MJY

Yes, this is a highly anomalous situation -- especially if playing with the more historical delayed builds. (Construction on the Tirpitz began in 1936!!!) Having the Tirpitz appear in a French Atlantic port one turn after that port is captured is bad enough, but appearing in the Med defies all logic. (I suppose you could argue the incomplete ship was towed to a French port before becoming operational, but even that seems highly improbable.) The easiest thing to do is a house rule (e.g., all German surface ships have to start the game in/adjacent to a German port or the port has to be controlled for a period of time equal to the construction period), but I would think that some sort of coding solution would be possible. Perhaps German surface ships could be coded to only appear in certain locations (e.g., not unlike the way the Canadian and Icelandic ASW bombers have to be built in certain locations). But an even better solution would allow/require a player building a naval vessel to designate the port where that unit will appear. Designated ports would have to be under/remain under friendly control and if control was lost, so would the build. One question. Should these restrictions (e.g., if playing with a house rule) apply to German submarines? In other words, were U-boats constructed in the French Atlantic ports or only based/repaired/resupplied from those locations? I checked a couple of sources which suggested all construction was done in German ports/home waters (i.e., the Baltic), but the sources were not very definitive.

I just heard back from Hubert that this bug will be fixed in the next patch. Talk about speedy service!

I would like to echo support for the idea of AA units getting multiple shots. At present, AA defences can be partly bypassed/minimized by attacking a target first with a relatively expendable (and often relatively ineffective) unit (e.g., an inexperienced bomber unit) which takes the brunt of the flak and opens the way for the killer Tac air units to attack unopposed. That seems kind of gamey to me. One would expect that AA units would continue to fire at all units within range in the same way that units in a city or port are currently protected by AA upgrades every time they are attacked. Of course as is often the case, many a proposed solution opens up new problems. For example, one would have to tweak the speed with which flak units gain experience points (and transfer experience to HQ units) or else we will have to open up a new thread about "killer flack." Also, how would air interception fit into the mix. If AA fires every time, your interceptors will not have a chance to attack (as the current engine seems to only permit one or the other -- not both per each enemy attack). Perhaps the system could be altered so that flack would alternate with available interceptors until all interceptors are exhausted. Better yet, I think interceptors and flak should both be available with each attack. For example, a German bomber and escorts wish to attack a British corps next to London in preparation for Sealion. The British have fighters within range and the target corps is adjacent to a AA unit. The first order of business would be for the interceptors to do battle with the bombers and their escort. And if there are any survivors, they would be attacked by the flak unit. And only then would the corps be attacked. (And this would be replicated with each round of combat in a similar fashion.) Of course, I am not very knowledgeable with regard to software design, so I cannot say whether such a system would work with the current engine.

Hubert, I replicated the error. I've sent it along to address listed above.

Hubert, Sorry, no. And I just cleaned up my e-mail's sent/deleted files last night. I will try to replicate the situation. (My opponent no longer has the file either.) Will advise.

Fair enough. Scatter and they can't be attacked. But they wouldn't be much use on offense. Amphibious landings tended to require extensive coordination and the like. A scattered force would not be able to do that very well. Either way, the defender would benefit.

Correct. That's what I meant when I said they attack "all" friendly amphibious units that end the turn adjacent. I do, however, find it strange that they ignore amphibious units that do not voluntarily stop adjacent. Perhaps, if this ability to attack amphibious units is considered a good thing, even spotted naval units should cause enemy units attempting to move past them to stop involuntarily and be attacked.

I hadn't noticed this about fleets, so I gamed it out and it is, in fact, even weirder than you suggest. Here's how it works. (Experiment conducted with WAW 1942 campaign with FoW.) Enemy naval units -- even when spotted -- automatically attack all friendly AMPHIBIOUS units (not transports), but only if the amphibious unit ends its move ADJACENT to the enemy unit. Transports can move past spotted fleets and even end their turn next to an enemy fleet with no consequences. And the same is true of amphibious units that do not end their turn adjacent to enemy fleets. They, too, are not attacked automatically.

