MJY

Logan, I agree with your point regarding the cost of technological developments and improved performance. What I was getting at (to use your example) was the question of what it would cost your armaments industry if your spies, for example, stole plans for a working supercharger. The cost to your scientists to verify the discovery would be minimal (hence my suggestion you not lose a research chit when your intelligence makes a discovery). I am not suggesting you not pay for the discovery in other ways. To utilize that stolen discovery on the battlefield (i.e., to purchase that faster supercharged fighter), you would still have to pay more. (More expensive weapons are always more expensive.) And repairs would still be more expensive (already reflected in the game). All I am suggesting is that the scientists you have invested in (i.e., by buy a research chit) continue to do their work. I am proposing they not stop researching simply because your spies made a discovery instead (i.e., you not lose your research chit when your spies make a breakthrough). About the only rationale I can think of for the current practice of deducting a research chit when you obtain an intelligence breakthrough is if your scientists were, for example, only working on developing a supercharger. In that case, you could argue their efforts were wasted when the spies produced the answer to the problem they were investigating. But that is not likely the way your scientific resources are deployed. Your aviation scientists would be investigating various ways to improve your aircraft (aerodynamics, fuel mixtures, engine improvements, and so on) -- not just one (i.e., superchargers). Nor is that necessarily how the relationship between research and espionage works. Intelligence agencies sometimes make discoveries in areas your side is not investigating. I don't think the Allies were spending a lot of effort on rockets (either rocket development or counter-measures) until their intelligence agencies began to pick up on stories that the Germans were working on the V-2.

Hey all, As the game is currently situated, whenever you get an intelligence breakthrough (e.g., going from level 1 to level 2 long range air), you lose one research chit that you have previously bought to invest in that area (e.g., if I had previously invested one chit in LR air and got an intell hit I would no longer have any chits in LR air). That is the same thing that happens when you score a "normal" technology advancement. Would it not make more sense in the event of an intelligence breakthrough to get the increase in technology and not lose that research chit? In other words, shouldn't the intelligence breakthrough be "free?" After all, the intelligence breakthrough is supposed to represent technology you have stolen from your opponents (and you already "paid" for it by investing in your spy/intelligence network in the first place). Also, intelligence breakthroughs currently only produce advances in areas where your side is currently engaged in technology research (e.g., if I am not currently researching LR air I will never get an intelligence breakthrough in LR air). Might it not be a good idea that intelligence breakthroughs could come in any area of technological development -- even if your side is not currently researching that area? Think of it. Would I ask my spies to sneak into an office and only photograph plans for weapons I am trying to develop or only tap the phones of a scientist working on the same things my scientists are working on? No. I would task them with stealing anything they can get their hands on! Furthermore, for security reasons, in most cases I wouldn't tell my spies what I was working on in case they get caught or turned by my enemies.

Hey all, FYI, it occurs to me that I should have mentioned with my earlier posting re. partisan generation that a similar situation (i.e., being adjacent for hex control purposes but not partisan suppression) may arise with the lake south-east of Leningrad (104,13). A minor point to be sure -- until a nasty partisan unit disrupts your supply lines at a critical juncture!

Hubert, Once again, thanks for the quick reply. MJY

Hubert, Thanks for the reply. I guess in the future I'll surround or reduce the port. MJY

Hubert, Done. Thanks for the quick response. MJY

Hey all, Currently playing a game in which last turn the Yanks conquered an Axis-allied Spain. Even after the surrender, German units still occupied a couple of Spanish cities. However when my Axis turn came, the usual situation wherein adjacent hexes to the cities are switched to friendly control did not happen. That made operating (etc.) problematic. I had a similar situation a long time ago involving Turkey that was a programming glitch. I assume this is the same. (I have saved a copy of the file just in case it is needed to fix this glitch.)

