Wushuki

The tank shows the readiness bonus the unit receives for not moving. If you attack before you move a unit receives a 25% readiness bonus. About the river, as far as I know this is done correctly in the game, but the rivers are often difficult to spot from the map itself. If you really want to know of a square to which sides it has a river I suggest you right click the square, go to properties and then click river. This removes all objects on top of it and shows the directions that it blocks attacks from.

That is actually very interesting Grong and it would be useful to understand why that happened. I captured Algiers and Paris at the same time today and Franco did offer to join me. So I'd say its either the diplomacy you mentioned or that you did not have a unit stationed in Algiers, which I think could also be a requirement.

Perhaps you could show your screenshot by going to imageshack and uploading it there. Then you can link it here by copying one of the URLs that the website gives you.

Looking for an opponent for the vanilla World at War 1939 scenario. If you are interested, please send me a PM.

You'd expect that carrier vs fighter combat works exactly like normal fighter vs fighter combat. In both cases it just represents air vs air combat. It works very differently however, because the technology level of the fighter is not taken into account in most situations. Basically there are 7 different situations that can occur. Below I show what happens when a level 5 fighter is battling with a level 5 carrier in the different situations. Situation A: The carrier is in fighter mode Carrier intercepts the fighter: Carrier does 6 damage, fighter does 1 Carrier attacks the fighter: Carrier does 6 damage, fighter does 1 Fighter intercepts carrier: Carrier does 1 damage, fighter does 1 Fighter attacks carrier: Carrier does 1 damage, fighter does 1 Situation B: The carrier is in tactical mode Carrier attacks the fighter: Carrier does 6 damage, fighter does 1 Fighter intercepts carrier: Carrier does 0 damage, fighter does 6 Fighter attacks carrier: Carrier does 0 damage, fighter does 6 First note, that it works very different from normal air combat. When the fighter is attacked, the technology level of the fighter is simply not taken into account and thus it takes massive damage. The only time when a fighter can damage a carrier is when the carrier is in tactical mode. When it is in fighter mode however, the fighter unit doesn't have any chance to fight the carrier and will either get killed by being intercepted by the carrier (situation A-1) or by the carrier attacks on the fighter (situation A-2). It seems very strange that the fighter technology is not taken into account in all situations as it makes carrier based aircraft far more powerful then land based aircraft. Is this intentional or is it a bug?

Same for me. Played 5 games vs a human opponent, the axis won all 5. By the time the US and UK become some kind of a threat to the Germans and the Japanese, the axis have advanced so far into China and the USSR that these nations can no longer be saved. When it is just the US and the UK versus the axis, the axis have the advantage and will win quite easily.

The tank probably only receives 3 supply, because the city is a capital, which has its MPP * 2. What is relevant is the efficiency of the city, not the amount of MPP it produces. You can see this by clicking on the city and looking at the efficiency in the lower left corner of the screen. I am not sure what you mean with your other question. But all HQ relay supply. So if Patton is in the area then he would just supply the units. If this doesn't answer your question, then please clarify what you meant.

I agree that something needs to be done about this research. With the new damage system it is even more useless then it was before, because I think that the heavy bomber upgrade prevents the damage bonus of anti aircraft research. So even if someone would follow a strategic bomber strategy, researching anti-aircraft radar wouldn't be a very good counter. On top of that the anti-air unit was removed. Perhaps they could make it a ship upgrade for 5% of the ship cost that increases the naval spotting range and the bomber defense by 1. This would make anti aircraft radar a very much needed research and makes naval combat perhaps a bit more interesting, because you can spot enemy units prior to encountering them by moving your ships more slowly.

Amadeus, with the new patch (1.01) you can see the combat values that are used next to the combat prediction values when you hover your mouse over a target. That is, in the top left and top right of the screen. This includes any reduction in combat damage, such as the division by 2 that carriers in mix mode have. By looking at these you can easily find the answer to such questions ingame.

Rannug, he is talking about WaW, not GC. But thanks for posting the industrial centers of GC, I was wondering about that. Mgdpublic, no, the other industrial centers would send supply to the other cities.

You are right, this is because sub upgrades are less useful then anti-sub upgrades. When both the sub and the destroyer are upgraded 2 or 3 times the sub will still do the same amount of damage to destroyers they always did, but the destroyer will have become much more dangerous to the submarine. I don't think auto-diving is a very good idea. This means you would have to start spotting subs with cruisers and battleships, which you would have to feed to subs merely to get a shot at them with a destroyer. And that would be obligatory as well, because no amount of destroyers could ever fire at a submarine if they weren't accompanied by "bait" ships.

