Sharkman

Allways on, I have never heard of anyone playing PBEM with it off.

Sounds like a good idea as you move units you use up oil points, possibly even 1 point per tile and 1 point per attack, giving players room for conservation. I would think air and naval units would use less, possibly 1 point for a complete move and 1 for a combat action. Infantry units might get a non-mech free move and all movement beyond that cost oil points. It would definatly add to the depth of play and could possibly be turned on or off for those who dont like it.

Yes you can, I copied the entire game into another folder and installed the 1.06 patch, to the copy and now have both versions running.

Thanks Hubert

Actualy my question was: If I buy the Global Conflict Gold full package for $45 can I install it as the OLD Global Conflict without the new Gold upgrade, that way I could finish my in-progress Global Conflict games before I move on to Gold. Is this full package the old Global Conflict with additional patch, or is it a complete one-piece download that installs from the start as the full Gold version?

I lost my Global Conflict due to a catastrophic Computer crash, I bought it over 365 days ago, and stupidly did not write my liscence down on a piece of paper, after several e-mails to Battlefront I have given up trying to get it back. I had been planning on buying the Gold upgrade soon anyway, so I'll just pay $45 for the complete package, hopfuly the $20 loss will remind me to keep a program backup and write the liscence down. Does anyone know if the Global Conflict Gold complete package can be installed as 1.06 or 1.07 without gold, I have some Global Conflict games running that I would like to finish.

Oops wrong thread! Oh well good suggestions for future developments anyway.

I don't have gold yet, I'm amazed at the size of the chinese army in 1940, in the pre-gold version this would be completly impossible, I take it the chinese have been seriously pimped-up.

I think Armor and Air upgrades should have some kind of delay and limit, possibly limited to 1 upgrade or new unit per turn, beyond that you would be forced to build new units at 1 level lower than the available tech. And I think there could be an overall limit for example only 10% can be of the highest tech in the 1st 6 months, the next 6 months 20% and so on, in the case of quick breakthroughs there could even be a limit on the 2nd highest tech level units. I think the upgrades on naval warfare should be limited to 1 upgrade per ship or sub, AA and ASW possibly limited to 2, this would allow a distiction between old and new ships, it has allways bothered me when a completly obsolete battleship or aircraft carrier is modernized and upgraded to super-modern status. There could be an exception for destroyers and submarines, if the owning player opts to replace them with completly new ships then that could be possible but of course much more expensive. As far as strategic warfare goes, I have allways been in favor of separate strategic warfare boxes. A box for each area, a british atlantic convoy box, a Russian north atlantic convoy box, a Britan strategic bombing box, a germany strategic bombing box, there could be several more. Units can simply be moved there, air and AA units could be reinforced and upgraded in the box. I would think there would normaly be no acutal combat just abstract attrition, We would loose the exciting u-boat hunt, and the less exciting strategic bombing of individual citys, but I think it would be more realistic. I would also like the strategic bombing to have some options, like terror bombing, industrial bombing, or interdiction of supply lines.

I would like to see maybe at least 1 more free heavy bomber for the americans and 1 more for the brits, the germans get lots of free u-boats to to wage the battle of the atlantic, I think the allies should get the same freebee for the strategic bombing campaign.

The US industry does seem to need some adjustment, no matter how I do it I cannot seem to get the kind of air and ground forces together that I need for an invasion in 1944, and conduct some kind of strategic bombing campaign at the same time, but that should be possible.

A Possible option might be giving the French heavy reinforcements starting in the late spring of 1940 and a greater industrial increase. This could simulate the french adapting to the situation, and this forces the germans to get a quick victory. Another might be adding a few french and british units to the belgian set up to represent the units that advanced and got cut off. I must admit I have so far allways sent my main forces through northern belgium, which probably would have prolonged the war historicaly, but in the game it works quite well. I live near france and often hear a kind of myth about the blitzkrieg in france. Many people around here on both sides of the border believe the french could have easily overrun the german western defences when germany invaded poland, not winning the war but forcing the germans to send reinforcements from the east, and possibly even resulting in serious political reprucussions. Do any of the historians out there know if there is any truth in this.

Mobilization doesn't automaticaly lead to hostilities, or does it?

Yes I'm a double agent, born in California, but I have lived most of my life in Germany. Rambo's invitation sounds nice though, except the brew part (I assume that means beer), there are a lot of things I miss about the United States but the beer is definatly not one of them.