Hey all, While I am on the computer (procrastinating from the work I should be doing at the moment), I thought I would post another thread. Here's the situation. The Axis are about to overrun Egypt. American reinforcements are known to be on the way. I therefore place two Italian naval units in hexes 115,40 and 116,40 to try and block the on-coming American units. The hexes in question are well to the north-west of the red arrows for the Red Sea-Atlantic Naval Loop. But much to my surprise, when the American fleet arrives, some units arrive to the south-east (i.e., on or adjacent to the naval loop), but some of the units use advanced "transporter" technology (or "teleporter" or "stargate" or "jumpgate" -- depending on your sci-fi preference) to miraculously pop-up BEHIND my Italian blockading units! Yank reinforcements arrive in Egypt, my Italian fleet is trapped and destroyed, and (two years later) I am fighting for my life against Arado234. I assume this is a programming glitch?!? Or are the Naval Loops supposed to be non-blockadable (if I can invent a word)? I should note that while a significant number of US units arrived in the Red Sea during the turn in question, there were still a number of empty hexes south-east of my blockading units that could have been used for their arrival (i.e., it was NOT a case of the units not having other options).

Hey all, I've had an annoying situation occur in a couple of games lately and I think this has to be the result of a programming glitch. Here's the situation. The Axis move to hex 99,13. This is south-west of Leningrad, just west of Lake Peipus. (The lake is unnamed on the map.) In doing so, all adjacent hexes including 101,13 turn colour to indicate Axis control. So far, everything is perfectly normal. Happens all the time. Here's the strange part. Because the Axis unit is not able to move directly from 99,13 to 101,13 across the lake hexside, it apparently is not considered "adjacent" for purposes of suppressing partisans. So, of course, a partisan will pop up in that hex at a most annoying time. Basically, I think it should be one or the other. Either the Axis unit changes hex control AND suppresses partisans or neither should occur. This is not the only place where I have noticed oddities like this, but this is the one that has come to my attention lately.

Hey all, Issue As the game currently works, TAC air and strategic bombers with escorting fighters are completely immune from air interception. In other words, the escorting fighters take ALL the damage from the enemy fighters that intercept the mission. The bombers continue their mission totally undamaged. Shouldn't there be at least a CHANCE that bombers with escorts might take SOME damage before they reach their target (i.e., that some interceptors get through to the bombers)? (True, the bombers might be damaged when they reach their target and attack, but that is a different matter from what I am talking about. That is the kind of damage that already can happen when there is no interception at all [e.g., a bomber attacking a city with a high flak rating].) Rationale for Changes With the current system (i.e., escorts taking all the damage hits from intercepted missions), bomber experience increases rapidly creating super powerful bombers -- especially TAC air. Obviously, in real life bomber/escort missions don't work this way. The fighter escort may well take the brunt of most interceptor attacks (that's why they are there after all), but interceptors will often make it through to the bombers and inflict some losses (e.g., B17 losses continued -- albeit at a lower rate -- even after the introduction of long range escorts and the Germans certainly experienced bomber losses during the Battle of Britain despite employing escort fighters). Proposed Solution Perhaps there might be a 10% of some bomber damage whenever a bomber attack is intercepted -- even when there are escorts. (Sort of the reverse of the way the current programming allows strategic bombers to sometimes avoid damage when attacking without the presence of interceptors/escorts.) As an advanced option, this possibility of damage number might also be increased/decreased depending on the relative abilities of the interceptors/escorts. For example, if the escorts' tech is two levels more advanced, the probability is reduced by 5% or if the interceptors are two "medals" more experienced the probability goes up 5%. And so on. Challenges I have zero programming knowledge, so I can't say what would be involved in implementing such a change.

...adding instant e-mail notification

Came back from holidays very late last night and today I cleaned up my e-mail box by deleting all my old e-mails -- including the sent and deleted files. Unfortunately, I deleted the last message from Shaun (signature "Seahawk" -- I think). That will teach me to just use the "reply" button without adding a new contact. We are in the middle of a game. I figure he'll eventually e-mail me, but in the meantime if anyone knows his e-mail and would either send it to me or e-mail him and ask him to e-mail me.... Thanks!