To cut supply you must cut all railways to it by turning them to your color. Ports or normal roads do not transfer any supply. As long as a single railway is intact the town receives full supply however. There are also a few minor things you need to keep in mind. First, just before it is calculated whether a city is still in supply, all squares around it are automatically captured by the owner of the town. So you either have to leave a unit on the railway squares around it or capture railway squares a bit away from the town. Second, some towns act as natural supply points and always have maximum supply for some reason. This goes for Stalingrad for example. It takes a turn before new supply is calculated, so you may want to wait after you have cut the last railway. You can see how much supply an enemy unit has by clicking on it. This helps you determine which units have less then 5 supply.

A city that is cut off from the capital receives only 5 supply, down from 10. For German cities in Russia that are cut off it is only 3 supply, down from 5. Also note that if you destroy a unit with 4 or less supply it cannot be rebuild for 60% of the cost. So if you manage to encircle a group of units and a city, only the unit in the city will have 5 supply and can be rebuild cheaply. The others will be far more expensive. This way you can destroy resources of your enemy by encircling before you destroy. If you use strategic bombers to reduce the city to 3 supply and then wait a turn you can destroy the unit in the city as well without giving your enemy a chance to rebuild for 60% of the cost.

Countering tanks with AT weapons is hardly an option. A fully upgraded army does only 2 damage against a fully upgraded tank, while the tank does 7 back. So there is just no contest there, the infantry will be slaughtered and barely scratch the tank. In fact, a fully upgraded army is more expensive and weaker then a level-0 tank! Ultimately the only things that work against tanks are tactical air and other tanks. It is very difficult to achieve air superiority with Russia however, because the Germans have such a large headstart in the air. So the only thing that you can do is go for tanks. But if you are unlucky with your tank research like you, you have already lost the game.

Let me go first then: A current problem is that when the USSR surrenders to Japan it will trap all German troops inside Russia. They don't receive any supply from Japanese cities and it takes about 2 years for them to get out of Russia because they only move 1 square a turn. On top of this Japan doesn't have a direct railway to the majority of Russia, which causes all cities to work on only 30% efficiency. This makes it very foolish to capture the USSR with a Japanese unit. Of course you can solve this by waiting for a German unit, but it is not desirable for the Axis player to have to wait for German troops to capture their last capital as he would want to capture it straight away. In addition to this, capturing the last capital with a German unit will cause very similar problems as those described above for the Japanese. The Japanese might want to use the Russian harbor in the east and keep the eastern Russian cities at 50% efficiency, rather then 30%. So a better system for USSR surrender is needed. This can be done with a decision event that gives the player the opportunity to use the current system (giving the USSR to whoever captured it) or to split the USSR into a Japanese part and an German part. The Japanese part could then contain roughly the eastern 5 cities and the German part the rest. The advantage of this is that it will deal with all the problems above. A disadvantage however is that it may be a bit of a no-brainer to accept. Perhaps a small price for accepting could be implemented under the label "reduced plunder".

There are 2 things you can do to increase your chances of getting technology. The first is to develop intelligence. Each level of intelligence increases the chance of getting a technology by 1% per chit. Normally the chance to get technology is 5% per chit for level 1, 4% for level 2 etc. So if you develop 2 intelligence this would increase to 7% for level 1, 6% for level 2 etc. The second thing you can do is invest more chits in it. If you have 2 chits in tanks it will double the chance to get a new technology over just 1 chit. There is also an additional bonus chance to get technology based upon how far the enemy has developed his technology. So if he has level 4 tanks and you have level 1 tanks, you'd get 3% additional chance (per chit?). This gets reduced by his level of intelligence however, so it may just be 0%. You do not control this however and so its not really relevant. Unfortunately, getting 3 points will take a lot of time and that likely is not time that you have. So I am afraid there is no easy answer on how to deal with your Soviet - Germany front.

When you hover your mouse over a flag in the lower right corner of the main screen you see some information about that country, including the industrial percentage. There seems to be a minor bug here as the industrial percentage displayed is always the percentage that the country started out with, not the percentage of the latest technology level. So for example, when Germany has researched 2 industrial technology it has an industrial modifier of 150%, it still displays as 100% though.

