:47 PM. Maybe shortcuts have been corrupted, in this case try launching the main SC.exe directly from your installation directory or verifying and double checking all shortcut paths. Let me know if any of this helps, Hubert

The patch number is shown at the bottom right hand corner of the MAIN MENU screen. Does it still show v1.0 in your case? If so the patch is not installing in the correct directory, please double check the installtion path matches the patch extraction patch, including drive letters. Hope this helps, Hubert

Not sure at all, I would have to see the file myself, you can send me the zipped PBEM turn to support@furysoftware.com and I'll take a look Hubert

1) Missed this one in the manual, if you attack from a river hex your attack is reduced by 50%, this does not affect air units. 2) You have to control the land/sea hex for that sea lane 3) Yes or reduce the port to strength = 0 4) Spain 5) Supply from an HQ was missed in the manual but it basically follows the same formulas given the Supply Calculation Tables found in the manual. In general HQ's act as a supply giving source and it is based on it's current supply value. Hope this helps, and glad to hear you are enjoying the game! Hubert

On some flavours of Windows and when using DirectX, Alt-Tab does not work, thus the need to resort to the 'ESC' key. Hubert

Interesting idea... Hubert

Correct, transfer can only happen when the SU is at war with Germany since they are not active otherwise. I chose not to go with specific dates for a variety of reasons, since for example if you were to attack in 1940 which many players chose to do during the early demo days, the SU has no chance if they are not allowed to transfer their siberian divisions because 'it's not time' Rather it is based on an open period simply meaning it can happen at any time and iff the SU is severly threatened. This may be tweaked a bit and has been adjusted to take into better account attacks through the south, but if it were to happen too early or at a specific date it could throw out the balance even more as it can become too predictable. Although I don't doubt your in depth analysis, the primary reason to go with an open period is to make it dynamic based on game play and not on hardcoded dates, again if for example you attack the SU early then history changes and what is and what is not historical simply becomes conjecture, but if you attack on June 22, 1941 and you have a decent drive to Moscow then a transfer is likely to happen in and around the winter months and history is preserved thus making the current system sensical in either case. Again it's not to say it's perfect, but I will take a closer look at this one as well for future tweaks if necessary. Hope this helps, Hubert

Not at the moment, the campaign editor is admittedly a bit tricky in which you have to plan out the sides and active countries as the war would have progressed to build the desired campaign. Good luck! Hubert

Thanks! Hubert

This is still a possibility but again most likely will not change for this version of the game. Nope No, the option to neutralize map sprites was pretty much only included to let you reset neutral territory if you accidentally changed a hex before you activated the neutral country. No, due to the nature of the design these are currently hardcoded. This is also not possible Nope No problems! Hubert

Currently this is not possible and most likely will not change for this version of the game. Hubert

Still in the thinking stage on this one, but once I've got a full set of notes I will post my thoughts and proposals here for sure. Hubert

Yeah I heard, Uros sent me a screenshot of the review, glad to hear about that one! Hubert

Not right now, in general turns seem to play out pretty quick but it may be something I consider as a future option. Hubert

All recently moved threads end up automatically locked here but will appear unlocked in the General Discussion Forums. Infact some responses to these recently moved threads have already taken place over there. Hubert

Well said Dgaad, and since this topic has strayed far enough from the original thread, I'll move this to the General Forums so the rest of the discussion can continue there. Hubert

Hi Gman, if this is your first PBEM game and you are on your first turn as Allies then you should be prompted for a NEW password, sounds like you either received an older played through PBEM or something similar. Hope this helps, Hubert

Please believe me that I am not picking sides here or even seriously interested in these debates, my only interest right now is the game and discussions with respect to the game. Common practice is to use historical context to make a point with the game and I have no problem with that, but often one person's historical context may be a bit controversial, and in some of the recent cases as witnessed by this thread and others they are/can be controversial in the extreme. In this case, and this is directed at EVERYONE, topic starters, responders etc., all I ask is that these discussions be voluntarily moved to the General Forums or I will move them there myself. I am not saying that views and counter views cannot be expressed, just please move the heated debates there as I am sure everyone can agree that the result of some of the recent threads have not been appropriate to this forum. Let's get back to the game Hubert