Hey All, I had another odd situation come up in the same game as the Turkey glitch I have recently posted on in the Tech Support Forum. Here the deal. My Allied opponent DOWs Syria. Carrier-based and land-based air kills the Syrian unit. A British infantry unit moves adjacent -- but does not have the Movement Points to enter -- Damascus. However, by moving adjacent to the Syrian port with no enemy units around, the port changes to Allied control. That's all standard stuff. Here, however, was the part that struck me as odd. Later in the turn, my Allied opponent transports (not amphibious movement) a unit to the Syrian port and then unloads that unit directly into Damascus, thus capturing the city. I don't think this is a glitch, but I wonder if it makes sense. Should transports be allowed to unload directly onto enemy-controlled tiles -- especially enemy-controlled (albeit unoccupied) city tiles -- or should they be restricted to unloading only onto friendly-controlled tiles? I probably wouldn't have even thought about this except for the fact that in this particular case, it was a %&$% British artillery unit that took the city by unloading into the city tile. Any thoughts? I think it comes down to whether one treats unloading as a form of regular movement or if it is considered something else. In the case of the former, it makes sense. In the case of the latter, it does not.

Wow, once again I am impressed by the quick response. Anyway, I have opened this file several times now and the glitch appears every time I attack a neutral Turkey, but not when I open the file and use the same units to attack neutral Russia. I will send the file in a few minutes.

Hey all, I am playing WAW version 1.05 in PBEM. For the first time ever, I decided to try an attack through Turkey. (Yes, I know it is a risky strategy, but I have been having trouble getting tech hits in this game and feel I must try a high risk approach.) Anyway, with my attack on Turkey, I attacked and captured Istanbul and crossed the Straits with a German Army, but (i) the port at Istanbul remained Allied despite the capture of the city and the movement of follow-up units to the East bank of the Straits. (I had not planned on sending any naval reinforcements through there, but that's not the point.) (ii) the tiles adjacent to the German Army that crossed the Straits did not change ownership (so I could not, for example, re-deploy air units to those tiles). Only the tile occupied by the Army itself changed to Axis possession. (In this case, I was considering redeploying an air unit to the East bank -- for spotting purposes -- but could not do so.) (iii) and the hexes adjacent to the two paratrooper units I landed near Ankara (to slow any Soviet reinforcements to Turkey) again did not change the adjacent tiles to Axis control (so, again, no Axis air re-deployments were possible -- assuming I had planned on that). Just for fun, I replayed the turn and attacked into Russia (for the record I only "attacked" the far Western tiles of the Ukraine so as not to accidentally see any of my opponent's deployments) and everything was normal (i.e., the land and para units changed tile possession immediately). Is this a glitch? Has anyone else experienced this?

HJvA, I have noticed the same thing myself -- on a very, very infrequent basis. At first I thought it was because I had hit the "OK" button without selecting the addition of any reinforcements (i.e., that I was saying "OK" to a 0-level reinforcement) instead of hitting "cancel" (to totally void the transaction), but I have not been able to replicate this particular glitch. Just curious. I am playing games at several levels of upgrades at the moment. I haven't noticed this glitch with the more recent patches, but at the same time I have played relatively few games at the newer patch levels. What upgrade are you using?

Hey all, I curious as to what the community thinks about the idea of allowing engineer-built fortifications to be upgraded with AA tech like their at-start counterparts (e.g., like Malta, Sevastopol, and Gibraltar). Obviously, it could increase the ability of fortifications to resist enemy attacks (assuming AA tech was invested in) and that could affect play balance. But I feel the current system does not sufficiently credit the defender for being in an entrenchment (with respect to enemy air attacks). I look forward to the Community's thoughts on the matter.

