Major Spinello

Jeez, I couldn´t play the new version yet due to a continuing 60 hours/week workload. Dave: I do not have a bitmap of the National China flag, but if it helps: it should be the same as the one of modern Taiwan.

Thanks, Dave. I do not even know what Kuni means - I hear the word "cheese panzers" for the first time; I also never told anyone I designed anything around here (and I do not have contact via ICQ or email to anybody - I´m as isolated as can be.) So maybe he´s just mixing things up and taking me for someone else.

... and now France beat (a very lazy) Brazil - wouldn´t have bet on that before the world cup started, really. Chances for France to get into the finals rise sky-high all of a sudden. Germany or Italy - that´s 50/50 I´d say ...

Dave, you have really earned the break! And I´m looking forward to see the map "filled out" sometime in the future.

The metric system is only confusing if you are used to another one ... and it IS superior: inch, foot, miles, gallons etc would make for quite a mess in science, so even US scientists use the metric system. The Dollar bills should actually be revamped some time soon - compared to the new Euros they can be forged much too easily.

ROFL!!!!!

I also think that the Fins should be able to move more than 2 or 3 tiles away from Helsinki without getting stuck. Even the HQ is often just darn stuck. Well, I know the Fins REALLY didn´t move too much away from their border, but still - they do not even seem to master their OWN soil ...

I´m often quite frustrated about the many misunderstandings here, so I´m happy to read that in the meantime it at least got noticed that the complaint here was never about random weather as such, but about different weather during (what at least should be) the same turn (because it is ridiculous to assume that Axis and Allies would only move on alternating dates). I´m actually not altogether unhappy with the "editor"-hint. I didn´t know one could change that there actually. The other thing was the fear that this would give an advantage to the player who opens a turn. Like Rolend, I don´t think this is a big deal, but then: Clash of Steel had a concept called "initiative". At each turn, the side having the initiative would open the turn. I do not really remember how the formula for "initiative" was. However, it was a GREAT feature because if you got the initiative, you sometimes could move two impulses (sub-turns)in a row! Question: is there a way to alternate between which side opens a turn in the editor, too?

Oh ... your post came in between, Normal Dude. As I can´t really play until Sunday anyway, maybe I´ll just wait and see whether a newly "compiled" version is available then.

Same here, and the strange thing is that the folder with scripts is where it should be ... quick guess: maybe something is wrong with the name of the campaign folder ? Btw Dave it is really impressive how you draw those huge maps with all these details. The only downside of the new map is that now we have all this new terrain, it is sad to see those big chunks of "neutral" areas East of Novosibirsk and Siam. They somehow look much more detracting than the neutral zones in Africa.

Sounds great again, Dave! I´ll download the new version in a few moments. I´m looking forward to find out how the new AI scripts will effect the scenario. Unfortunately, I will be quite busy in the days to come (weekend included), so it may take longer than usual for me to report back with testing results. ...

Yes, having only seats for 6 majors is a quite severe limitation for modders, so I too hope that this number will be expanded later. Deep inside though, I fear that this might somehow be entangled with the rest of the code in such a way that it can´t be done without a major effort ...

After what DT explained to Sombra I think this discussion is a bit far-fetched. I have never seen anyone complain that he can´t "blitz every spot on the map". Also DT seems to think that there are just "Axis-only" and "Allies-only" players and that a large part of the first type is a bit juvenile, historically naive or biased. I rather think that most wargamers regularily want to play both sides, and that therefore the different opinions regarding game design we encounter here have to be accounted for in a different (and maybe more empathic) way. BTW I also do not at all understand the dissing HOI gets in this context, but that is another story again.

Probably this is not of interest anymore, but in version 3 I seem not to be able to get the Japanese troops off the arrow - the transport stays there turn after turn ...

I remember in the first version of the game I could hold the Axis indefinitely at the settings where no side gets an advantage. That was actually frustrating because no side having an artificial advantage is the style I prefer to play against the AI. Fortunately, the mods and the patch helped a lot here!

As for me it is really no fun if as ONE side I can not win the game other than through victory conditions stating "you won" if I am still alive at 1945, while as the other side I am told I "lost" the game if I have not forced unconditional surrender until then. And I ALWAYS switch sides after each game, so that´s really from both perspectives. I have no problems however with the concept of one side´s chance of winning becoming smaller with time (because the other side gears up production). I agree that the most fun games I had playing the Axis (now thinking of wargames in general) were those where I didn´t make the cut and had to go on the defensive. Still I don´t like it if the concept of "historical" is used in the sense of "predetermined". Why should I not be able to take Moscow in 41? It´s not that I want to be at the Urals at that time or invade the US.

I would not use "unfair" because pzgndr is probably right that it will "even out" in the long run. However it seems inconsistent to me. At a given date, the weather may be fair or not, but not both. If I do not miss anything important, then even though we have an "I go - U go"-system, we are to asssume that the Axis and Allies "really" act during the same time (turn). It´s not that one side sits tight for a week or so, waiting until the other side has moved. Or is it???

Nope, Dave said he´ll aim for a "weekend release". I can´t wait to finally test those scripts!

... no, I always play without soft build limits, and I even checked to make sure when that happened!

... we had this topic in the mod-forum, but just to make sure. Playing the "Honch Custom Scenario" I noticed I have a negative number of corps (because I get some for free through events). Blashy said that in such a situation one cannot buy new ones, but has to wait until one loses corps to such an extent that the number is again greater than zero. However, this seems not to work. I can still buy corps and the only effect is that -1 is added each time. (I have stayed with "hard" build limits of course.)

... it´s with the Germans btw if this info is of any import ...

Then we have a bug, Blashy. In Dave´s scenario, I can buy corps even though I have a negative number already. The only effect is that the number -1 is added each time I buy another corps.

In the scenario, it is treated as a separate, but allied, entity - just like Canada.

Actually, Normal Dude is right. It also should not be too difficult to program weather to be the same for both combatants, no?

Dave, it´s now 1942 and I noticed (as Axis) that I have a value of -5 corps. I have no soft build limits, so I thought, well, that´s probably an artifact because of all those free corps through events. But then I went and tried to buy another corps - and I could! (Number went to -6)