Hubert Cater

Thanks SeaMonkey and just to confirm we did heavily play test this one for balance. As mentioned previously this was probably the most play tested release to date... so despite what one individual might feel is an imbalanced game I'd certainly argue the opposite. Now, that being said, is it possible we missed something? Or is it possible that there is a game mechanic or rule that could be taken advantage of that can produce consistent victory for one side or another? Perhaps and if that is the case we are always more than happy to try and narrow the gap and make adjustments as necessary.

Actually, the first one was a friendly warning which does not bring you close to being banned, but now you've received an infraction which does.

Looks like I was able to reproduce it after a few tests, consider this fixed as well. Hubert

Can you send this to support@furysoftware.com?

Yolo, impassable in the context that you do not have enough action points to otherwise traverse the terrain thus needing to use the roads or go around or accept in some situations (by game design) that you cannot move your unit through these tiles, and not completely impassable such as the Qattara Depression and so on.

I'll simply reiterate what pzgndr has already said, as I really cannot say it better myself, in that no matter how much you test, a handful of testers will never find all the issues in the game that the player community will find after release. That being said I think we've done a pretty good job in producing a solid release with no show stopping bugs and a more than playable set of campaigns. Are they perfect? Are there a few issues that should have been caught? Sure, but we are also human at the same time.

It is still in place and I've only corrected a few errors that arrived from implementing this feature. For example, if you do end your movement next to an enemy ship you have not successfully "passed through" and if your movement path does not allow you to finish your movement without ending up on the same tile as an enemy unit then you are stopped at the last "good" tile where there is no enemy unit. If you've found otherwise send me a turn and I'd be happy to take a look.

Bluestew, I agree and have issued Rambo a warning.

Just to provide some feedback on the minimum 1 tile rule this is actually already in place but as currently implemented it is admittedly a bit confusing. For example, originally we implemented a minimum 1 tile movement rule for whenever a unit could not move forward but ran into issues where you could block your unit from behind with friendly units and as a result you could always move forward through otherwise impassable terrain and essentially negate the importance of roads. Think the frontlines of China and you can quickly see how this is a problem. We added a rule check to make sure that this is not the case but then when you do receive the minimum 1 tile movement bonus it can be quite confusing from the player's perspective as to why as it often appears inconsistent. I suspect this will change and I'm leaning towards simply allowing the minimum 1 tile movement for only when a unit cannot move at all, i.e. if a friendly unit can move out of the way then this rule will not go into effect. Literally the unit must be stuck or the rule will not kick in.

Snowstorm, This is one we discussed a bit during development and while David would have preferred a more active North Africa, which he has included in his excellent mod, what we did instead was to have major jumps in Vichy French territory in North Africa instead. One of the main reasons is for game play as in most cases the Allies are not in a good position to contest these territories from Germany and Italy in the early game and if we have them automatically activate against let's say a German invasion of mainland Vichy then what usually happens is these eventually become free territories for the German Axis player without any diplomatic cost. As it is now Germany would still have to DoW and this then results in bringing in nations like the US that much earlier. On the other hand if the Allies want to bring them in they are usually at a high enough mobilization that only a few diplomatic hits can do this and if timed correctly, i.e. later in the war when the Western Allies are in a better position to contest and attack from North African territory, this can be a much more ideal situation to be in.

I wonder if this is also related to the issue that David discovered for US units attempting to unload in UK held Italian territory in North Africa. For example, if the US was not yet at war with Germany then it would not be able to land in Dakar as French Africa is a German Axis Minor.

Thought I would share my findings in case others run into the same issue down the road. David and I discovered that the US was only at war with Japan and not Germany and since Brazil is a US minor and Italy is a Germany minor, the Italian ports that were occupied by the UK could not be entered by US units until the US was at war with Germany. This is of course an expected rule enforcement and the easiest solution is for the US to enter the war in Europe against Germany and her Axis minors. Hubert

heatrr, Have you tried any of the higher difficulty levels to see if it adds a bit more of a challenge? Hubert

Hi Colin, As xwormwood alluded to the scripted reinforcements and automatic surrenders should for the most part be resolved with the first patch as we've made quite a few changes there. Regarding having the reinforcements in production, we really did think about this but as mentioned earlier it really can throw off the balance if the player can place these units themselves. Again these were only added after the initial design to balance out key areas of the map and the idea being that if we allowed them into production then it would allow too much unit concentration and the perfect example of this would be Japan and China. If Japan were to receive all the scripted reinforced units off of the production queue rather than to garrision various islands or as part of the preparatory planning for various amphibious assaults, most players would quickly realize they can simply bring these units to China and finish her off much earlier in game and essentially a-historically instead. Balance is really one of the key challenges in designing a Global game and probably why many of the popular games in the past, such as the board game Axis and Allies, start in 1942 where the unit concentrations are all set and the above is no longer an issue.

Great to hear and I hope you enjoy the games

Nevermind, as Moon has already replied...

rjh1971, Glad to hear you are enjoying the improvements and while I think it would be great to implement these changes going backwards to the older releases there were just unfortunately too many changes made to make this an easy task. Too many areas of code that have changed completely where it would not be a simple cut and paste of the new more efficient algorithms. The good news is that the new improvements are here to stay and of course for all new games going forward. Hubert

No problem

Hi Rosseau, Glad to hear you are moving up to the SC2 offerings and to answer your question, suppression is not exactly modeled per se but rather we have editable parameters for the various unit types that allow you to specify which types of attacks will receive return fire. For example, Artillery is set to 100% loss evasion in the Editor and all this means is that both land and naval units do not return fire from artillery attacks. This is similar to naval units attacking land units and so on. Hope this helps, Hubert

There does indeed look to be a bug in the scripts and I've made a few adjustments so that the Axis and Allies can all use these transfer points with more ease within North America. I've also increased the number of transfer points between Oklahoma and Denver and Denver and Chicago to 3 each. I'm just not sure if it will make the first patch though as it is likely to be released very soon. Hubert

Hi Panzerpionier! Welcome aboard and if you go to the OPTIONS dialog in game you will find the option to highlight 'National Colors'. This will help you to identify who owns what while playing the campaign. Hope this helps, Hubert

It should be early this week if all goes well

Can you send me saved turns of this where it is repeatable so I can take a look? Thanks, Hubert

Great to hear

I've just sent you some files, let me know if you've received them and if it allows you to get started on your campaign once again. Hubert