Hubert Cater

This should be corrected with the first patch as we've introduced a VIDEO ACCELERATION option for the Editor as well. From the Windows 7 test we've run it did dramatically increase the speed of the Editor on our end, i.e. it ran as it normally should. Hubert

Hi Giovanni, These will not arrive until the end of December, early 1940 so it is likely you have not gone that far in game just yet. Hope this helps, Hubert

The game does a file size check and looks for any differences that might indicate that the campaign on your system differs from the one on your opponent's system that started the game. This is handy to keep track if your opponent has made any changes in their favour etc., before starting a new game with you. If you both have the same file then I can only guess that the file was perhaps corrupted before it got to you or your opponent. Sometimes email will do this when transferring files and one way to 'protect' it is to compress the campaign before sending it. Can you confirm that this might be the case and if you compress the campaign, i.e. zip it up or something similar before transferring it to your opponent that it resolved the issue for you? Hubert

Sorry to hear the trouble, can you send me the campaign file in question with the convoy script and I can see if I can correct it for you. Hubert

No problem guys and thanks for the comments. I always try and give someone the benefit of the doubt... but having given him the floor and seeing that Les really does not have much to say, I think it is safe to conclude that he unfortunately just wanted to hear his own voice. Chalk it up to lesson learned and when he shows up again at our next release party I'll know better to simply ignore him and focus on those that have actually played the game and have something truly substantial to say. Hubert

Care to be more specific? I only ask as I am surprised you have come to this conclusion from a 2 turn Demo, i.e. where a year's worth of turns is 12 to 13. Other than mentioning you dislike tiles, this is unfortunately extremely vague and considering your strong opposition to the game, the demo and the review it is quite surprising. In all honesty there is nothing here that I can identify for improvements unlike some of the other criticisms from players that have provided feedback. However, in some ways I am not surprised as I still think this is directly related to the fact you have yet to play the full game... but since you disagree with that sentiment I am prepared to move on as it is quite hard to accommodate vague opinions of our full product based on two turns of a demo. Perhaps when you do play the game and have more detailed criticisms to offer I'll be happy to take it under advisement. As other players like xwormwood can attest to we usually do what we can to correct any glaring oversights. Hope this helps, Hubert

No problem at all as you actually caught me at a good time while I was on the forums

Yes this is built in

This thread should point you in the right direction: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=91599

Since we always try and improve our products based on player feedback, can you tell me exactly what turned you off, i.e. what you felt was detracting, in the game as played from the Demo so that we can not only improve the game but perhaps even offer an improved Demo in the future? Hubert

Admittedly I still find this fascinating in the sense that you could have such a strong reaction to a review without having played the game. Much like a trailer for a movie or the back cover of a book, I doubt many would put themselves out there to then say they disagreed with the review of a film or a review of a novel after only exposing themselves to what essentially amounts to a primer to see if it will peak your interest. Again, I'm not saying there are those without criticisms for the review (I'm still not going to argue the score ), but I would at least suspect it would be from within the context of having actually played the game, i.e. from start to finish in order to fully understand what the game offers in terms of overall game play, strategy, decisions and so on, rather than a 2 turn Demo. In that vein I guess it is a good thing that we don't send out Demos, i.e. rather than the full game, to reviewers but to each their own I guess. Hubert

I think that is actually my fault as during the development stages I was moving some of the mines around in that area and might have moved one that was originally at Kiruna up to Norway not realizing it was a 'named' mine. We did a lot of back and forth of positions and number of mines due to some of the scripts in the game.

Robby1, thanks for the feedback and the Transport issue should indeed be fine now under v1.01 and regarding the Home Guard, good points and I think the issue is that sometimes the AI sends out subs to the Home Islands and in this case a few free units for Japan that early in the game does seem to be a bit of a bonus. I agree though for human games you are right, let me see if I can model it out for either the AI or multiplayer games.

More or less a game design decision to reflect arrivals at major rail heads. Also this is a part of the evolution of the operation routines as originally you could operate from anywhere to a city and then once we added rails we made it a requirement to be on a rail tile to operate etc.

Just to confirm, the US receiving a Cruiser if you select 'Yes' is correct. It is just the Gold that it does not receive.

Thanks Skrivebordsgeneralen and I should say that you win the prize I think this bug goes all the way back to SC1, consider it fixed for the first patch. Hubert

Any chance you have some saved turns of any of these types of results, i.e. from on both the giving and the receiving end? I only ask as there are simply too many factors to consider before I can comment on whether this is a bug or not, i.e. I can safely say that the AI does not receive any bonuses on this type of surprise combat, so I wonder if it is experience levels, readiness, morale or pre-existing unit strength at play that is accounting for these differences. If you have turns I would be glad to take a look and let you know what might be going on. Hubert

Hi Geofighter, Thanks for the comments and I'll be honest as that would be really hard to do right now on my end as it would require quite a few changes to just how we have everything set up. The problem is that there is no way for me (currently) to specify in the AMPHIBIOUS or other similar AI scripts to only engage if two nations are at war, i.e. such as if Japan and the US are at war. On the other hand most of these events to check to see if these nations, i.e. such as the DEI are surrendered so if you do not invade the DEI then the US will not attack triggering the war with Japan. Granted, this is not the best solution but it would otherwise be very difficult to make these types of changes as you suggest as there are simply too many strategies to anticipate to get all them all right. Hubert

Looking at the DECISION text below I can see how that might be confusing: * * * The French cruiser "Emile Bertain" and the aircraft carrier "Béarn" arrived safely in Fort de France with 480 MPP in gold from the Banque de France. This gold belongs by right to the Free French Government in exile. We could try to seize this gold by invading Fort de France, but doing so will probably lead to war with Vichy France, and possibly with some other French colonies. On the positive side, our agents believe that doing so may swing the French garrison in Polynesia to switch its allegiance to the Free French. On the other hand, if we don't agree to invade Fort de France then we will lose out on an opportunity to capture not only the gold but also the French ships. However, the good news is that under the terms of the "Greenslade-Robert Agreement", if we don't invade Fort de France then the USA will provide us with immediate credit worth 125 MPPs, though the US may later seize the gold and ships for themselves. Shall we leave the gold for the US Government to seize (YES) or shall we invade Fort de France (NO)? * * * This really is just an option for the UK to seize and the line describing that the US may later seize the Gold is more or less a 'red herring'. If you look at the User Manual and specifically Appendix A, it describes in detail the pros and cons of each decision as well as how it may affect future decisions etc. In the meantime we'll consider revising the text so it is a bit more straightforward. Hubert

It is dependent on how far into the USSR German units advance and these advances are then tied into key strategic areas. If you take a look at the UNIT script for the campaign you'll find an event titled USSR Transfers Siberian Troops and all the details are found in there. Hope this helps, Hubert EDIT: Oops, didn't see that Bill already responded!

From what I remember it is a Germany or UK option, the US is not a part of these decisions so nothing will fire in their favour. Hope this helps, Hubert

It would be any plans that the US might have for the DEI which I believe is an attack on Batavia. If the DEI is neutral in game at that point then the engine for the AI automatically handles the DoW as it is not necessary to add any special scripting for that.

Thanks SeaMonkey and my back is much better... I'd say at least at 90% of my original form which is a good thing, especially if I need to get cracking on more games for the future

I find it interesting how someone can have such a strong opinion of a game that he has never actually played, but then again I guess it's not really much of a surprise because Les seems to pop in like clockwork to say his piece every time we release a new SC game.

Thanks Xwormwood and we are definitely glad to have you back on board the SC train