xwormwood

The answer is easy: the sub near the harbor has to move into the battle while the other ones are already in position, dived to persicope depth, waiting for prey... Subs lose effctiveness if they move. In a sub pack not all subs will find the target, not all we be able to get into attack postion. Only unmoved subs attack with full strength. They are ready as can be to attack their victim.

4. Click on the unit you want to move. Press and keep holding down the SHIFT key. Move the mouse cursor on the on the unit you want to switch with. The cursor should change into an arrow symbol. Click on the unit you want to switch with. Done. 5. If i remember correctly you have to press down the SHIFT key once more to recon without moving. 6. Move the mouse cursor over the research tech. A pop up should appear, telling you the requested info about your current progress.

The solution is probably the same as in all tricky cases: contact the helpdesk

Thanks Bill!

Maybe a different sprite set would do the trick. While at high sea the standard transport icon (or a slightly modified one to recongnize the difference between regular transports), while next to enemy shores it could change into the already known amphib icon? After all, you can't simply decide to grant a standard troop transport amphib vessels. Either they are on board or they are not.

Hi Wodin. No fear, the WW1 game is the real deal here. The WW1 engine works smoothly and is not, i repeat not, a WW2 engine on steroids. Its more like two game engines under one common hood. No compromise. You will get from moving warfare into trench warfare, and it will play and feel authentical. The additional WW2 engine is more or less a VERY generous free goodie for all those gamers who like to see all those great new game mechanics in a WW2 game, too. I really love the WW1 game. It is not a streched WW1 mod for a WW2 engine. It is unique, it works great, it is really that good. I own from Matrix the Guns of August WW1 game. A game which i tried to play at least three times and stopped because of the terrible game interface. SC WW1 is different. You get easily into the mechanics. It has a very nice manual. I always wanted a computer game about WW1 which would make me forget Ted Raicers "The Great War in Europe", a mini monster board game with over 1000 counters, and a real play time of appr. one week. SC WW1 is finally (FINALLY, thank God!) this computer game about WW1 which i was hoping for. Nothing is perfect, nothing will ever be. But SC WW1 is very close, and knowing Hubert and Bill it will get further ideas and improvements over the years, too, just like all Furysoft games always did.

HI Sapare. Global Conflict has a big plus: the entire world map. That means that you decide where to go, what to do. Keep the UK navy near the British Isles, or send them toward Singapoore? Should the USA stay with "Germany first", or should the Japanese campaign be more important? WW1 is a brilliant game. And so is Global Conflict, even more with the upcoming expansion. It is really nice to think global. And there are some brilliant "what if" campaigns in the new expansion, which should give all players, espacially when playing against the AI, great fun, many new situations, decision, etc. You can't truly compare a WW1 game against a WW2 game, neither a "only europe" map with a global map. Personally i don't want to ever play a WW2 game with only a single theater of operation map (only europe, or only the pacific). It feels like a cheap version of what could be (and is within Global Combat). Just as an eye opener: take a look at this link, where you can see the entire map, pasted together into one large picture (39MB): In WW1 i can live with an european map, as there wasn't so very much global action. In my opinion SC Global Conflict (even without the upcoming Gold expansion) and SC WW1 are the best easy to learn / play / enjoy round strategy games ever. And i played my fair share since Storm accross Europe, Clash of Steel, Third Reich, etc., etc.). I hope this helps at least a bit.

As far as i know SC only uses one core = no multicore support.

This way you could still hunt for hidden subs: "is it here? move. Oh, nothing here. Next try. Is it here? move. no, not here to. But maybe it is here. Move - hit - combat. Move in the next destroyers..."

Some after action pictures.

Moin, moin!

I like the direction of your suggestion, Ludi1867. Maybe a couple of new Decision Events could help. Asking the players with low NM to offer peace talks. And if the other side denies, than the asking country could get a little NM bonus. Or asking the player to beg for peace talks (just like the CP powers finaly did) or to win the game in x turns, ignoring NM for all countries from this point on (last offensive, high gamble for ultimate victory or unconditional surrender). All in all it would at least feel better to lose a game if the player would get like a dozen of historical pictures, speeches or text information once he reaches dangerous low NM values (Reichstag demands the end of the bloody war, General xyz got shot by unknown people while visiting his home town). Anything would help, that makes you understand that the ship will soon sink, the house is on fire, the end of everything you have known is ahead. A to sudden game end feels not right, you remain puzzled, maybe even feeling a bit betrayed. On the other hand, well, i guess thats what many germans felt when their leaders asked for an armistice while still stand far into their enemies countries.

Bill, thanks for the insight. Maybe i need to explain my point a bit more. What i imagine is a decision event that offers something that has no real chance to succeed. A decision event that challenges the player with a situation, where he can only lose, or at best keep what he already has. (Card driven) Board games use this system quite well and successful. The event asks the player to follow an order or to suffer the consequences. Usually these events occur when your opponent plays an event, and you have to follow the event, or face the punishment for not doing so. Or there are other events which you yourself play, because you want to get access to other events which wouldn't come into play it the first event wasn't played. Right now SC offers players more or less only events like "turn left or continue" or "turn right or continue". What i would like to see is an event that offers me nothing, but forces my opponent to turn left or get punished (and vice versa) me a very hopless (but still existing) chance, and if denied (the event), a punishment me a very hopless (but still existing) chance, and if denied, the loss of a future decision event, that would only appear if i ate the frog (said yes to the hopless chance) me nothing, but taking away a DE of my opponent me something instantly pretty helpfull, like a NM boost, or a crack unit, or better supply for x turns), but taking away future good DE me something instantly pretty helpfull, like a new unit upgrade like infanty --> storm troopers, combined with a change in the victory conditions, like " if you upgrade you have to win by may 1918 or you will lose the game". Another option could be that freely upgrade units could have repair or repurchase restrictions.In short: more and different kinds of DE (and all mentioned examples are only that: examples) But again: sorry for this post, it has nothing to do with game balance. To those who ask for better supply in the Sinai or Mesopotamia, i would suggest DE like which allow to build water pipelines, tracks or roads once a player holds certain key villages or cities. If he pays for the DE and holds the key points he could receive better supply in one or more places on the map. If he looses one of the key points during construction he could get the DE once more after he holds all nescessary key points again. Alternatively (again, nothing to do with game balance), the player could get instead an immobilized HQs in one of the key points, with no HQ rating, but with a better supply value. Once destroyed, the DE should reapear. I'm no friend of free / scripted units, but i guess thats nothing new.

