Hubert Cater

Have you tried playing with Video Acceleration and with Quick Animation turned on? Additionally which campaign are you playing?

I see the issue as there is no conitnuous rail line from the port to a significant supply source such as a capital or from what I can tell an industrial center or supply city. It looks like you simply have a rail line going from Lorient to Caen. Additionally if you connect Caen to Paris, and if Paris is connected by rail to Berlin, then it looks like you will need an additional rail line that connects to the port at Lorient, i.e. to the tile adjacent to Lorient. It is hard for me tell though as I would need to see the image with the tile grid turned on. Either way a quick change to Caen to Paris should tell you what else you might need.

Can you give us a screenshot?

Off hand I suspect it might be a rail issue, is there a connection?

No problem and in past releases it would have but with this release and due to the more complex relationships for Global War this extra step was added for finer control. For example, this also allows Germany to DoW the USSR while the USSR is still not at war with Japan and so on.

If you are playing as the Allies then this is not a bug as the game is designed, in this instance, to give you complete control over who you declare war upon once you join the Allies. For example as the USSR, you can declare war on Japan or Germany or both. To enter Poland, you would need to be at war with a country that is also at war with Poland, so in this case you would need to declare war against Germany. To declare war, navigate to the War Map, click on the USSR flag at the lower left corner and then pick the German flag on the War Map and select 'Declare War'. After that you should be able to proceed as expected. Hope this helps, Hubert

There are a few ways to do it but one simple way would be to uninstall the games and as you do that it will ask you to unlicense. Once you do that you have freed up your licenses to reinstall on any new computer as desired. If on the other hand you simply wish to have a second copy of your games on another computer like your laptop then there is nothing you need to do as you have the ability to install on two computers with each license so you simply need to install on your laptop and apply the same license. Hope this helps, Hubert

As rjh1971 mentioned, if you go to the Options dialog in game and then select 'Advanced' you will see the option to enable 'Soft Builds'. This will allow you to purchase Artillery and all the other specialized units as desired. Hope this helps, Hubert

Thanks for the report lorxorn, I'm surprised to hear that it popped back up in their definitions and hopefully they'll fix that again. The good news is that in the future the code has changed on our end so that it should no longer pop up as a potential threat under Malwarebytes, i.e. we identified the code it didn't like and made the necessary adjustments.

Just wanted to add that it looks like I found a bug that will be corrected so that the above formula applies each time a unit is to be reinforced. For a few examples: A) Corps 100 MPP w/ Level-1 PT (5%) costs -> 95 MPP Corps 100 MPP w/ Level-5 PT (25%) costs -> 75 MPP Reinforcing A) at a cost of 5% per reinforcement level is 4.75 MPP (4 MPP) Reinforcing at a cost of 5% per reinforcement level is 3.75 MPP (3 MPP)

Just looking at this again and I can confirm that for reinforcement, when the reinforcement cost was tied into the Production Tech cost of the unit it did cause a lot of issues where it was indeed difficult to keep track which units were purchased with PT, which units were purchased with the soft build penalty and so on... so we just opted to have PT apply only to new purchases and leave everything else the same as trying to keep track of these values caused a lot of issues with the game engine in terms of keeping all the values straight. Basically there were a lot of errors that kept cropping up in game. That being said I'm not 100% sure what changes were made from the older system to the newer system to what we now have in place but looking at the code and testing this in game I can confirm that the cost of a unit, i.e. what is looked at in terms of reinforcement cost is determined as follows: -- unit cost = base cost -- + research costs (research costs are relative to base cost) -- + soft build penalty (relative to base cost) -- - production tech benefits (relative to base cost) In this case the full production tech benefits are applied before determining the unit cost that is looked at for reinforcment cost, i.e. the cost determined by the above formula is then multiplied by the reinforcement cost which is usually 5%. Does this help? Hubert

Good find and we've made some adjustments here even though this is a tricky one as we didn't want to limit the new feature either. I've enabled counter damage to attacking Amphibs and they will no longer be able to shore bombard once their supply equals 0. Regarding the resupply, this doesn't seem possible on my end as Amphibs do not regain supply by moving near a friendly port, can you confirm?

Glad to hear you are enjoying the improvements to the naval aspect and you are right about the Carrier modes, that is one that I get the most support emails for! I like the suggestions and it is true that once players get used to the ideas the game seems to flow well from there so we'll see what we can do to make things even more interesting without over complicating the game play.