I would say it has good sides and bad sides compared to the previous ones. The main good side is that it has more variety between games, because there are more options. The allies player can for example decide to leave the entire pacific to the Japanese and focus the US entirely upon Germany. Or the UK can choose to spend a lot of MPP on India to focus on Japan instead of Africa. The main bad side is that the fronts are a bit too small to fight upon. Whereas in the original you could use a pincer movement in the Soviet Union for example, this is now not really possible anymore, because your units cover the whole front. This reduces the tactics that are required and makes, for example, surrounding towns before you capture them a much less viable strategy. It also offers a few new features that make the game better, especially the new decision events are far better then those in the original. I really like the new damage calculations as well. Unfortunately, some of the balance issues that were in the previous games are still in there, such as that certain technologies are nearly useless. I must say I am a bit disappointed that they were not fixed. It is after all the fifth SC 2 game and such things really ought to be removed by now. Overall though, I do think that it adds something to the previous ones and that is worth the money.

Apparently 10% if you are playing an AI axis, see the event below. Does anyone know at what point in time that check is made? Always just after the conditions are satisfied? ; Event for Vichy France Joining the Axis { #NAME= AXIS AI: Vichy France -> Axis (10%) #POPUP= Vichy France Joins The Axis Alliance #IMAGE= #SOUND= #FLAG= 1 #TYPE= 0 #AI= 1 #GV= 1[1,100] #LINK= 0[0] #LEVEL= 0 #COUNTRY_ID= 62 ; Set Vichy France to have a random/variable war entry #TRIGGER= 10 #ALIGNMENT= 1 #DATE= 1939/01/01 ;Set variable conditions: ;1st Line - France politically aligned with Allies and surrendered ;2nd Line - USSR aligned with Allies (not fully active) and not surrendered #VARIABLE_CONDITION= 26 [2] [100] [1] #VARIABLE_CONDTION= 4 [2] [0] [0] }

The results are always the same. I can't remember exactly what they were, but it was something like 5-15% normally and a small chance on ~20%. As for the use of it, I think it can be useful in some situations, but only when a few percent is enough to make a difference. For example, spending 1 chit in diplomacy on Sweden will make it permanently stop sending resources to Germany. This will make itself back quite quickly, especially if Germany does nothing to regain this income.

Good idea, but I post it here, because these are general issues that affect everyone and I believe it would make the game better if it were implemented. That is also why I have limited it to issues of which I think it is quite clear that they are unbalanced.

I don't think that bombers are bad units, but upgrading them seems rather useless as all the good things you do with bombers do not really need those upgrades. So spotting, bombing HQs, reducing entrenchment and reducing supply to below 5 is all very useful, but none of them justify getting heavy bomber upgrades. But if anyone feels that those upgrades are useful in some way I'd like to hear it. Note that in my calculations of production and infrastructure I did not include the time it takes to research the technologies. This is easily another 15 turns or so for an investment of 1 chit. So the actual time it takes to get your money back is close to 2,5 years. That still doesn't completely exclude them from getting a profit out of it, but for most countries this is not worth it at all. When comparing them to industrial technology this is doubly true, as industrial technology makes itself back in just a few turns (after researching it) for most countries. In my view, these income increasing technologies should all have some situations in which they are useful. The math shows, however, that currently getting industrial technology is a good move and production and infrastructure are just empty filling of your technology window. About the naval issue, I really haven't played enough GC games to be able to judge it. But on first sight it does seem to me that Germany receives a gigantic amount of free subs and defeating the navy of the UK is fairly easy.