I'm no historian but I know that the Germans did capture and use 2 forts near Verdun, I only know this because I live about an hours drive away and have visited the battlefield quite often. Although severly damaged they were still useful after conquest, and re-conquest. They are still intact today, so I would say they are not easily completly destroyed. There are many fortresses near Verdun, abandoned and overgrown in the forest, most untouched by time, I did some hiking in that area about 10 years ago and found 3 or 4 of them, there must be many more, a very fascinating area.

No need to worry Rambo, we're just exchanging tourist information, like where the nice quiet beaches with easy fising port access on the east coast are located. WE COME IN PEACE!

Es gibt schon genug Deutscher im Forum, auch andere nationalitäten, aber wir schreiben hier so viel Ich weiss immer Englisch, manche besser manche schlechter, ist aber egal, ich bin auch kein Deutscher, mein deutsch ist aber gar nicht so schlecht. Hier is noch ein Deutschsprachige forum: http://www.si-games.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=183

I'm kind of dissapointed, I thought when I invested in diplomacy there would allways be a small chance of success, even if the other side invested more. In the end I guess it works out the same, I can't sway the neutral country, I just lower the enemy's chance of swaying it. Ivanov I allways assumed all of the chits are figured together, all CP or Entente chits, they seem to be added together on the diplomacy chart anyway.

I just signed up, I had actually not intended to because I have never played these mini-scenarios and allready have a number of games running, but what the heck. I won't last all too long anyway.

I had allways assumed the chits do not negate each other, I thought if one side bought 1 chit they had a 5% chance no matter what the other side did. Of course I have often enough assumed wrong.

It is really a great scenario, the best as far as I'm concerned. As I understand it a country does not surrender until it has less than 0 NM, so if you reach 0 on an enemy turn you do get 1 more turn, but almost allways it will be your last. One thing I noticed about Holland is that in one game I declared war on Holland just to stop them from delivering imports to Germany, but it didn't work, I would think that by declaring war on Holland the blockade would be extended to Holland but it wasn't. I have also considered another option: the Entente could blockade Holland without declaring war, this would probably upset the Dutch and possibly the Americans, but it could be an option, I'm no historian, does someone out there know if such a move had been considered?

Peter Very good point about aid to other countries, it would be nice if this were in the player's hands, and I would expand it, allowing for example France to send mmps to Italy, England to France, Germany to A-H and so on. There should be costs of course, if sent by rail probably at a lower cost than those sent by sea. CP would I think be restricted to using rail lines. Entente could use sea routes, this might require a couple of new convoy routes, these could then be used in either direction. This might allow for a-historical situations like Russia helping France or England. And of course there should be some kind of limit otherwise people will send their whole economy which does not make sense. I think a country could be limited to around 50 mmps per turn foreign aid, I don't know off-hand how much is being sent now.

Somthing else concerning game balance, when you think about how hard it was for the Germans to take Verdun, the game really does not represent that. I thought possibly raising the entrenchment level of Verdun, or making it a 2 tile objective, a fortress tile and a somewhat less fortified city tile behind it, or making artillery less effective against Verdun, as it is now as soon as you get enough artillery in place Verdun will fall. Maybe someone has a better idea?

Bill I like the score idea, although some times I would rather take a simple loss than to know the score was 5 to 500 or somthing like that. What do you think about allowing players to devote more industry to raise NM levels? I think it would mostly benefit Germany and Russia because they usualy still have lots of mmps when they hit 0 NM, but I think it could be interesting. I think this would help the Russians simulate efforts to fight the internal unrest while trying to still fight the war, the same really goes for any other country with low NM levels. You are forced to spend more and more money just to stay in the war a little longer, reducing of course your ability to reinforce the troops on the front.

I had a similar game although I was on the winning side for a change (doesn't happen very often), my French were in terrible shape and the Germans were actualy in very good shape, and the Austrians were doing great, but the German NM was falling faster than the French. The Germans reached 0 about 2 or 3 turns earlier than the French would have. I had almost completly pulled the French out of the front line to avoid NM losses. It could have gone either way. But that's the way it goes, I think it's ok the way it is, I guess the internal order in Germany just collapsed a few days before it did in France. I had thought about the possiblility of allowing players to buy NM points (beyond the 25 mmps), this would simulate massive police actions and induatrial capacity used to placate the angry population. This would of course mostly help the Germans and the Russians, but that might balance itself out. I could imagine that the Germans might have thrown their entire economy into the NM just to stay in the war a little longer, of course the French would have probably done the same. I think it is an interesting idea because as the NM gets lower the NM expenditure gets higher, kind of makes sense.