Glabro

Indeed, Serbia is key, however, I've never seen anyone break Serbia in 1914 - I think it's only doable with serious reinforcements in addition to the decision event army or bad play on the Serbian defenders' part. The choice, I don't think, is still quite balanced, me and Kommandant believe that Trento and Trieste should be National Morale objectives for Italy after Italy's DoW. Historical Italian war aims should be encouraged and stuff like Italy manning the French trenchline against Germany should be somehow discouraged, the best way is with morale (but I don't know how).

Indeed, it's the distinction that it's not ok to defend the Liege river crossing, but it's ok to be one hext to the north/east when the surrender happens. Well, just something that has to be taken into account, I'm sure it's a technical reason.

AI? Well I'm sure the AI is no problem with Italy, I'm talking about a real live opponent - this is a much different proposition, as I don't think the AI is capable of using Italians to supplement the west front. I used this in my previous game, and the effects were devastating - five Italian corps relieved five french corps, which were promptly upgraded and sent to assault the Germans, breaking the line eventually. Plus this is just the initial units, in time they'll have built their entire complement with their own upgrades. I see that the effects of ceding the territory have been made more severe in 1.03 - cities other than Vienna now suffer strength loss - but it still isn't quite enough in my mind, again it's temporary vs. permanent. The main question is again, the morale and readiness question. After half a year, will everything be fine again with the A-H army? They've got mountains to defend, so no real fear of breakthrough. In the previous long game when I ceded the territory, Italy stayed calm, at least until the end of November 1916 when my opponent conceded. It stayed at the same % all the time, I think only diplomacy (at 200 per pip!) can help it.

I accidentally made Italy enter the war. To me this seems like utter folly, with Italy lending her armies to France's trenchline, releasing 5 of her armies right away to attack the Germans, or alternatively mounting an attack on the Austrian Alps. Moreover, the battle for the Mediterranean is irrevocably lost the moment Italy enters, and in effect the Entente get all of Italy's MPP production, diplomacy capacity and such at their disposal, and as the years go by Italy will grow to be a formidable partner. On the flipside: A-H doesn't get the 3 "free" corps in the Alps, NM drops by 10.000, plus the loss of Trieste's MPPs, along with some temporary losses in MPP from Vienna, some strength loss in the armies. Doesn't seem like a hard choice. But am I missing something? Does the loss of 10.000 NM permanently render A-H's troops worse? The morale of the units plummets, making them incapable of any offensives, but it does recover over time - but does it never recover above a certain point, making the troops permanently worse? In other words, does National Morale level set a maximum for unit morale, and thus readiness, or is it just the fluctuations of it that matter - temporarily? Shed some light on this for me. To me it seems like a no-brainer to hand the cities over.

What? Surely "Industrial Capacity" is the only true answer, since everyone's fighting for a long term war? Germany starts with 60%, so the income rises to at least 80% from the first advance, so your essentially get 1/3 more income from that alone, at least - but bear in mind it doesn't affect convoy income, does it?

However, the increased mobilization for the US will mean that they can start researching with more MPPs before they enter, which is a big downside, too.

Hmm, is the Sleep option actually permanent until the unit is moved in later turns? I forget, I thought it was only for the current turn.

That is really weird, why surrender in the first place and what makes the units defending the border give up and those outside not? What motivation do the troops that happen to be inside the border as part of a defensive line with other units want to make a hole in that line and jeopardize their side's defensive plans? I see no reason why the conquerors would "allow" anyone to keep fighting, inside borders or not, if a surrender is to be had, especially since the troops outside the border can simply attack back to their homeland right after the surrender.

Can we get a "sleep forever" option if it doesn't already exist? I never want to cycle through units as I get so many needless units there, it's slow. I habitually forget units in far away corners even if they are under attack.