There are in my opinion a number of balance issues, especially research related, that have been in the game for quite some time. I would like to present what I feel is currently dubious and hear some opinions of others about that. This thread is not meant to criticize the game, as I think it is one of the best WW2 strategy games, but is meant to serve as a platform for constructive conversation. Technology related Production Technology To start out with production technology, I realize that this can never become a 40% reduction as it would then be cheaper to buy new units then to replace old ones. If you compare the current way that this works with industrial research and the benefits that you gain from it however it seems that it is severely underpowered. Industrial research now increases the income of the original cities and mines by 25% for an investment of 125 MPP. Production research only increases the income that is spend on building new units by 5%. In practice the percentage of income spend on new units won't be more then 50% of the total. That means that production research gives an increase of 2.5% of the income. Industrial research is highly dependent on the country, but for large countries with few colonies like Russia this will just be 25%. For others like Germany and Japan it will still be in the direction of 50%. So that makes industrial research between 5 and 10 times more effective then production research. About the actual effects, all nations make between 200 and 600 MPP a turn. When 50% is spend on new units (which is already a very high estimation) it will come down to an increase of 5 and 15 resources per turn. That means that you will get your investment back between 8 and 24 turns after researching it. There are about 15 turns in a year, so that is 1,5 years for you to get your resources back for a nation like Britain. That is hardly worth the investment. A change to the production research cost could make it a more viable choice again. Alternatively an additional effect, such as decreased production time or reduced reinforcement cost might help here. AA Radar I never researched it and with the removal of AA units it seems highly unlikely that anyone ever will. A serious decrease in cost combined with an upgrade on ships to use this instead of the naval warfare might really help here. Bombers Although bombers are quite useful the research only affects strategic bombing, which isn't that useful most of the time. Even when income is invested in heavy bombers, the increase in bomber cost and thus MPP losses from bomber repair compensates for the additional damage they do to cities. This makes bombers permanently incapable of a successful strategic bombardment campaign against cities, even when highly upgraded. Although strategic bombers can be used for a number of other tasks that require the strategic bombing statistic, the high MPP cost of the research is just not worth it for those. A possibility to deal with this might be that tactical bombers could be made to benefit from this upgrade, rather then from anti-tank weapons. The maximum level of research could then be reduced to 2 and the MPP cost to 100. The upgrade cost for heavy bombers could then be reduced from 10% to 5%. This would make heavy bombers profit from research you need anyway without spending absurd amounts of MPP to get it. Alternatively, a simple reduction in the cost of heavy bombers can be implemented. But as it is, the cost of 125 MPP for this research seems absurd. Infrastructure I have never kept track of how much I spend on operating, transporting and amphibious transports, but if even for Japan its more then 15% of the total income I would be very surprised. A 10% decrease in 15% of your total income is 1.5% income bonus a turn. It would take more then a year to get your money back from this, with the already low research budget for Japan its not worth investing in it. The cost of this would have to be reduced to 75 MPP at maximum and even then it wouldn't be able to compete with industrial research. Unit related Rockets The rockets are in my opinion too expensive and not worth the cost. Even with the range increase they received in GC, practical experience simply shows that the effect they have cannot compare to alternative investments. I would suggest a reduction in cost to 125 MPP for the unit. Artillery Not a big issue, but artillery always seemed a bit cheap for my taste, especially when compared to rockets. Artillery is better in every way as it shoots more often, can fire at units in cities and reduces entrenchment by 2, but only costs half as much. It is true that rockets decrease morale by twice as much, but without the ability to shoot on units in cities this advantage isn't quite as large as might be expected. The 10 hitpoints for artillery for only 100 MPP are already a decent expense, but the great unit that comes with it really can not realistically cost only 100 MPP. An increase in price to 125 MPP would make both rockets and artillery equally priced. General Issues Tank Forest / Jungle effectiveness I have said it before and will say it again, tanks shouldn't be as effective in forests as infantry is. This is both good from a realism perspective as well as from a gameplay perspective. Currently tanks are nearly as effective as infantry in cities and mountains and literally trample infantry outside of these areas. The difference in cost between an army and a tank is only about 40%, this is no way compensates for the double damage, 2 attacks and 15% demoralization and extra movement that tanks receive. That means that tanks are much more powerful then infantry. Infantry needs compensation for that and this can be received by making tanks more incapable then infantry to battle in forests and jungles, as well as in mountains and cities. So the TDB for forest and jungles should be set to 2. Final remarks I have given some points that can be changed relatively easily that could, in my opinion, really help to solve some of the issues that the game still has. Feel free to criticize anything I have said here or to share your own thoughts.

No, but I noticed that the British only received 6 MPP from New Zealand for example, which is 10 * 0.6. Since the industrial modifier of Britain was 0.6 I concluded from that it was modified by the the industrial modifier of Britain. But you are right, it works differently as can be seen from the convoy.txt file. The maximum percentage of income from these convoys is simply reduced to 0.6. Guess that still means industrial research is not very useful for Britain. Thanks for the answer, that solves it.

I noticed that the British industrial modifier now applies to its colonies as well. Does anyone know where else this applies? Is the industrial modifier of Germany for example used on Spain when Spain becomes a minor of Germany? Any clarification on this would be appreciated.