Hubert Cater

There is a known bug in v1.0 that may be causing this problem, try upgrading to the v1.04 patch and let me know if it still occurs. Hubert

There was a small problem found on some systems that can be worked around by setting the line 'directx = 1' back to 'directx = 0' in your 'SC.ini' file. The SC.ini file can be found in your installation directory. I should have posted the temporary fix here sooner (sorry about that), but I would recommend the v1.04 patch as it does have a lot of improvements over v1.0, most notably the AI. Hope this helps, Hubert

Only the ones destroyed in battle Hubert

Welcome back! I really like the updated site Hubert

Glad to hear you are enjoying the game, these ideas are something for me to think about as well Hubert

Well like I've said before, MPP's is more than just production, it can represent men, replacements, factoring in of lend lease etc. In general terms consider US production as approximately 50% of it's full value considering the War in the Pacific so look at it as 360 MPP if you like with half going to the war in Europe. I know that there have been some comparisons to the Soviet MPP and how it seems grossly higher than US MPP, but as said above it automatically takes into account Lend Lease, plus the huge number of men to replace enormous 'in the millions' of casualties on the eastern front. Within the historcial context, US and Allied production takes time to build up into a potent threat and I think that this is closely resembled in the game. Early on the US is free to build without having to worry about constantly replacing losses as on the USSR does on the eastern front, and by late 42 onwards the US can press upon the enemy with a sizable force in either North Africa or elsewhere etc as they did historically. As was once pointed out in the forums by another gamer (can't remember the name), the US could not send over hundreds of thousands of men to their slaughter as did the Russians or there would be political consequences to be paid at home. The current model could have been tweaked to start out slower in production early on and then steadily increased, but this was the idea with 'Industrial Technology' research. Adding in a few extra US research chits as part of the proposed balancing items for the game will most likely help in this regard. Nonetheless I can still see why US and Allied income can appear to be low at times, and I think that this has more to do with the fact that Axis income can get so high, without much need to stop and repair once in a while, as would be the case if other factors were included to hinder the Axis war machine, gearing costs, weather costs etc., as suggested by other gamers which may very well be suited to a future version like SC2 perhaps. As a final note, the at start US ground forces for when they join the war already include some armies that were formed later on in the war (so ground troop wise they start off stronger than they did historically), and testing ensured that total US production (for number of armies and air units available for the European Theater) during standard gameplay would roughly match the available forces that the US had available by D-Day. Hope this helps, Hubert

Oops you're right, stop finding these! OK so it should be more like this: L0 Jets = 40 MPP per factor L1 Jets = 44 MPP per factor L2 Jets = 48 MPP per factor etc. So that changes the purchase cost of L1 Jets from 440 to 484, and L5 jets will change in cost from 600 to 900 MPP!! Wow that's a big difference, this actually alone might change some of the strategies for tech investments on it's own. This is something to think about. Hubert

I wasn't sure what I wrote after looking at it again either , I think what I was saying is that if I had Airfleets that were purchased when I was at L0 and now I am at level 5 and I want to go from strength 10 to 15, the cost is 100, but you are right purchasing L5 jets gets me new jets at strength 15 for 600. I don't know, the cost of retrofitting is cheaper than wholesale new purchases, I know that's stretching it a bit considering we are talking about whole new aircraft. OK that's a good point, not quite sure how to work around that one though. Hubert

Hmmm... interesting Hubert

Great!

That's exactly the idea with the HQ's :cool: Thanks! Hubert

OK guys, I think that's enough with the Wittman debate, please continue it via email or in the general forums and let's get back to the SC issues. Thanks, Hubert

I'm not so sure, as you pointed out, with the Germans starting with HQ's where their Allies do not, they immediately start with an advantage plus German ground/air units will also receive a combat morale bonus for all combat once their HQ's start to get some experience. The idea I had is that once Poland falls and the Germans take on a few of the other minors like Denmark, Norway etc. the current experience system should put their troops at an advantage by default once they get ready for the Low Countries, France et all etc. At this point if you've played your cards right the Germans have gained the experience you're looking for from approximately 6 months of combat. I liked the idea of balancing out some of the playability rules by giving the Germans some HQ's for the initial advantages, but having the experience earned from combat and not automatic. For a test, try giving the Germans no HQ's or giving the French an HQ and the Brits and HQ from the start and I think you'll see how much of a difference there will be, especially considering the factor where this frees the Allies up to spend some money on other things and not worry about quickly building a command structure via HQ's that the Germans already enjoy. Hubert

Interesting additions... I'll have to think about this as well. Hubert

I didn't take a look at the actual formulas but running a quick test with a sample campaign I got the following numbers: L0 Jets at 10 -> reinforce to 15 Costs 400 + 150 = 550 L5 Jets at 10 Costs 600 Now if you are at Ind. Tech Level 5: L0 Jets at 10 -> reinforce to 15 Costs 400 + 100 = 500 L5 Jets at 10 Costs 400 Hubert

I have no problems with criticisms of the game at all, I think constructive criticisms are a good thing and can and will help to improve the current game as well as to get an insight as to what may be applicable to future versions. The Axis vs. Allied PBEM challenge is a perfect example of this, just that some things unfortunatly take time. I didn't look at your post as abrasive at all, just rather that I figured it was an appropriate time to state my intentions a little more explicitly since I think everyone deserved at least that much for now Thanks! Hubert