My regular PBEM opponents are on holiday and I'm already suffering WAW withdrawal. If you are interested: (i) For faster response, please contact me directly at: yaniszewski@hotmail.com rather than through the message board (which I don't check as often). All messages will be answered -- even after my card is filled. I am in the Eastern Time Zone. (ii) I am looking for 1939 Fall Weiss games. You can pick sides or we can play a matched pair. (iii) I prefer FOW and soft build limits enabled. If you have any other preferences or house rules please specify. Mark

I have a question about combat result calculations in SCII and WAW. According to Bill Macon (in part one of his recent article on SCII’s artificial intelligence system in The Wargamer): “Besides the fuzzy logic embedded in the AI algorithms, there is an editable +/-1 variability added to combat calculations for uncertainty and surprises in combat results.” Fair enough — although for the record I am convinced that I am always adverse side of this supposed variability! But I digress. My specific questions are as follows: (i) I assume this +/- 1 variability is true of both SCII and WAW and also applies with or without the use of AI (i.e., that his variability is inherent for all attacks in human vs. human games)? That certainly seems to be the case. (I obsessively check the predicted results numbers at the top of the screen before all attacks.) (ii) How does the “damage evaded” result from bomber attacks relate to the +/- 1 variability Macon is referring to? Is the “damage evaded” notation a reference to this +/- 1 result or does it arise from something else? Thanks.

(Ignore...I forgot to set up the e-mail notification feature.)

The usual story -- switching computers but want to finish on-going games. Does anyone know where I can find the 1.02 version of the WAW patch? Thanks

Title says it all. Oh, and please, if you are posting an answer, consider your audience to be technically incompetent! Step-by-step directions would be best. P.S. I'm surprised this hasn't come up before, but a search of the forum came up with nothing.

dgold07, There are two sets of end dates for the scenario: 1945 and 1947. Click on "options" -- "advanced" -- "scripts" -- "victory" and you'll see which is being used. You can set either, but only at the start of a game. It sounds like you're using the 1947 date. In this case, the game will end when Italy surrenders (fall of Rome) and Germany surrenders (Berlin and Munich). Note, however, that just like minor countries major countries sometimes randomly hang on for a bit after their capital(s) are taken, but usually not for long. There is no a-bomb option. Arguably, the invention of the a-bomb should mean an automatic victory for the Allies, but that wouldn't be much of a "game" (i.e., you'd just have to keep the Axis out of Washington until late 1945 to "win"). Sounds like you are headed to a major victory once Berlin and Rome fall.

arado234 Yes, I noticed this too. I was of two minds on this. At first, I thought that defenders in such a situation would construct defences in such a way as to allow the movement of friendly ships (e.g., movable anti-submarine nets and open channels through minefields). I was also really annoyed the first time I built a fort at this strategic location as it unexpectedly made it much more difficult for the Kriegsmarine to sally forth to attack Allied shipping and the like -- especially after my opponent to Denmark! However, after doing a little research, I changed my mind. (See http://www.kiel-canal.com/) That was because the Kiel passage was -- and still is -- a relatively narrow canal. It is not the same as defending a much bigger body of water such as the English Channel or even the Oresund Strait between Sweden and Denmark. The canal was last widened in 1914 and in my opinion does not look like it would be wide enough to be, for example, defended by mines while preserving useful mine-free channels for friendly ships to move through. The thing is, in fact, narrow enough that I think I could drive a golf ball across it -- although with my slice I make no predictions as to where on the other side my ball would come to rest!!! Of course, one could argue that the canal could be defended without recourse to mines or submarine nets or other permanent anti-ship obstructions (e.g., the kind of undersea obstacles used to defend the beaches of the Atlantic Wall) that restrict shipping (e.g., by relying solely on coastal artillery and the like), but I think a realistic defence of the canal would effectively close the canal to all shipping.

voncasey, Unfortunately, no. Playing more than one opponent at a time is not possible. But wouldn't that be a great option! Of course, it may be one of those things that is easier said than done. There may be computer code issues to begin with. (I can barely turn on my computer, so I won't speak to that issue.) Additionally, coordinating three (or even more) people in a network game context is sometimes tricky -- despite your best intentions. For example, the two opponents I currently play the most are three time zones later than me. (Good thing that I'm a night hawk.) But you could end up playing someone half way around the world.