Hubert Cater
-
Posts
6,372 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Hubert Cater
-
-
This was considered and could have gone either way, I think the main thing for me was the scale and I just went with the idea that you'll just have to perform retreats on your own (that is if they survive the combatWhy is there no retreat or advance as a result of combat?
). Not sure what you mean by advance through combat, but you do normally gain control of the a defenders hex if they have been destroyed, will not happen if defender was on a resource or if the defender was destroyed from bombing
I could argue this based on a number of things like preparation and reorganization time from combat and assault, but more or less was a design decision early on and it seemed to work well as a system for the gameAlso, why not allow units that attack to move afterwards?
Short answer is that it is again just another design decision. The long answer has to do with the type of interface and what level of combat model I was shooting for. It's not to say that these ideas are completely discounted, but will probably see the light of day in a more 'grognard happy' game some time down the road.Finally, how about making some sort of assault feature so that multiple units could attack together?
Hope this helps,
Hubert
-
No promises yet, but it could very well be in there
-
Fortified units will be tough, completely surrounding them will help as their max reinforcemnt will diminish, and keep an eye on their entrenchment value. With each attack this will drop and should make the subsequent attacks a bit more effective. Of course with each attack the defenders will gain in experinece and may offset the drop in entrenchment. Did I mention that it would be tough
-
No cold shoulder just can't get to every question all the time, still have a game to make
Yeah the map is pretty much going to stay as is, I believe that there was also another post with respect to adding in city names, this was considered as well, but it was a little too late in the development cycle to add in.Hope this helps,
Hubert
-
Yes you can reallocate at no penalty, and you can reclaim at 50% original value of investment
-
DevilDog, for the most part I do agree
This may really be the case of beware of what you wish for, and like I've said it's difficult to tell what effects strategic bombing and interdictions really have in a single year of the game. Your example is a great one and really shows that sometimes things may not be as they immediatly appear. I think it's interesting to note that some of the concern about strategic bombing is almost identical to the same types of concern that the Allies actually had during the war. Very often when the Allies had some of their most intestive bombing runs (summer of 44 comes to mind) Germany was able to maintain production, and even sometimes maintain their highest productions of the war, so I'm sure the same things went through commanders minds, is it really worth it, what are we achieving etc. The thing to remember is that strategic bombing will not win the war on it's own, but as the war expands, as you've pointed out, these types of things all add up and if for example Germany's rear is being distracted, offensives like the Russian front may not go over all that well.
But again, this being said, the change I've considered is a very minor one, and will be tested, so if it is found that it does through the balance off, it very well won't be included. I guess the thing is that I'd like to say that comments don't always fall on deaf ears, but at the same time changes may not always be applicable and honestly most people will just have to accept that.
Thanks for your posts everyone,
Hubert
-
I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you be more specific.
Hubert
-
-
The patch is just an executable ~700K. Use this link since it's not on the download page for the game:
ftp://ftp.battlefront.com/pub/demos/stratcom/SC.zip
Again really sorry to hear you had trouble.
Hubert
-
One of the reasons the French ship yards were so coveted by the GermansGiven their vulnerability and the suicidal nature of trying to squeeze them through the small gap at the top of Scotland, you can never hope for them to last very long or repair them.
-
I understand this, and I agree it may not be perfect, but there are other advantages that may not be immediatly apparent. Keep in mind that this is just a single year in the war and by 1944 things can be very different. In and around 1940-41 strat bombing was not all that effective historically as it is in the game, but later on with more bombers and advanced research you can really do some damages. At this point in the game bombers are weak as they should be, but over time experience can be gained, plus if you manage to bring down a resource close to zero the chances of taking losses on your bombers will decrease.Still, the math doesn't add up. Cost benifit ratio is far too high.
Also damaging ports and cities can have other benefits as it decreases supply to units that are dependant on them, thus in turn decreasing the readiness of the defenders in the area, great for preping for amphibious assaults for example. Another example is that if a city is under strength 5 then you will not be able to operationally move there.
I think the slight change I am considering will help out to make this a bit more apparent and I'll give the official word on it once we get a chance to test it out and make sure everything is up to par.