Hi there, We've encountered a rogue surrender script. UK has conquered Belgium and I had a Belgian Corps defending Liege. However, upon surrender, this corps in Liege disappears as the town changes to UK control. All the other units inside german borders are fine. Can this situation be remedied somehow? At lest the script cold be amended to avoid this happening? Probably even if I had a German there it would have been lost too. And nobody better tell me that "because it was inside Belgian borders it's supposed to surrender" - this makes no sense. Can I send the save over to Hubert or Bill, or can anything be done?

Hi Krista, I didn't think we had ladies (well, there is apparently one man named here, but...) from Finland here on the Stratcom forum. Always a good thing. In theory, anything is possible with the fully featured campaign editor included. But it would be a modding achievement of tremendous quality that would effectively "bridge" the two wars with meaningful content and events (maybe the turns would be a year long or more in betwen), as well as interesting and balanced starting points for a WW2 where France, Poland etc. start under German control.

Indeed, I was actually thinking about modding this in with Kommandant. Might even be doable. We'll see.

Was it so that some of the benefits of entrenchment applied even when attacikng? I seem to remember reading something of the sort earlier on the forum. My own experiences are inconclusive.

We were talking about supply with Kommandant, and one idea I came up with that can be executed is using "supply depots", cheap HQs that have no command ability, being used as the chief source of supply, with minor towns being 1 in supply, for example. Majors could be 6, capitals still 10. You'd have to form your supply lines manually with the supply depots, and being cut off in towns would have serious repercussions. Besides that, it would slow down deep offensives due to outrunning supply, something we've all read about. But is this too much of a headache for the benefits? Possibly.

Lawrence has only showed up once in our games despite Aqaba falling every time. Maybe you can't conquer Aqaba too fast, or something. In my latest game I never got the event message informing me that taking Aqaba lets Lawrence take control. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong?

After this is taken care of, we'll see more realistic concern for batte lines develop, because you can't just leave units cut off in enemy held towns to cause him headache anymore.

Yes. This is a good change, Ivanov. Isolated towns should have a smaller supply value - 0 ( or if we're not being extreme) 1 for occupiers, perhaps 2 or 3 for owning troops, maybe the willing help of the people would affect things?

Thanks, Hubert! Yeah, the scripts are probably what changes, so perhaps I can import those easily - I only really need to do extra work if the unit entry scripts change, really. I'll start after 1.04 - I can feel it in my bones, it's coming in the next few weeks, and will incorporate good changes.

It's there, just press the forced march button on the upper right after selecting the unit. A keyboard shortcut would be nice, or perhaps I just forgot about it.

Yes, of course we'd need to have the editor changed so that towns can have fractional MPP values in relation to supply strength, I wouldn't dream of reducing supply levels of towns. But the whole thing is a lot bigger than it sounds to do right: you'd need to balance each nation's actual capacity, plus maybe unit prices and therefore events, etc...

I mean those two cities, Tilsit and Siedlice.

No, but the point is that patches incorporate changes into existing official campaigns, at least so far, and I wouldn't want to be left without those, so the question is, what would I have to do to incorporate those. Or are there no fixes or changes like that coming to the 1939 campaign in 1.04?

I have another one: how is it that you are able to ignore undiscovered units for movement purposes but as soon as you spot them, your movement becomes more limited? Movement should stop because of the 2 point movement penalty for moving next to 2+ enemies even if some of those enemies remain undiscovered before the move.

I was interested in modifying the 1939 campaign to a smaller scale, but then I thought that I might have to re-do everything come the next patch. What can be easily transferred over to a new campaign version (in 1.04) and what could be kept, if I was planning on changing unit entry scripts, unit deployments (obviously) and build prices / limits, among other things? Or is it better just to wait for 1.04? Problem is, I have no idea when that might come out. I feel like I have to do this after I saw how I could easily walk into Poland without fighting because the abstract "army" units can't hold any ground.

(9) If you had less than six and less than eight together, that's probably a dozen units! It was OR, not and. 6 if you're closer in, 8 if you're further off.