Hubert Cater

With every release, in the SC installation directory, there is a folder called 'Extras'. In there you will find some handy items to help Edit the game as well as some alternate bitmaps, sounds (if applicable) and even some docs on how SC works behind the scenes.

Having the AI run a given country is now more of a possibility due to some of the internal coding changes I've made over the years but other than that the finer details still haven't been worked out on my end.

To clarify, changing the map size does just that, i.e. it just changes the dimensions of the map but after that you would have to pretty much redo everything in order to fill in the empty space otherwise you either have the original map in the top left corner (if you made the dimensions larger), or you would have cut off portions of the map if you made the dimensions smaller. Basically it doesn't scale, i.e. you have to do the work of map making all over again but there are some handy guides/tools in the Extras folder that can auto generate maps of varying sizes. These have been around since the first Blitzkrieg release and most modders end up using them as doing the maps by hand can be quite tedious. Hubert

First I should clarify my example above as being one of a Corps vs Corps attack and defense but in Nupremal's example it might look something like this: Attacker (Tactical Bomber) = Soft Attack 2 Defender (Corps) = Bomber Defense 1 Now let's say the Tactical Bomber has Anti-Tank Level-1 applied the attack and defense values would look as follows: Attacker (Tactical Bomber) = SA 2 + 1 = 3 Defender (Corps) = BD 1 Nupremal is right in the sense that as there is no research level that can be applied to a Corps that will increase the Bomber Defense value so there is an imbalance but this has always existed and is outside of the scope of the new combat changes, i.e. if we were to add a research level of some type to increase the Bomber Defense value of Corps then the new changes would also apply. In terms of the imbalance it is a tough call as we then run the potential of Soft Targets like Corps becoming too powerful in their defense to air attacks and the preference was simply to leave air defense to Fighters and Anti-Aircraft units where applicable, i.e. maintain the importance of having these units in your arsenal etc. For another example, let's have a Tank attack an Army: Attacker (Tank) = SA 4 Defender (Army) = TD 2 In the old system if we had the Tank at Level-3 Heavy Tank attacking an Army at Level-1 Anti-Tank combat values would look like the following: Attacker (Tank) = SA 4 + 3 = 7 Defender (Army) = TD 2 + 1 = 3 In the new system it would be as follows since there is a difference of 2 between applicable research levels: Attacker (Tank) = SA 4 + 2 = 6 Defender (Army) = TD 2 + 0 = 2 Hubert

Another item for consideration is that sometimes, and purely in game play terms, losses are not a bad thing. For example, we've considered only morale or readiness type losses from air attacks but in game terms this may not be desirable as it can possibly lead to a stalemate, not only on the map but also in terms of not having to spend MPPs to reinforce or rebuild. As a player if you are again not forced to make tough decisions, and in this case on how to spend your MPPs, then it can unbalance the game in other areas. Regarding the random high losses from coastal landings, I think it reasonably represents one of those unknowns in war where a unit can take unexpectedly high losses in a high risk situation, think Dieppe or even D-Day where there was a fear the Americans might have lost Omaha after taking high casualties in the first few hours. If the game only represented this with a single point loss or no losses I'm not sure it would work to recreate that angst that existed in the High Command during some of these operations, especially in the early hours of operation. Nice thing is that if the landings are somewhat successful, i.e. supply location is taken or a friendly HQ is able to land these initial losses can quickly be reinforced much as it happened in real life. Now granted I realize not everyone likes this and as mentioned in another thread I will look into making this editable after the initial release. Hubert

It's not a bad idea and I think once the game is released and played a bit everyone will get a better picture of how things have changed and what might be suitable or even needed and we can go from there. I only suggest this as it is hard to compare this release to previous releases until it is actually played out as some items such as the scale seem to make a bit of a difference this time out.

Oops! Just so I don't get into trouble here perhaps I should have just said it would be nice to leave some surprises for when the game is released and not give away every detail, good or bad, included or not included etc. Sorry about that... especially knowing my own history of uses of the winkie

The way it works is it will work to cancel out any differences research may have applied to improve a unit, but it still works only with the applicable combat target types. For example, Corps have a 'Soft' type so when they are attacked the attacker is attacking the Corps with the 'Soft Attack' value and the defender is defending with the 'Soft Defense' value. If for any reason there is applicable research that has improved the Soft Attack value for the attacker and the Soft Defense value for the defender then the difference between these improvements is canceled out. So let's say we have a Attacker and Defender with the following default 'Soft' values: Attacker = SA 2 Defender = SD 2 Now let's say the attacker has had some research that improves their SA value by 2 points and the defender has some research that improves its SD value by 1. In previous releases combat calculations would be calculated with the following improved values: Attacker = SA 2 + 2 = 4 Defender = SD 2 + 1 = 3 In this release since there is only the difference of 1 between the improvement levels between the attacker and the defender the resulting combat would be as follows: Attacker = SA 2 + 1 = 3 Defender = SD 2 + 0 = 2 Essentially it looks for the difference whenever applicable and uses that value to calculate the difference in combat from research level improvements. Hope this helps, Hubert

Armuss for the most part it is but there have been a few changes as well as some new dialog windows so it is not a complete transfer from PDE, but it looks like Bill has already done this for his mod so once you get your hands on that it should be pretty straightforward.

