Ottosmops

It seems that some information can leak through FOW. Start "Fall Weserübung" as Axis with FOW on. Move the mouse cursor to tile 66,6. In the information field at the top left of the screen you will see 'sea'. Then go south to 66,7. Now the info field will be empty. It is always empty when an enemy unit is there. This seems to work for land units also, but only for 'clear' tiles, not for rivers, mountains, etc.

Right click your air fleet, select "Set Mode" from the menue. There you can choose between Auto Intercept Escort Ground

I'm still not completely convinced. Even if these corners are square kilometers, these supply convoys use streets. The north-south route and the west-east route cross somewhere. Will they peacefully drive past each other? :confused:

If supply can flow through the corners of the tiles ( I don't know if this is possible :confused: ), the following situation could arise: Imagine an allied HQ and south of it another allied unit. South west of the allied HQ is an axis HQ and east of this is an axis unit. The supply lines would cross each other. Maybe supply should flow only through the edges of the tiles.

I had a similar case. I played Fall Weserübung as Allies with FOW on. On my first turn I loaded the French Syrian Corps on a transport and moved it to the west. When it tried to pass north of Tobruk it stopped and the message "Enemy contact" popped up. The Italian Cruiser in the port of Tobruk had stopped my transport. Italy was not yet at war with France. It would be nice if one could continue to move after a contact with a previous hidden neutral ship.

My first idea for improving the interface: Make more hotkeys. Example: When I only want to check the war readiness numbers I have to make 5 mouse clicks. Ideally would be the following: Press hotkey - check numbers - press the same key again (or Esc) to close the window. But it is a good sign when people have nothing more to complain than the number of mouse clicks

@ H.J. von Arnim I didn't say there are no such problems. But compare the rate of violence motivated by racial/political/religious reasons here in Austria with other countries, say France, UK, USA, Russia, former Yugoslavia, Israel, Irak. I guess our country wouldn't come off badly.

@hellraiser Neo-nazi activities are very low here in Austria, because of our severe law. A few weeks ago, the British author David Irving was sentenced to three years imprisonment for denying the Holocaust. In another case, a former MP of the second chamber of the Austrian parliament, John Gudenus, will have to stand trial because he doubted the existence of gas chambers in Germany. Concerning the World Soccer Championship I'm quite sure there will be no major security problems. Certainly, such events attract idiots like hooligans, neo-nazis and terrorists, but the German police will handle them properly. :cool: And I hope, the American team will get over the preliminary rounds, so that the right way to play football will become more popular in the USA.

Revenge is sweet. Next time, Angie Merkel will kick Rambo's ass. The masses are already marching through Berlin, shouting: "Ein Volk, ein Reich, eine Fuehrerin!"

Release date was yesterday. But why do they need 6 weeks to ship the game from Canada to Europe?

The devil has other guys to care for. :cool: Is Rambo a frequent name in Idaho? :confused:

DD You shouldn't feel sad, because someone has critizised your creative style of writing. I must confess that it is sometimes not easy to understand everything, at least for a foreigner, but ... why should we expect to understand everything? I want to say 'Thank You' to you and the other playtesters for putting so much time and effort in this game. Your posts are always polite, informative and entertaining in the best sense. Please keep it up. As a wise man once said:

SB 25 years ago intelligent people said that a chess programm will never beat a grandmaster. Nowadays they can play as strong as the best humans. IMHO it is only a question of time and how many ressources are invested until the AI can beat humans in complex games like SC. A few weeks ago I read an interesting book on this topic: Hierarchical Bayesian Optimization Algorithm by Martin Pelikan But certainly it will last still a few years from now until such Evolutionary Algorithms will be applied to computer games.

My favorite Germans (Austrians and Swiss included), no particular order Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Ludwig van Beethoven Carl Friedrich Gauss Leonhard Euler Karl R. Popper Ludwig Wittgenstein and my favorite Americans (Canada included) Hubert Cater Donald E. Knuth Robert J. Fischer JerseyJohn Condoleezza Rice Rambo

Sorry for my previous post. The solution is wrong. I shouldn't try such things when I drink alcohol.