Hubert
-
I'll fix this guys
-
Good points guys, but sometimes it is a balance of tying up enemy resources that makes it pay off in the end. Yes you will have to restrengthen a bit after each bombing run, but if they have defending Air Fleets they too will have to rebuild and repair. I've often used this tactic to keep the UK weak as my Axis war machine remains active in the rest of Europe. So if you have the resources to spare by maintaining bombing runs etc, yet it will cost you, but it may cost your enemy more in the end. Many times they end up spending money on repairs that they desperatly need to build up new units or invest in research etc. While it may not seem a lot to only have the enemy lose a few MPP from Bombing here and there, it is a part of their overall total income that they will have less of next turn plus the costs they need to repair defending air fleets or hit units.
Also one of the reasons the blitz is tough is that the UK player starts with Anti-Aircraft Radar Research Level-1, so developing Heavy Bombers or Jet Fighters can help here. With all this in mind, good news is that there will also be a slight change made to Strategic Bombers that reflects some of the concern posted here
Hope that helps,
Hubert
-
I'm not sure exactly what text boxes you are refering to, could you be more specific?
Hubert
-
Hi Caesar,
Sorry if I missed your original message and I do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. Good news is that the patch should address the issue.
Ok I would try any of the following and it should get your system back on line:
- When you hit F8 there are a few options, have you tried the 'Last Known Good Configuration'
- In Safe Mode, if you cannot change your refresh rate, can you as a last resort try and uninstall your video card. When you reboot you will have to reinstall.
There might be an easier way (anybody else have a suggestion), I am not unfortunalty an expert in this respect, but if you still have any problems, please contact me at support@furysoftware.com and I'll help you find a solution
Hubert
-
Hi Aloid,
Glad to hear you are enjoying the game. Good point on the AI here, it's actually supposed to be doing this (not enough it seems) which makes perfect sense as you've noticed... looks like a little tweaking is in order
Hubert
-
There is a patched EXE uploaded yesterday that addressed these issues, you can grab it at:
ftp://ftp.battlefront.com/pub/demos/stratcom/SC.zip
The full demo package has also been updated to reflect these changes.
Hubert
-
Nobody said the Battle of the Atlantic would be easySubs are all but worthless for the Axis. Way too expensive for the 5-10 MPPs they can take out. Too easily taken out by Brit surface fleets. They sould at least be able to dive away from attacks more often.
Answering this concern as well as many of the other posts in other threads, I think that some of the confusion here may be related to the naming system of the naval units. Keep in mind the scale and even though subs are given names such as 'U-29' or Cruisers are named 'Hood' etc. they more or less represent a wolfpack or a battle group. That being said, it could make more sense to call these units something else like 'Sharnhorst' Battle Group (as previously suggested ) but either way the costs do not really reflect the costs of purchasing a single sub etc., but more like a wolfpack as I've said.Also, this is only a single year out of the war and the battle of the Atlantic was a long and hard fought battle. Beta testing the full campaigns has shown that the price system is about right and it does really reflect the fact that the Axis really did have some tough decisions to make regarding naval warfare as was historically. If I (playing as the Axis player) throw everything into the naval warfare then I certainly have to consider that this may cost me in terms of future land forces or just other warmaking areas in general. Could very well explain why the Germans did lose the Battle of the Atlantic as they had many things on the go
Besides I've generally found that subs can do more than just affect Allied convoys, they can tie up the UK navy, distract them or even pull them away from other hotspots, like the invasion of England
, and they can even sink regular naval ships which is always nice.OK all this being said, I have considered a few minor changes (nothing huge, mostly to do with FoW implementation) but all in all it's pretty much going to remain as is.
Again Malta was a very tough nut to crack, and as someone just recently pointed out to me, there was a reason the Axis avoided itThe planes on Malta are far too hard to dislodge. Surrounded on all sides by the Italian fleet, pounded by 3 German and 2 Italian air fleets, The still manage to reinforce up to 8 each turn. How? do the Brits have transporters? There should be some penalty cost for getting reinforcements through such a blockade.
If it's something you've just got to have (I can certainly understand that 
), a suggestion would be (in case you haven't already done so) to make sure there is an HQ in the immediate area of you attacking Air Fleets. Perhaps 1 German and 1 Italian HQ if you are using combined Air Fleets in your assault, they do improve the readiness of your units and may also provide combat morale bonuses if they have high experience levels. This will help but it is still something that will be tough to do!