I can't give away all the surprises now can I? To be honest we are actually quite pleased with the response this campaign has received in the forums and personally I'm actually enjoying the comments on how it might play out. Some of you are spot on Hubert

If they are not showing up in game likely they are not compatible with the game you installed them for. I would check the version numbers for the campaigns to ensure they are compatible with the latest version of the game and to make sure they are for the correct game. For example a campaign designed for the Pacific Theater release will not be compatible with the Weapons and Warfare release and so on. Alternatively if you are on Vista or Windows 7 take a look at this link as it might have to do with Compatibility Files: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/VistasShowCompatibilityFilesAndTheScrumptiousWonderThatIsFileVirtualization.aspx In this case you will have to click on the Compatibility Files button and then place the campaigns inside this virtual folder inside the applicable 'Campaigns' folder. Let me know if you get it working and I hope this helps, Hubert

Japan will indeed be at war with China and in terms of military and economic value we've done our best to mimic her historical situation at that time, i.e. strong enough to maintain the front with China and strong enough to expand her war as she sees fit. However, Japan must also keep in mind that she may eventually be at war with the UK and USA as well as the fact that vital resources such as oil from the US as well as from the Dutch East Indies will not be there forever. Essentially and while Japan can be played quite openly, there is also every reason for her to be played historically as well since we've tried to replicate the external pressures on her as much as possible. Think of it along the lines of how Germany must eventually face the USSR one way or another, Japan too must face her potential resource shortages as well as the US at some point as well. As I mentioned in another thread, playing Japan just right is a game in itself Hubert

Hi Borsook, Unfortunately we never got around to making any changes to the research system, something I am still considering though when the timing is better, but to answer your other questions it is still an Axis vs Allied game so only 2 for multiplayer and no official 1936 campaign for the initial release. Hubert

Hi Armuss, Global Conflict will have a similar interface as PDE and PT. Hubert

Good points and to be honest, and even though the difficulties that the Germans had when getting into the USSR are well known, for game play reasons, we'll just keep the straightforward implementation for now. The reduction of supply and reduction of roads in the USSR are there to sort of compensate for the rail reality so to speak.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the current implementation is the right one or the wrong one, rather that for the most part it seems to work well. Granted not everyone agrees with that assessment and that is fair enough. But in its defense and specifically to my reference of how it is a numbers game, let me give you a game play example... right now with how Partisans are modeled, especially in Russia, you need to have rear guard units to cover these positions. Now these can be covered by any unit type and in most games, they are covered by Corps. This works well because as the German player they are only able to build so many Corps in game and as you expand you need to make the difficult choices on where you place these assets throughout the map, i.e. place them in cities, on the front line or in Partisan areas. Once you over expand you have to start making the difficult decisions such as do I leave this city unprotected? or do I use another unit type? or do I leave some partisan areas vacant? and so on. The essence of all of this is to recreate the high command division of assets and the difficulty in dealing with an ever expanding empire so to speak. Now if we introduce Garrison units, for gameplay reasons, I would like to keep this strain on an occupying force intact. So if we offer more Garrison units to the player my preference would be to then reduce the number of Corps builds to compensate as otherwise it is easy to just cover all areas as needed and not feel the need to make any tough decisions. In the end, at least when we were designing, the option of adding in Garrison units and making the necessary numbers adjustments began to feel like more of the same in terms of what we already had in place. Sure, Garrison units would be weaker and this may be more desirable but in essence you would be weakening your forces overall if we started to remove Corps to keep the numbers about the same. That has to be considered as well. Now if on the other hand you want to keep it all the same but just add in Garrison units then it is of course not a numbers game anymore but we felt this was not as desirable either for the reasons described above where you no longer feel the need to make the tough decisions. It's a tough call either way but like I said with what we wanted to achieve game play wise, we felt the current system worked out well enough. Hubert

Actually, while this is still a random event, unfortunately the data is still hard coded and cannot be edited. I'll look into adding this to the Editor for after the initial release.

English Battlefront versions only.

There is a good writeup on this in the User Manual and I'd give you the page but I'm not sure which game you are referring to. Either way it should not be hard to find. Hubert

Keep in mind that as much as I would like to answer every question on the forums in a timely manner, often and especially now as we wrap the game up, I sometimes only get the chance for a few questions here and there but I do try and get back to all of them eventually. Not much I can do about that as I am still mostly a one man show That being said, the 20-40% landing is still a part of Global Conflict and primarily for the reason that it only occurs upon contested territory, i.e. territory that is not currently considered friendly. This could represent having to land on rough terrain in enemy territory, i.e. a less than ideal beachhead, and/or rear guard defenses in place such as pill boxes that can still inflict some damage on a landing force etc. Supply is also similar but there have been some significant improvements to the AI, as with all releases, and one of them was to improve AI attack calculations as noted. Hubert

None taken as I already mentioned it plays out differently (for the most part) in Strategic Command Global Conflict

Ok, new hotfix has just been put together and this should correct your issue, it can be downloaded from here: http://www.battlefront.com/u.php?520700608 Hubert

At this scale, having Garrison units would likely provide too much clutter for the map as we've already scaled down some of the other available units for this release etc. Garrison units in general can always be included but since it is generally a numbers game something else would have to give, i.e. if you no longer have to rearguard with a Corps or another similar unit, then we'd just have to lower the available builds for other types of units available for purchase now that Garrison units are available. Essentially the end result would be the same so we've just left it as is for now.

Thanks for the feedback and while it is difficult to say what is going to happen down the road with any certainty we are always looking at ways to improve the game and/or provide new options to enhance the game. Divisional level map is certainly possible with this release due to the increased map size and especially so if you focus on a single Theater, but of course there are limitations until programming is ever adjusted to fully incorporate what you describe above. Hubert

Hi Yolo911, I believe we adjusted the stats slightly but in addition I can safely say that the new combat calculations that take into account similar research levels will make a big difference as combat losses between similarly upgraded units are significantly reduced. However, high experience will still make a difference between units that have little experience but from what I have heard in testing what you describe above is not really an issue, i.e. relative to what it was in previous releases. Hubert