Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ludi1867

  1. OK, I FINALLY got CMBN to work, but I had to upgrade to the new version to make it happen. This is despite the great efforts of the trouble ticket team, who sent me a program to try and clean CMBN so that it would work with Windows 10. That did NOT work, so the only alternative I was left with was to pay for the upgrade. Sad, but true. So, for some people who upgrade to Windows 10 you will be stuck and HAVE to upgrade if you want CMBN to work.
  2. Hi Schullenhaft Thanks for your quick responses. I THINK I am running version 1.11 with CMBN (I have upgraded to 1.03 with Combat Mission Red Thunder, which is the program I use most frequently). From my review of the 'Combat Mission with Windows 10' thread I think I am in real trouble now, as there does not seem to be an easy fix if you have an older version of CMBN. Very frustrating, as Red Thunder seemed to work fine when I changed Operating Systems (or upgraded, or whatever)
  3. I have this exact same problem and no response is posted to this old topic (1 August). I have just tried to use Combat Mission Battle for Normandy and I now get the response indicated in the first post. (I had no problems at all with Combat Mission Red Thunder). Has there been a fix for this? What is the status?
  4. The file that caused my query in the first place has been sent. Thanx for looking at this Hubert!
  5. The Allied player placed the BEF in Bordeaux before France offered (and the Germans accepted) Vichy. Bordeaux remains at a supply level of 10 after Vichy was accepted, and all other Allied units have been removed from the continent. Is Bordeaux supposed to remain at supply level 10 in this situation? I guess I have to double check the supply rules, but it sure is hard for the Germans to get ANY kind of supply way down there, and I am a little at a loss as to why Bordeaux would remain at supply level 10.
  6. In a recent AoD game Tunis was 'invaded' (as a result of a computer generated DE) by the Axis because the Allies had successfully conquered Algeria (end of 1942, early 1943). While this is reasonably historical, what was hard to understand was that this 'decision event' fired at the END of the Axis turn. The consequence was that the Axis could do nothing – the DE was announced at the END of the Axis turn by the computer, without any involvement by the Axis human player who simply sat at his display in bemusement – while the very next turn the Allies could (and did) simply move into Tunis wit
  7. Hi Layabout While I welcome your enthusiasm, and certainly agree that NOT having Paris does cost the Axis a few MPP, there is a negative downside to DE 602 NOT being offered (as it will likely be rejected) to the Axis until Algiers falls. While you will, I am sure, never get into this situation, it is all too possible (as I have learned from personal experience) for the Allied player to not only be in trouble in continental France (ultimately everything but Paris captured), but Italian units start moving towards Algiers as well. The fall of Sousse is a bad sign, but when Tunis is agg
  8. There is a problem with DE 602 – if an unscrupulous Axis player chooses to NOT take Paris, even when every other city in Continental France has been captured and there is not a single French unit left in Continental France, until Algiers is captured, there is no point in Germany accepting Vichy. In fact, if the Axis 'plan' envisions NOT accepting Vichy then NOT capturing Paris until after Algiers is captured is a bad idea, in game terms. This is simply common sense from a game perspective, even if it violates reality in any reasonable sense. Therefore, to avoid pure 'gameiness' of this s
  9. If Baron can join this ladder, then I guess I better join as well. I am not likely to win a lot of matches, but I can act as cannon fodder and may even learn enough to win one eventually.
  10. Hi Mike While I do not want to get into a long debate about Finland and the Winter War – your points are correct, and I really don't have a problem with the decision event that basically covers off the Winter War now – I would have to say that I really do not understand your proposed solution. The problem for me is not so much with the Winter War, but with when the Soviets attack Finland AGAIN after the German invasion begins. If the Soviets are prepared and make this attack well before Finland joins the Axis then Finland is really in trouble. One of the main reasons they are in so m
  11. Strategic Command (SC) is a great game. However, neutrals are attacked far too often, and often too easily, in this game. There have been suggestions to increase the diplomatic costs for attacks on Ireland, for example. Yet so far little has been done. This suggestion is to alter the game engine to make neutrals less technologically feeble as the game progresses. Neutrals cannot conduct R&D, which only seems reasonable given the constraints and nature of the game. But as time passes and technology changes neutrals become inherently more feeble – and therefore even easier to attack
  12. Hi Amadeus Having been 'prodded' by Catacol Highlander, I would be interested in joining your Tournament. I have tried sending an e-mail to the address you gave in the first post in this thread, but if that does not work, please consider this an official request to join.
