Hubert Cater

Unfortunately if you change the map you will have to change/edit all the other layers as well such as unit positions and script positions as these would likely have changed as well. Essentially you can re-use what is in another map but you have to do some manual adjusting if for example Alexandria was located at 99,30 on the old map but is now located at 120,45 sort of thing.

I took another look and my apologies as I can see that the end turn summary does indeed show 'Allies Declare War On Italy' but on the AI turn it was the 'Egypt Declare War On Italy' message instead. At least this narrows it down and like I mentioned you'll likely have to double check one of the Egyptian OFFENSIVE scripts to see which one is being used for an attack on Italian territory. Hubert

Ok I looked at the file and I can see now why I couldn't find it because it was on my end not 'Allies DoW on Italy' but 'Egypt Dow on Italy'. This is why I needed the exact message as I just couldn't see how you would get the message 'Allies DoW on Italy' because it is always a country initiative when it is the AI unless it is a regular event script where someone could use the 'Allies' string instead, but of course that string doesn't exist in the Storm of Steel event files. Now for your mod, because I don't have the original campaign, it might say something else for 'Egypt' as you might have modded the Egyptian country slot to represent another country etc. Basically this is an offensive script of some kind kicking off for the Egyptian country slot. I would take a look there and see if there is one for an attack on Tobruk or something similar and you can turn that off if it applies. Hope this helps, Hubert

Can you send me a turn for right before the Allies Declare War on Italy as I just can't see it in the scripts either. Send to support@furysoftware.com Hubert

There are penalties for entering into tiles adjacent enemy units and if you have low supply and as a result low AP then your movement might indeed be limited.

Hi SeaMonkey, AA should always fire if applicable, can you send me a turn so I can take a look? Send to support@furysoftware.com Thanks, Hubert

How do you know the Allies Declared War on Italy then? Or is it just the case that Italy entered the war?

Hehe... true but I think the problem is if the sub then gets stuck there. Another issue is if it gets stuck under permanent ice as some maps might have those. I'll have to take a closer look when there is more time to apply the appropriate solution. Hubert

What is the 'exact' message you are receiving?

Hi Rusty Gear,

No that is Ok, I should be able to correct this behaviour, thanks!

I should add that if you hit the '~' key it will show you a list of AI plans and you can double check here and see if there is an Allied plan for a city inside Italy as this will create a DoW. Is it just a generic Allies DoW Italy or UK DoW's Italy? If it is generic then it is likely an event that is causing this and not a scripted AI plan.

Ok I misunderstood as I was thinking about how Italy will DoW the Allies. If the Allies are DoWing Italy then I would take a look for perhaps an Offensive event or Amphibious event where the Allies are staging for an attack against Italy as once the #BUILD_UP phase is completed the engine will automatically handle the DoW.

Sounds like you are having some good games there Sea Monkey, glad you are enjoying them

Baron, Just to clarify, did the Soviet sub then get stuck under the ice cap? If so then this is agreeably an undesirable side effect of the dive feature where I would then have to make sure it cannot dive under the ice. Hubert

Hi Robby1, The US navy should be sending a naval escort to protect these transports but it might have been thrown off if you managed to sink much of the US fleet already. Is this possibly the case? Hubert

Once any major reaches 90% activation it will automatically enter the war. I would take a look at the activation scripts as these will tell you when Italy is likely to prepare for war.

Hi Kaiser, 1 and 2 would not be issues in the new Global Conflict release as both are possible and I like the idea for 3 but I'd have to think about how to script this properly as I am not sure if the conditions would easily allow for this type of flexibility. 4 is a good idea as well and 5 and 6 won't apply either as the start date for the main Global campaign is September 1st, 1939. Hubert

Hi Rain Dog, Yes it handles pretty much any resolution equal to and above 1024x768 and I can confirm that these two specifically are supported as I use them both in my testing. The game achieves this without stretching and as expected you will see much more of the map with any of the higher widescreen resolutions. Hope this helps, Hubert

Just to add, if you navigate to your SC installation folder and then click on that 'Compatibility Files' button it should take you to where the saved game files are stored. For play by email you would be looking for a PBEM folder.

Hi Flu, My guess is you are probably on Vista or Windows 7 with UAC enabled, correct? If this is the case please take a look at the following link as it helps to explain where your files are ending up. Unfortunately the new Microsoft OS is very protective of where files are placed on that system and it automatically moves them to a virtual folder in this case: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/VistasShowCompatibilityFilesAndTheScrumptiousWonderThatIsFileVirtualization.aspx Hubert

I essentially agree and one of the reasons why I'll look to see if it can be added in for down the road.

