Ivanov

I had the same problem - I copied the missig files from the 1.04. I've never had this problem before, while installing the new patch.

I have conducted a new test. This time I have sent a big B.E.F to France. Despite it's presence, the French surrendered one turn after the fall of Paris. Note that the German attack was conducted with a relatively small force and only from the North - big part of France remained unoccupied. I dare to say that under such a circumstances, even historically the French would probably continue their resistance: Conclusion: the boost of French morale due to the strong presence of British forces on the continent is irrelevant, hence sending B.E.F still makes no sense to the Allied player. It would be really benefcial, if an alternative capital was offered after the fall of Paris. Let's say it could happen, if the French NM was still above 50% ( thanks to the British support ) at the very moment when the Germans manage to enter to the city. Some may argue that such a course of action would be too beneficial for the Allies, but actually sending large number of British units to assist the French, is a big gamble, because it would leave practically no troops the defend the Isles, in case of an eventual invasion. A decission to send a large B.E.F, would be then an interestiv strategical choice - from one hand the Allied player could gain the time by prolonging the campaing in the West ( beneficial to the USSR ), but on the oter he could risk a total total disaster, if the Axis player dared to land in Britain. Right now, prolonging the French campaing is simply impossible, just like it used to be in the earlier patches. Ps. During the testing I ignored Poland and moved the German forces directly to the West, so the USSR declared the war on Axis in the 1940. There was a pop-up about the boost of Russian morale due to the Allied landings in France

I have sent 2 B.E.F units - the minimum required according to the instructions. So if you send 5 or more units, the French won't surrender after the fall of Paris?

Hmmm, I've just tested the French campaign in SOE 1.05. The French surrendered immediately after the fall of Paris ( just like it used to happen in the previous versions ), despite the presence of the B.E.F on the continent... It is true, that sending the British forces has a positive effect on the French morale, but as the surrender is again tied directly to the fall of Paris ( there is no alternative capital ), so sending the BEF is still quite pointless to the Allied player. During my testing, I attacked France in the Autumn of 1939, so the surrender came actually earlier than usually. I think that the only way to prolong the French campaign, would be if some alternative capital was offered. I know, it would be ahistorical, but keeping B.E.F on the continent after the fall of Paris, would be also something that didn't take place in reality. Is there any circumstance right now, under which the French wouldn't surrender after the fall of Paris? If not, then sending the British support is again too costly and pointless, because the Garmans can still easily win the campaign just by driving decisively towards the capital ( even bypassing Belgium ).

Ok nevermind - I have copied all the missing files from the 1.04 folder. Hope it will work smoothly. The changes look really exciting!

I have downloaded the new patch, but when the install process is over, I got a message: failed to load library "zlib1.dll" Same message pops-up when I want to launch the game. I have downloaded the patch few times and I always have the same problem. Any help? Thanks

Very nice:) have you introduced any changes to the Fate Of Nations campaign, that would extend the duration of the French mutinies?

Ok, just to remind you about the three things you may consider to implement: -The French mutinies in "Fate of Nations" should be extended, so it would be difficult for the Allied player to conduct any offensive operations during the first half of 1917 -Enchacing the influence of the WWII BEF on the French campaign ( maybe by introducing a new DE ) -The stats of the WWII AT units should be increased. Just a little reminder

No I don't think so. At the end it's up to the Allied player, how he will build up the French and British armed forces during the period of 1939/40. The problem for the French, is their low morale and the fact the country always falls after the Paris is captured, no mather what. As to the British, the WWII BEF was actually not very large. But the problem is, that sending the troops, is right now very costly and practically pointless, because the BEF cannot influence in any way the outcome of the campaign. Hopefully this will be addressed somehow in the next patch.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=103309

PLease don't forget about increasing of the stats of the AT units

I actually like that. Even if the arty fire does't cause any direct strenght loss, it does affect the morale and readiness, so the player can bring in the infantry units can finish the job. It would be unrealistic if the arty alone could totally obliterate a corps size unit. I also think, that the tac air units in the WWII scenarios, should have a simmilar effect on the enemy - cause less direct casualties and have more effect on the morale and readiness. I found the counterbattery fire pretty handy in the smaller scenarios ( Gallipoli, Kaiserschlacht ) that I played during the tournament. In bigger campaigns I had routinely see it happened only in the Middle East.

I guess that most of the players, fully appreciate the fact that one of the main merits of the SC system is it's simplicity. From the other hand, I don't think it's possible to improve the game without adding some slight layer of complexity to it. Still, even with stacking ( or whatever name you want to give to it ), SC would be one of the simplest strategic games on the market. The idea behind stacking, originates from the fact, that currently the neighbouring, friendly units don't interact with each other in any way and that makes some smaller units ( like AT or AA ) too vulnerable or even useless. Stacking seems to be the simplest solution to it ( but certainly not the only one ). Equally important as stacking would be a possibility to divide the units into smaller ones ( eg. one army into three corps ). That feature would certainly be a great tool in player's hands, especially while on the defense.

As a wargammer, you should know that the potential difficulties are here only to overcome them and that they cannot stop you from achieving the final goal

I don't think that developing a stacking mechanism would be too difficult from the technical point of view. It has been done in many other games with a considerable success. The main benefit of it, would be a possibility of stacking the smaller, support units like the AT, with other corps or armies. In this way, they would offer a real support instead of being merely a useless cannon fodder: Stacking would be also beneficial for creating more logical defensive lines.

Density of deployment or stacking - one name for the same thing. Basically an ability to place more than one unit on one hex/tile. But I think that regardless the name, the rules of it should be simple.