I think part of the problem with many of the history books covering WWII, in my collection at least, is that they are essentially a concise history of events covering the entire war. To clarify, it is not to necessarily suggest a conspiracy that the Allied planning for the invasion of Norway is conveniently left out, but rather probably a simple decision of "why split hairs over the event", i.e. Germany invaded and the Allies responded. Either way much of what you suggest is covered by Ziemke in the US Military History link I provided above such as the Allied indecision and planning delays over Norway and Sweden but the overall importance of denying Germany the precious ore supplies was always there and after researching a bit more about the Allied plans for Norway the arguments appear to come down to (for the Allies) finding a way of taking control of those supplies one way or another. That being said, the Allied response to the German invasion was always suspicious to me in the sense of just how effective a response it was, i.e. the naval presence and response to the German invasion was in no way minor, and the idea that the Allies could land 45,000 troops between April 14 and the 19th, French, British, and Polish with equipment and supplies, 5 days after the initial German invasion of the 9th I have always argued was very close to being logistically impossible unless the Allies had had something prepared. Looking into the US Military History link a bit more I researched some of the sources Ziemke used and one particularly good one is the 'The Campaign In Norway' by T.K. Derry. It can actually be read online and is a very complete source of the invasion of Norway from both sides including very detailed notes of the Allied planning, troops, expedition code names as well as various maps and photographs: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Norway/index.html#contents

Ludi, I recently saw a program on the History Channel covering the sinking of U-864. An incredible sinking and a video can be found online for anyone interested in it. Here is the Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-864 One thing I worry about extra modes is in the added complexity and just how much we'll gain, i.e. for veteran players of the series this might be a welcome addition but for the casual or new player even the existing two modes still offer considerable confusion (on my end at least via tech support emails) but I do like the idea of at least allowing subs to attack each other to prevent gamey tactics. Even here I suspect I'll have to think about this carefully as this type of change would likely only apply to subs that are both in Hunt mode etc.

I'm actually surprised that we missed the mode setting when we added the raiding option to surface warships and I'll look into adding that for the next patch as it definitely makes a lot of sense... that being said the Norway discussion caught my attention because like CSS I've also argued that the British and French were essentially prepared to invade Norway with the Germans simply beating them to the punch. You are right though that information on Allied planning for the invasion of Norway in April of 1940 is very difficult to find any of the history books, none of the ones I have mention the details specifically and perhaps this is simply one of those convenient omissions that tend to favour the victor in any conflict, but either way one good source is from the US Army Center of Military History: http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_02.htm Here are a few Wiki entries that pretty much use the above link as their primary source of reference that summarize the same details, i.e. Operation Wilfred covering the Allied plan for mining Norwegian waters and Plan R-4 which was the Allied invasion plan to be enacted once the mining operation provoked a response from Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wilfred http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4

No worries SeaMonkey and I could comment on possibly unfriendly AI features but the problem is that sometimes I may inadvertently shut down a good idea that might come along as a result of the initial discussion... even if at first it is not necessarily AI friendly.

I was thinking more like they would simply appear further back along the map edge, i.e. their intention is still to go to the desired city but would just appear back out of range of the city (if friendly tiles are available) if the city is no longer available.

Hi Fockewulf, Sounds like a bug and I'll see what I can do for the next patch. Hubert

Some good points Colin and I'd be interested to hear what others might think on this as well before I comment. Either way, as you suggest, more options on this are always a good thing. Thanks, Hubert

Ah ok, I think the answer would still be no then as Germany and the USSR are set to be allied together but non cooperative.

Thanks for starting these threads SeaMonkey and all the posts gentlemen. I'm keeping a close eye on these and will post some feedback when needed but in the meantime I am definitely listening Hubert

Thanks for tracing this a bit more and from what I remember this part of the design was intentional. I believe initially we didn't allow the units to move if across but then there was no way to counter attack with this restriction. I guess what we could do is change the arrival position to be further back from Chicago if Chicago falls to the enemy and so on for the other loops as well.

From what I remember if the Port is at 0 then you can indeed pass through it... looks like it was a bad move though for the AI to take advantage of this rule!

Hi Biscuit, Initially, way back when, we boosted Strategic Bombers to double strikes and loss evasion to help them get some attacks through but you are right it does negate this a bit with double intercept Fighters. While it may nerf the effectiveness of Strategic Bombers a bit it does help a lot against super Tactical Bombers, as mentioned above, and this was one of the main reasons for the introduction in the latest build. Hubert