Keep in mind that this game has been a work in progress for over 2 years now and that the game has just been released. I still have a few things to sort out like the multiplayer options etc. and this does not afford me the opportunity to comment on every aspect of the game. I've read the debates and I am not ignoring them, just that everything will be addressed in due time, and for me right now first things first. In general making any changes to the game system is a tricky business and not one that I am generally in favour of, unless it addresses playbalance etc and not for reasons due to disagreement with the design. Those types of design changes are better suited for an SC2 and so on. For this reason alone I won't even be making the proposed changes a possiblity until after the TCP/IP patches are finalized and only then as an option for players who are interested in the proposed changes but not forced to upgrade to them. Basically I want to have the full game as is and as promised (with TCP/IP) first before any of the proposed changes see the day of light. These things take time and all I can ask for is everyone's patience yet again. When the time is right and once I am done the development phases I will also become a more active participant in the ongoing debates with respect to air power and allied income. I can quickly comment on airpower by saying that perhaps additional affects such as 'weather' may alleviate some of the concern, i.e. with weather affects and not having the ability to let's say rebase or fly in bad weather turns might make them less of an attractive unit and thus the need to balance out your military forces. As for allied income, I personally don't have a problem, the US income is 50% of what it should be considering the War in the Pacific and in general the UK, and US income feels about right, i.e. where they have to slowly build up and don't really become affective as potential threats until late 42 and on. I look at it in the sense that it appears they may be too low since the Axis can get so high, so in this case an adjustment to the game with let's say 'weather' or other effects may have the desired result, where if German troops get pushed back and mauled once in a while then they have to spend some reinforcement money as opposed to just having money in their coffers to build and keep building. OK so what am I saying, well that there are many factors at play here where a quick fix is not warranted. Rather some deep thinking by me and planned adjustments that I think make sense and that are workable in a 'historic' sense and 'playability' sense. Again this takes time and some may be better suited to this game or perhaps a compeletly revamped and possibly more advanced SC2, and unfortunatly right now I am not in the position to just sit back and think all day while hammering away changes at the computer. Now some may look at this as flat out refusals of their *fantastic* game fixes, but I just think it's all a part of responsible game design to take all these ideas and keep them in mind and sort them out accordingly. In the end some may still disagree with the paths chosen, but hey I can't please everybody right? So keep the debates going, I think they are great and are giving me a lot of ideas, and when I get the chance I will expand and make the necessary changes, and after that hopefully start looking to the future and next generation of SC engine based games! Hubert

It's factored in across the board, for builds, reinforcements, operations etc., well er.. it should be, unless I missed something of course That's an interesting idea as well! Hubert

Just thinking aloud here, but I am thinking that if this strategy (go for tech first and then everything else) was not employed the game would still be balanced as found pretty much from the beta testing. I think once the game is fully understood it is inevitable that there will be ways to exploit the system and to your advantage. Saying this I think what may be at issue here is that the Germans can spend money on tech while neither the Soviets or Americans can since they are not active participants in the war just yet. Sure England can spend a bit, but usually not much since they are mostly hanging on for dear life. In a future version I believe having a somewhat active neutral majors with limited income will make things a bit more interesting. Having let's say the USSR and USA active but neutral, allowing them to move units, purchase some units and participate in research, albeit at limited levels until they become full participants should go a long way in perhaps balancing out some of the gameplay as well as make things more interesting. I have a few other notes that go with this but more on that later before I actually commit to something here Hubert

Sounds like an interesting matchup, love to hear the results of that one As for the proposed changes, I think there should not be much harm done even if the proposed changes are implemented, those who consistenly win as Allies (although there may be only 1 or 2 of those it seems, and perhaps none after the Jollyguy and Iolo matchup ) will still win, and for the rest it should at least balance things out a bit. To make a note on the naval units, disbanding was added in due to high demand, albeit at a restricted and lowered level, but once all the patches are finalized in the coming months I will go over the manual and add/edit a few things in there to clear up the recent changes etc. Hubert

Just another shot in the dark here, did you try reapplying the latest patch, it will overwrite the SC executable and I am guessing it should be fine after that. Also does it happen everytime you try playing SC, what I mean by that is what if you try starting a new game against the AI, or Hotseat etc. Hubert

Well glad to hear you were at least able to figure it out. Hubert

This one was actually discussed a bit way back when, and of course it depends on which side is doing it and when. If it's the Allies prior to US entry then it can backfire in two ways, firstly it decreases US entry potential when playing in USA 'Random' mode, and secondly, if the Axis end up getting the country without a fight it's considered a 'Join' and friendly as opposed to an occupied territory, the result of which is usually a couple of 'free' units and the territory resources can max out at '10' if connected to either Axis capital as opposed to the occupied '8'. Then the issue gets a little muddy under different circumstances but the 'free' units doesn't hurt and can add up to in some cases more than the plunder amount in terms of pure MPP value. Hubert

Thanks for the replies guys, glad to hear you've had a "clash of the titans". I've got a short list of changes that I think will help to balance things out and for the most part make things a bit more interesting. I think the proposed research adjustments, a few extra research chits for the allies, the added 3 capital supply source rules, and a port at Istanbul should do the trick but most likely this will have to wait until after the TCP/IP patch.... and just in case, the answer is still soon. I've also got a few other tweaks and comments in mind (mostly related to the hot recent debate threads) that I think will add some more dynamic game play especially for the Med., but more on that later. Hubert