Well, this has nothing to do with game balance, i guess, but anyway: I completly agree. And i would even go one step further ahead. All HISTORICAL oparations should be offered in a decison event (many already are, like the zimmermann telegram), even the not so clever ones or the disasterous ones. Together with a sweet but somehow poisenous incentive. The player should be tempted to do as his historical counterparts did, to repeat their mistakes. He should have have the freedom not to do so, but he should be tempted to walk on dangerous streets. What about a NM bonus for invading gallipolli? And a NM morale malus for withdrawing to soon? Or a unit morale malus if certain naval tiles are not held by Entente war ships (during the gallipolli invasion)? When it comes to Iraq, why not give the Entente better supply or movement IF they have done the Gallipolli invasion? Or the Turks could receive somewhere of for some time less supply because of the entente Gallipolli invasion.

Uhm, you made millions (btw., in which currency, by any chance somalian shilling?) but you still bother about lousy 25$ for an upgrade filled with tons of new campaigns & enormous improvements in the game mechanics? And even better, you think that offering help in the user forum is the best way to start a business relation? :confused::eek::confused:

Pz II had an (obsolete) 20 mm cannon, the Pz I had two machine guns. And even the Pz 3 or the 38t Czech tanks had only 37 mm guns, which had no good results against the french heavy tanks. Only the 8,8 Flak, Stukas or Artillery fire could help the germans against the French Char Bs or the British Mathilda II tanks.

At least 3 sides would be nice, just like the USSR, which had its own agenda. First siding with Nazi-Germany, than siding with the Allies, and than starting the cold war.

Clash of Steel (SSI) had this feature. It was a very nice one, as you could change the sides once you had more or less beaten the AI, trying to turn the tide of war. I'm hoping and asking for this feature since the very first Strategic Command game. Maybe somewhere down the road Hubert will have time, interest and possibilties to introduce this feature.

I actually play still both games, love them both. To get the real WW2 deal i would still recommend SC Global Conflict, as you can play the COMPLETE WW2. But on the other hand the WW1 game is a blast, it is really that good. You will stay away from all WW2 games for a while once you started the WW1 game. later you can play the WW2 campaign, too (even though it is "only" the ETO).

Uhm, well, sounds pretty normal and right in my ears. What else do you espect when you replace losses? Experienced, or elite reinforcements could only come from another units. But that is not possible in SC, even though i agree that this would be a nice feature- a force pool for green units, experienced units and elite units. Jagged Alliance 2 had a similar concept: when you trained the militia you could shift experienced, elite and regular units between a town sector. This way it was possible to replace lost elite fighters: by weaking other sectors, which got green units as a replacement.

ricroma, did you enable the hardware acceleration option or not? As far as i remember you get the option to activate when you install(ed) the game during the first start of the game (when you chose the resolution). This is a very important option so you should really check it.

I presume they had a rough but good idea about what dangers were ahead of them. This explains why they took so much land from the Russians (like in "what can they do about it, hahaha").

I use Win7 64bit too, and my copmuter don't suffers under the described lag. Do you have hardware acceleration already enabled?

It was only a necessity do make the russians sign the peace treaty of brest litovsk / to fullfill all the german High Commands annexationist ambitions in the east. With Russia fighting out its own civil war, there was not much to fear from the east for the Germans.

Yes, you are right, they didn't trusted the bolsheviks. But there was no danger that a bolshevik army would anytime soon start a new war against Germany. Just look at the picture (source: wikipedia): the pink area, that is THE GREED. If Germany had stayed out of it it would have had hundred of thousends men for the west. The Germans occupied these territories AFTER the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk: Imagine what would have happend if the germans had stopped at the armistice front line, or even behind it. That would have been possible if the germans would have stayed reasonable. But they didn't. Thats why i don't like the now discussed demand for a need of strong german garrissons in the east. As i already wrote: seduce me as a human player with a decision event to become greedy. Offer me something so that i have to think long about what to do: get soldiers out of the east or keep them in the east. But if i decide to grab for more russian soil, than i would prefer a solution where i have to move my units manually into the east. Example: every Ukrainian city i move into could generate some CP NM. To keep the NM one would have to garrission the city after the conquerest. Every garrissoned city could generate each turn a chance for bolshevik propaganda. If propaganda chance hit, the CP income could be affected. And once the income of the CP falls below a certain amount, they could surrender (this way the income could become a second NM value after the treaty of Brest-Litovsk). Or, another approach, it could affect the CP treasury. Every hit reduces the cash of the CP for a certain amount. If the CP fail to keep lets say 200 mpp in the treasury, they surrender. In this case the CP should get cash out of occupying the ukrainian cities and towns (garrisson to keep the money). Every game turn the nescessary cash amount to avoid instant surrender could rise. This way the CP could spent less and less on new units once they said yes to the poisenous seduction (go into the Ukraine). Well, that were just some ideas. Probably not the best. But i would prefer a model like described better than a scripted event.