Here's the situation. Playing the Axis in a 1939 campaign PBEM game of WAW. I have taken Malta. When the port recovers, I load my Italian corps onto transports only to have the transport counter appear adjacent to an enemy cruiser. (The port square was already occupied with a friendly fleet.) My corps suffers losses -- annoying enough -- but the real problem occurs when I mail my turn to my opponent. When the turn gets to this point in the replay, the game crashes at his end. I try replicating the turn -- including this transport incident -- with the same result. Any thoughts?

I am playing a game as the Allies with fixed build limits. With Russia, I built the allowable arty units and got more with the Siberian transfer. Later, one of the arty was killed, but I was not able to rebuild it! Surely that cannot be correct. Shouldn't the allowable build limit include being able to rebuild the original units and the Siberian transfer units?

I would have to think that giving intercept priority (or escort priority for that matter) to units so designated should not be difficult from a coding point of view. If the current system choses the unit with the highest readiness rating (as SeaMonkey suggests), all that would be needed would be for the software to do one more check -- "is there a unit in range set to intercept" (or whatever) -- before picking that unit. And readiness would still be part of the calculation (e.g., the higher readiness of two or more "intercept" units would fly first and so on).

In my current game, here's the situation. I have two regular air and a carrier near Manchester. When my opponent attacks with his bombers and escorts, I want the regular air to intercept the first wave(s) and only if there are additional waves do I want the carrier to intercept. In this particular case, the reason I want this pattern is as follows: the carrier aircraft are more expensive to repair and are more useful to preserve due to their flexibility (i.e., move and attack in the same turn), so I only want to use them if absolutely necessary. But the reasons could just as easily be because the regular air have higher tech or more strength points or more experience or whatever. I just want the option to manage my air defences to maximum advantage. And as I stated in my previous post, otherwise what's the use of the intercept setting as currently configured when other aircraft are set to auto?

When fighters are set to "intercept" shouldn't they be the first units to intercept enemy aircraft (as opposed to other aircraft set to "auto")? I am playing WAW and have had carriers set to auto intercept enemy air before my land-based air wings (which I would prefer to intercept first). Is this a bug? And if not, what's the advantage of the intercept function?

In one of my current WAW matches (version 1.02), I managed to score the French airwing as Free French. (That was quite a shock as I NEVER seem to get FF units...but I digress.) Anyway, I don't seem to be able to upgrade that unit. It is in supply adjacent to Manchester and I have the MMPs. Is this a bug or intentional? Shouldn't it be treated like any other minor ally unit?

Hey All, I would like to add my name to those that consider Sealion to be counter-productive. I didn't feel that way in SCI, but do now in both SCII and WAW. First, consider the economics of a successful invasion. Amphibious costs to get to Britain plus transport costs (and possibly also operating costs) to get Sealion forces back into the fight plus the cost of even a minimal garrison (say corps in just the three cites) -- all this will never be recouped from the MMPs generated for the Axis cause. These costs, naturally, rise even further if you actually try to hold Britain from the inevitable US counter-invasion. The MMPs spent defending your gains (e.g., a naval screen consisting of subs or armies, an HQ, and so on holding the cities and ports) are MMPs not spent on killing the Red Army. Then there is the effect on the rest of the war. Britain carries on in the Med (or more historically accurately in Canada) at only a relatively deminished capacity. (Remember, in the SC system, Britain is not worth that much as the only the cities -- not the ports -- generate any value. More MMPs come from the Middle East!) I would go so far as to argue Britain is better off protecting the Middle East over the Home Islands -- if a choice has to be made. But even if "the rest of Britain" is supposed to represent the entire Empire (e.g., Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India, and South Africa), the loss of the most populous (save for India) and most industrially developed part of the Empire should have a greater impact on the Allies war-fighting capability. And then there is the impact with regard to Russia. On the one hand, I agree that Russian war-readiness should rise -- and rise quickly -- in response to Sealion. And if Sealion fails, that should mean it is (essentially) over for the Axis as the Russians take advantage of a defeated Axis bogged down in the West. But if the Axis wins the race, then that should be it for the Allies. It seems to me that that was how things played out in SCI -- Sealion was an all-or-nothing gambit. Take Britain win the game; fail to win the race and the Allies win. But now I am not so sure. As for the other benefits of taking Britain (as described in the earlier post), some are useful, but others not so much (in my opinion). The morale boost, for example, is short-lived and will likely expire well before sufficient air (and other) forces are redeployed from the British Front to your next conquest. Winning over Spain is probable, but Turkey remains an expensive proposition. All those diplomacy chits represent Barbarossa forces unbuilt. Plus you must bear in mind that diplomacy hits are not a sure thing -- much like my tech research (but I digress ...sigh). Sure, the US bomber offensive is greatly delayed, but there are other costs (as mentioned above). And the delay is not that great if you don't try to hold the Island (or expensive if you do). The same is true for the sub war. It is very expensive. In fact, I might even argue any sub war post Sealion is less productive given the fewer convoy routes to raid (thus less experience points for your sub fleet). All and all, I agree with Arado that taking Britain should be a more devestating event for the Allies. It should be something that is almost impossible to overcome; not just another bump in the road. P.S. To Arado -- moves later tonight! (I'm still technically at "work.")