I will try it: a = speed of the column b = speed of the soldier c = distance d = time c = 2 * b * b / ( b * b - a * a ) d = 2 * b / ( b * b - a * a ) Example: a = 3 mph b = 5 mph c = 3.125 miles d = 0.625 hours ( 37.5 minutes ) The column marched 1.875 miles in this time. I hope that I am not completely wrong, because I drank a glass of wine, and I do this rarely.

DD I agree. But when long range Tech becomes researched to level 5, simulating the B-17 with its range of 2500 miles, how can such a bomber unit keep its good NA values? Here is my proposal: (Bombers / AF) SA = __2 / 2 TA = __2 / 2 NA = _*4 / 4 RA = __4 / 1 CA = _*4 / 4 UA = **4 / 4 NA and CA for bombers (marked *) should be reduced to 1 if the target is out of range for most bombers, i.e. more than 2000 miles away. (2000 miles or whatever the range of the best dive bomber or torpedo planes may be. ) UA should become 3 in this case. I think bomber units and Air Fleets should have mostly the same aircraft. (2/3) The last 1/3 of the AFs are the fighters and the last 1/3 of the bomber units are the largest planes available at this time.

Let's assume, that in a bomber unit are different kinds of planes, like short range dive bombers, medium range two engine bombers and long range four engine bombers. But even then not a single plane can fly 2000 miles, attack a ship effektively as a dive bomber and return safely to its base. One solution would be, to reduce the attack value according to the distance of the target. If the target is farther away than the strike range of an air fleet, the attack value could be reduced by 50%, simulating that only the long range aircraft can participate in this attack. And yes, I know, such an ad hoc solution would be a horror for the programmer of the game. :eek:

Desert Dave wrote JerseyJohn wrote Edwin P. wrote Shouldn't the attack values of the bombers and air fleets be larger then the defense values of the ships? :confused: Otherwise it would be unreasonable to attack naval targets with aircraft, considering the loss of MPPs. Of course I don't know the costs of the units, and I assume all other values, such as strength, readiness and experience to be equal.

@ Rambo Thank you for the link. It's useful for me to learn english and history at the same time. I think the japanese economy is nearly twice as large as germanys. So Japan is #2 and Germany #3. "Ich bin eine Legende" would JFK say if he were still alive.

Although they forgot to mention Austria as a German speaking country, and though I already own the English version of SC, I will buy the German version as soon as it appears. But please, Hubert and Battlefront, don't make a “cleansed” German version. As I know from other games, the publishers of German versions sometimes eliminate the historical names of German leaders. I don't like to see Generals “Rammel” and “Mondstein” in SC!

I find strategic bombers useful to attack strongly entrenched ground units in preparation of a ground attack, because they reduce entrenchment by two points. Also the damage to the attacker done by the defending ground unit and the intercepting enemy air fleet is divided between the bombers and the escorting air fleet, which is not the case, when you attack with an air fleet alone.

A HQ within the supply-radius of a city has a supply-value 10. If it moves only one hex out of it, its supply-value drops to 5. Wouldn’t it be more „realistic", to make this in a more steady way? For example: HQ_supply = supply_from_city + 5, with a maximum of 10 and a minimum of 5. Starting in a 10 point city, this would result in the following series: 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 5, ... Starting in a 5 point city would give: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 5, ... Or perhaps is there a point in the current system, which makes it preferable and which I overlooked?

The manual gives the formula Experience Point Losses = (reinforcement amount * Experience) / 10 but I think the program uses Experience Point Losses = (reinforcement amount * Experience) / max_strength wich is the same as Experience Points retained = Experience * (1 - (reinforcement amount / max_strength)) You can see that there is a difference, whether you reinforce a unit to its maximum strength at once or you reinforce it over several turns. Example 1: A unit with strength 2 reinforced to its maximum strength 10 keeps only 0.2 of its experience. Example 2: If you first reinforce it only to strength 6, it keeps 0.6 of its experience. In the next turn you can reinforce it to strength 10. This means the unit keeps 0.6 * 0.6 = 0.36 of its original experience. Conclusion: If one of your units has much experience and it becomes damaged to low strength, it is better to reinforce it step by step over several turns than to reinforce it in one turn to its maximum strength. Precondition is of course, that the unit has not to fight in the next turn. Does anyone already apply this idea in his games?