Paul, Not a wasted discussion at all and I think I have a better picture of what you might be after. In fact I'd definitely say, hypothetically speaking of course , that if we were to introduce a divisional sized map the need for a Garrison type unit would make a lot more sense In the end and when looking at a larger map a simple Garrison type, much like Cantona66 is suggesting, might just do the trick and I can actually see the fit there. I know I've mentioned this before but seeing as we are only weeks away once everyone has a closer look at Global I think my hesitation to include it in this game will make a lot more sense as the scale is significantly different than previous releases as well as much smaller than a proper divisional sized map would be.

The stats and cost would still have to depend on whether this unit would be upgradable like a Corps would be. For example, even if you had the Soft and Tank attack values at 0 and all the defense values at 0 and applied two level-2 upgrades, i.e. one for Anti-Tank and Infantry Weapons, you now have SA/TA=2 and SD/TD=2 which is better than a Level-0 Corps at a cheaper price then a Level-0 Corps. For example a Corps is 100MPP and even if you use the higher cost of 75 for a Division it would still come out to under the 100MPP, i.e. 75 + 15 + 7.5 = 97.5 for a unit better than a default Corps.

Partisan units I think serve the purpose they are mean to reflect in game well enough, i.e. they can be a nuisance and their stats reflect that with respect to the other units in the game. When you start hypothetically comparing it, or other units, to a new unit type like a division then some of the existing stats may no longer make sense but that is of course only if you add the new unit type. Otherwise as it stands I would argue the existing relationship between units such as an HQ, Corps, Partisans and so on is not broken and for the most part makes sense, whereas it might be once you try and squeeze another unit in there. That alone would be reason enough for me (from a design point of view) to avoid a new unit type unless it was absolutely necessary because it is a real pain to retest (and reset combat values for something that has been fine tuned over 9 years) only to find out it may or may not work in the end. In that vein, and just being perfectly honest based on the discussion so far, I'd have to say that I'm really not sold on the idea of adding in a divisional size unit for this game, especially for the scale we are using for Global. To me having a unit marginally less effective than a Corps does not make the game more attractive considering that the Corps is already pretty weak relative to the stronger units such as Armies and Tanks. I see the Corps already fulfilling the role you would be after with the divisional sized unit but granted perhaps that is just me. I think if we were talking about a much bigger map then there might be more merit but I think once you get a closer look at the scale of the Global map you might even agree. I'd actually be interested to hear your opinion again on this when we reach that point. That being said it does brings me back to the original suggestion which was simply to have a Garrison unit to protect open cities from enemy units from simply grabbing them. If we were to introduce a real basic unit as Rannug suggests which would literally have no attack and defense to speak of and basically would only be there to prevent enemy units from walking into an open city I can see this as being a better fit. Problem I see is that if the Garrison unit is too strong then it is not much different from a Corps (which brings me back to my original point), but if it is too weak then we can almost argue "what is the point" sort of thing. I would envision something along the lines of what xwormwood suggests where we can opt for a Garrison upgrade for a resource and the benefit of this would be to prevent actual Garrison units running all over the map, i.e. they would be stationary for that resource only and the end result would be that you no longer have your open cities but you still have to spend some MPP to Garrison the desired resources. Otherwise you can always simply place a regular unit in its place much like what we already have. The role of the Garrison unit would be to pretty much block the taking of an open resource but a single attack would knock it out, i.e. a resource can be taken in two turns by a single enemy unit (if the resource is not subsequently re-defended) or by two units in a single turn where the first unit knocks out the Garrison and the second unit moves in. This would also resolve the issue of having to use regular units for Garrison duties but the number of Corps would still likely have to be reduced to compensate for the difference new Garrison units now represent. Again such a weak Garrison may not be desirable either and in this case it could be an actual unit such as Rannug suggests with a max reinforcement of 5 and identical stats to an HQ. This may prevent a low supply unit from taking out let's say a Garrison on a two tile island where they would still have to land in force but can expect an easier go than if the the island were actually held by a full fledged unit. Cost would still have to be worked out and how to deal with swapping out a Garrison unit with a regular map unit might also be an issue if we are not allowing movable Garrison units. Would you have to disband the Garrison first? Would moving in simply remove the existing Garrison or would it always be there and if so are we talking about some sort of stacking etc.? This would all have to be considered as well. Hubert