Hey Guys, The issue with regard to Axis fleets sailing around Africa is not just the presence of Allied fleets not represented in the game (e.g. patrolling the Indian Ocean and/or the Cape of Good Hope region), but also supply. Allied units moving around Africa would undoubtedly stop in ports like those of South Africa to refuel (e.g., Capetown and Port Elizabeth), but the Axis would not have similar options. Individual raiders and the occasional long-range submarine might be able to make the trip (and historically a VERY limited number did), but even these vessels needed to meet re-supply vessels in quiet out-of-the-way places and that was something that could only be done in the case of a single raider or sub or two and not entire Axis fleets. Finally, for purposes of this game, an occasional raider or sub is below the game's threshold (i.e., too small to matter).

Koings, Thanks. So how do I go about installing the second version? Do I just rename one of the files?

Is it possible to install more than one version of SCII at the same time? I am currently running 1.07 while I finish some PBEM games, but would like to start investigating 1.08 and its world-wide map. Can this be done (a) from a technical standpoint and ( would it violate my license agreement?

Hubert, I was able to set up the AI vs. AI feature (playing the 1939 Campaign scenario), but once it was running I couldn't seem to get it to stop or pause. The F4 key didn't seem to have any effect. Is AI vs. AI only intended for DYO scenarios?

Hey all, Does anyone know how to simultaneously open SCII and WAW (i.e., keep the two running so that you can toggle with alt+tab back and forth between them). I have SCII PBEM games I am trying to finish and between turns I want to explore WAW. I have tried to open WAW while SCII is running, but I get a message saying my e-license needs to be updated and that requires a computer reboot. (WAW opens normally if SCII is closed.) I consider this more annoying than a problem per se. I mean I could re-start the two games each time I want to go back and forth, but WAW takes a long time to load on my system so it is a pain.

Hey all, This thread suggests a number of lines of play for the Axis early in the game. What I have not seen, is a detailed discussion of Allied responses. What do the "experts" recommend as the best defence for the Allies early in the game -- especially in the face of the recommended early attacks against Denmark and the Low Countries.

[ignore this message...just setting up automatic notifications feature.]

I was about to pre-order the WAW expansion pack tonight when I noticed it lists only Windows XP and Vista as compatible operating systems. My question is this. Will WAW actually only run on these two systems or will it run on any system that currently runs Strategic Command 2nd ed.? Specifically, will it run on my Windows 98 Second Edition machine?

Thanks Terif! I guess I'm a hard copy guy living in a paperless world! If it is not too complicated, how exactly does one access the .txt files you refer to in your message? Do you need a degree in software design? Is this covered elsewhere in the Forum? I am assuming there must be lots of other little gems hiding there that I might want to read...before my opponents do!

Based on Terif's answer to my post, it seems the issue is ambiguity in the way the victory conditions are listed in the manual. The manual (p. 132) lists six cites to be held "after September 1939" (which is what I did in the game I am asking about) while Terif's post suggests the six cities have to be held "at the end of the last turn of the game" (i.e., the May 7, 1947 turn). The manual is clearly wrong and the little check box (used when starting a game) merely lists the six Axis major victory cities and says "1947" without elaborating what date and that it means the last turn of the game. As for reading the code, that is beyond my abilities.