  13. I am surprised and confused by part of Bill101's response: as far as I have been able to determine Germany and Italy can ONLY invest one chit in ANY area of research in this scenario. Is that not correct? Overall I have found German R&D to be somewhat slower than Soviet, but ALSO I have found research to be incredibly varied in this scenario. Why? Well, part of it is the restriction of ONLY one chit in any area. That means that breakthroughs are incredibly important in this scenario. You CANNOT prioritize any area of research, and what to do after putting a single chit in infantr
  14. Hi Mike Your loop ideas are actually quite interesting. The one thing I have to add to this discussion is intelligence. The key reason that Axis raiders succeeded so frequently early in the war is that German naval codes were pretty much impenetrable to the Allies early in the war. The Bismarck sortie was not stopped by decryption, but Allied chances of interception were definitely improved by the breakthrough in decryption that occurred just before that vessel entered the Atlantic. Intelligence actually proved quite important in the Battle of the Atlantic as well, although it was only
  15. Allied warships have the ABILITY to CHOSE to raid convoy lanes or not. However, it does not seem to make any difference whatsoever when it comes to the convoy lane that passes close to Norway en route to the Baltic. If the Allied player CHOSES to raid this convoy lane then it is eminently reasonable to have the Norwegians be irritated by this. However, the Norwegians recently proclaimed their irritation at the presence of an Allied warship that was well outside their territorial waters and NOT raiding. It happened to be adjacent to the convoy route, but I had – quite deliberately – CHOSEN
  16. Xworm It wasn't just fast passenger ships that were relatively safe – find ANY troop convoys that were attacked in deep water and you will be lucky. Troop convoys in disputed waters, such as the Bismarck Sea, did result in devastating losses to the troops, but this was NOT anywhere near where loops usually go. As for fast vessels being more in danger if the war lasted longer, the only possible answer to that is 'perhaps'. Type XXI U-boats, which were finally becoming operational as the real war ended, MIGHT have been able to sink a fast ship, but the limiting lines of submerged approach
  17. Loops in AoD are ONLY for naval shipping – not merchant shipping. What is the difference? Well, in the game (and this is very much a GAME), merchant shipping is abstractly depicted as a convoy 'lane'. This convoy lane can be raided by submarines, ships or aircraft, although submarines are the primary warships employed in this role. Is this a kludge? Absolutely – you will NOT see 'lanes' painted on the water in any ocean of the world. Even more significantly, convoys in World War II were regularly routed along different paths to AVOID U-boats (who sometimes had intelligence that allowed t
  18. Hi Rankorian and XWormwood I am glad you are enjoying your 'honeymoon' period with this game Rankorian, and there is certainly a whole lot of things that the game does right. It is certainly the best game of its type for naval warfare in general. However, having said that, there is still room for improvement. I have more or less given up on the speed of naval movement, which now more closely approximates elephants mating than the reality which occurred at sea, but I really am concerned about the problems that exist in the inshore areas. Naval ports should be very difficult to attack by
  19. The title of this thread is obviously related to the one regarding the elegant naval warfare system in SC. The contents of that thread are reasonable – SC is certainly the best strategic level naval warfare system available at present, despite a lamentably slow pace of naval and maritime movement – but there are serious problems with the inshore aspects of the naval combat system. In fact, non historical techniques are not only possible but far too easily used in SC WW 1/Breakthrough. The reason that this is such an egregious problem is that SC really should try to cause players to at least
  20. Hi Bill Thanks for providing all this background – now we have all the information that Rabelesius wanted, and it does make for a more informed discussion. I completely agree that adjustments in anything that affects National Morale is difficult, and there is quite a balancing act involved. Nonetheless, I still remain convinced that your efforts to encourage the use of U-boats has been too successful, and that adjustments to make the use of U-boats in the Atlantic potentially more painful to the Central Power player – Germany almost inevitably – are needed. First, I rather strongl
  21. Hi Sapare Thanks for your comments. The Entente does have the potential to be more powerful than the CP, but the CP starts with significant advantages – that is one of the reasons this game can be so balanced. I agree that the U-boat campaign does have potential pitfalls for the CP, but I would argue that, in the Call to Arms campaign, those pitfalls are not severe enough to offset the advantages of using unrestricted U-boat warfare, and that the restrictions to using U-boats as commerce raiders alone are so slight as to be non-existent. SC WW I is overall an amazing balancing act, s
  22. Hi Bill No, that is not the case here. The big problem is that IF a sub is visible, it WILL stop an opposing sub from passing through the square, whether the opposing sub is in silent or normal mode. I just ran a test in hotseat, Call to Arms Campaign, patch 1.05 using the Austrian sub in the Adriatic and the French and British subs in the Med. If the French and British subs are NOT visible, then the Austrian sub is able to pass through the Otranto area easily (that is the narrow neck in the Adriatic adjacent to the Italian port of Brindisi). However, if the French and British subs
  23. This is a very specific topic, and the play testing I have done is almost exclusively with patch 1.04, so if 1.05 fixes the problem, then please ignore this. The basic issue is that U-boat attacks in the Atlantic on commerce and even unrestricted U-boat attacks on commerce have far too little impact on US entry into the war. There does seem to be a chance that regular U-boat attacks might cause the US to be irritated by this Central Power action, and therefore raise its preparation for war or even enter the war. Based on my experience in a number of games, this chance is low or very low –
  24. Sub movement through occupied tiles is a frequent challenge in SC. I can see a 'reasonable' argument in game terms for subs being unable to travel unchallenged through squares occupied by ASW capable units. As long as a sub is surrounded by ASW capable units then I think the swamp method of surrounding a sub is arguably reasonable, although it might be possible to allow a sub to ATTEMPT to escape at the risk of suffering a double attack (ie it might suffer double damage IF it is NOT successful in an evasion roll – and that roll would be similar to an attack roll by the ASW unit attacking the
  25. The issue of dedicated reinforcement locations is very problematic, and has become a serious problem for me in PBEM games. There are a number of occasions where newly introduced reinforcements end up being badly mauled or destroyed because they are placed in positions that are either exposed or too well known to players. There have been a few mentioned already, and there are others, such as Hindendburg. It may seem like the initial positions that these units are placed in are reasonable, but once the spawn location is known, it can become vulnerable. (And Hindenburg CAN be killed, even tho
  • Create New...