I think that one of the features lacking in the current system is stacking and a possibility of dividing bigger units into a smaller ones. So I would propose that in the new SC 3, a bigger unit could be stacked on one tile/hex with a specialized unit ( AT, AA, Art ). It would be an army if we talk about WWII games, while it would be a corps + support unit in the WWI system. That kind of stacking would for example resolve the problem of "useless" anti-tank units. If AT could be stacked with other, bigger units, then they could greatly contribute as a support units, instead of being always a "weak" link of the defensive line. I would be also great if the army size units ( corps in the WWI games ), could be divided into let's say three corps. Of course currently three corps are in general stronger than one army, so that would require some unit rebalancing. Or maybe an army fighting with all three corps, could get a +1 attack and defence bonus. In this way an army would be always stronger than for example two corps stacked on one tile/hex. Anyway, there are countless ways to resolve this. Please consider those features for the future SC3, because those features are severely missed and having them in the game, would open a completely new possibilities of conducting offensive and defensive gameplay on the tactical level.

Yes, at the end this The Great War forum

Hi Bill, You mean that you've amended the WWII ideas? Oh, it's not about who is going to get the credit for it. But I am glad you liked the suggestion and if you decide to implement it, the early WWII game will be much more interesting.

I wouldn't go for overcomplexity either. What I'm counting for, is a good looking, functional and playable game with some improved mechanics of the old system ( supply, multiple attack, limited stacking ). But I still want it to be Strategic Command, not a completely different game

Excelent news! Maybe it would be a good idea to release some newsletters about the progress of the work and invite more beta-testers before it gets released I know that we have to wait a long time before the first beta version will be completed...

Yeah, I've did it once. By accident I didn't secure the ports, so when France surrendered, I couldn't transport the British forces back to England until December (!), because the German player was bombing the port. But the resulting land-air-naval battle was very beneficial to me, but only due to the mistakes of my opponent. Normally having all the BEF stuck on the continent, would be a nightmare for the Allied player and should result in a disaster.

Ehm, Kommandant is not here by the moment... But yes, I think that early the game would benefit a lot for this change.

Bill, in my game even if the French fought with the BEF support, it wouldn't help them in the military terms.The British forces is was sending to France in my earlier games, usually consisted of a HQ, army, two corps, AA and a AT unit. I used this force to hold the northern flank, so they could benefit from the naval support and close to the ports, to keep the escape route open:) That kind of BEF is too weak to casue any serious damage to the Germans. It's presence, couldn't even really slow down the end of the campaign, because the French surrender depends entirely on the fall of Paris. So the German player can solely focus on the drive towards the capital, ignoring completely the northern flank. Any elaborate and spectacular maneuvers are simply unnecessary. Due to that, the best strategy for the Allied player is to group all the available French forces around Paris and no sending the BEF to the continent, because it would be irrelevant and costly. Note that the screenshot features third or fourth turn of the German assault and some French units positioned directly east of Paris have been already destroyed. The southern French armoured corps also managed later to maul one German infantry army. Paris fell eventually due to the frontal assault. I think the best solution would be to tie the presence of BEF to the French NM and introduce a decission event, that would allow to send the troops with a small cost. Still, it would be a hard choice for the Allied player, because by saying "yes" to the DE, he would risk the destruction of the expeditionary force, leaving the UK practically defenceless. I agree with The K Man that right now the Polish and French campaigns work well in this sense, that players always achieve the historical results, but I think there is still some potential to exploit and make the early game more interesting.

Finally I managed to start testing of the 1.04 SOE campaign. I am eager to see how the changes introduced to the new patch affected the game's balance. Right now we are still ahead of Barbarossa, so it would be difficult to talk about the general balance, but the first most visible thing, is that the USA can invest a lot in the research, which is great! As I mentioned before, I usually don't pay too much attention to the French campaign, but one thing struck me this time. So far I was always sending BEF to the continent, because I thought that it could help to hold the northern part of the front line, allowing the French armoured units to counterattack and cause some serious damage to the invaders. Then I usually managed to successfully evacuate the BEF via one of the unoccupied French ports. The problem I was always facing, was the cost of sending and then evacuating of the British units. It was always a serious issue as early in the game the UK prestige is always very scare. So this time I decided to leave the BEF in England and concentrate all the French units around Paris. The result was identical to when the French were fighting with the British support. France have fallen as always, but concentrating all the available units around the capital, allowed me to survive until the mid July and destroy one panzer group by the French tanks. At the same time, Britain was well protected against the invasion and I saved a lot of cash by not sending the troops to the continent. My conclusion is that right now, sending the BEF to the continent has absolutely no benefits for the Allied player. If the player decides to do so, he will only spend a lot of cash and would also risk destruction of the units what would be a horrible perspective in case if the germans decide to launch the Sea Lion. And of course there is no dobut that the British army could save France in 1940 as it possibly did in 1914. What would be an alternative to that? I think that historically not sending BEF was politically unacceptable, so maybe the troops should be already placed in France at the beginning of the game or appear there as a result of a decision event like, similarly to the WWI campaigns. In order to boost the importance of that, maybe it would be worth to tie the French NM to the presence of the BEF on the continent? Let's say that until the expeditionary force stays in Europe, France keeps on fighting even after the fall of Paris, with a new capital let's say in Toulouse or Bordeaux ? It sounds like a bit extreme solution, but it would definitely make the early game more interesting. There is no doubt that even with an alternative capital, France would fall sooner or later, but prolonging the campaign into late 1940, could seriously delay the start of Barbarossa. For the Allied player, it would be an interesting choice - sending BEF prolonges the French campaign and possibly buys more time for the USSR, but from the other hand leaving the troops on the continent would make UK vulnerable to the German potential invasion.