HQ's here are the key, you may have already used HQ's by keeping them close to your Air Fleets but they do help if you have not. The supply situation makes the difference since France is considered occupied the max supply from cities will be 8, while in the UK they are looking at 10. Check your supply on your defending Air Fleets and check their readiness all of which can be improved with HQ's. Also the AI will target the best unit/resource to attack that gives them the max return, which is why it usually goes for ports, some easy pickin's for themStrategic bombing of France by the Brits (AI) is far too effective. I have corps on all the cities, and air fleets defending each. But the Brits send over a bomber (escorted), and I lose 2 or more points on my fighters, 1-3 on the port, and he takes 1-2 hits on his fighters. The bombers get away untouched! Doing the same to Britain gets my fighters to 6 or 7, my bombers halved, and usually no result on the port (London).
Very glad to hear you are enjoying itThat said, I really like the game, and do intend to buy it as soon as it's released.
This was one area I decided to eliminate disbanding for, too easy to throw the whole balance of the game out since there would be a lot of return off of naval units.Is there a way to disband a naval unit? The Brit and French fleets are expensive but mostly usless toys. I'd gladly sacrifice the entire French fleet for one more air fleet or a tank army.
Hope this all helps a bit,
Hubert
-
Hi Ted!
Should include Alexandria as well, although I'll have to double check this one.
Hubert
-
Just the reports unfortunatly
-
1) Attached units must be within 5 hexes at the beginning of the turn for an HQ and as most people have guessed click on an HQ and it will highlight who is attached. It's usually the closest 5 units but sometimes get's a little spread out when there are a lot of units or multiple HQ's that grab units first. Units will remain attached until the end of your turn and then may be reorganized on the next turn
2) In the Atlantic, it is within an intuitive range of either St. John's or Liverpool and in the med within range of any of the UK ports there. In general you have a greater range in the North Atlantic than you would in the Med.
3) No combat modifiers as such
-
Thanks Mr. Clark, I don't think I would have really understood why people felt the menu click responsiveness was really slow until you and another gamer put your fingers on it. I'm going to look into a possible workaround but it seems as though that on some systems multiple sounds cannot be played at one time.
For anyone with the same problem please send me a bug report with your system and sound card info to:
and I'll see what I can do
Hubert
-
Honest answer is that I wanted to avoid how some of the other game implemented diplomacy through pressuring etc., because I often found it led to a lot of cheating. For me this was just a game design decision but diplomacy is mostly dealt with how you play the game. Some examples, play overly agressive as Axis and the US and Russia might enter the war early on, attack your facist ally Spain and facist countries like Romania or Hungary might not join your side etc. Under the right conditions Spain and Turkey could join the Axis and so on. Things are a bit reverse when playing as Allies but it is mostly intuitive and the 'random' options keep all these countries random but within a historical context
Hubert
-
Just to make sure please try the following if you haven't already done so:Originally posted by Mario Morela:Problem when trying to access War Plan - game freezes and I must make a hard reset on my PC.
But, game play OK and I have finished demo (twice)
just having problem with war plan (hard reset only works)
Here's details about my configuration:
Win 98
MB ABIT BE6 P3 Ultra DMA
CPU PIII 450 Mhz
192 MB SDRAM
ATI RAGE 128 GL SD TV AGP
Yamaha sound card 724 3D PCI
HDD Quantum 10,2 GB
DVD ROM TOSHIBA 6x IDE
CD WRITER BTC 4/4/24
- give it at least a minute or so when you click on the war map, it does sometimes take a little while to load
- try the latest video drivers for your card (I have the same card and never had this problem, so it could just be that)
- try increasing the video acceleration if you haven't already done so in your control panel
Please let me know if any of this works, thanks.
Hubert
). Not sure what you mean by advance through combat, but you do normally gain control of the a defenders hex if they have been destroyed, will not happen if defender was on a resource or if the defender was destroyed from bombing
beta
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
I can't speak for Battlefront but for SC we are very well taken care of
Thanks for the interest though,
Hubert