Duke of York

Hi! I had this bug sometimes in AoD. I use my HQs mostly in Auto-Assist mode. In cases I can't recognize, one unit was double-attached to the belonging HQ. When you cancel all attachments of the HQ you can see one of the units still connected. I hope this helps.

No. I think, when the US send MPPs to another country, their MPP graph will be lower by this ammount an the recieving countrys graph will be higher.

Hi Hubert, thanks for the news. Does the hotfix work also for a self-modified multiplayer game? We changed some unit combat values and a few things on the map.

Well done!

Intresting game ... but where did the Japs get the 15% morale bonus?

The problem with DEI is - it is conquerable. It can be manipulated. At a certain point of playing progress the Japs player will conquer it. When he does it smart, the US stay out of war but he benefits from the DEI income and eliminates the embargo effect.

I didn't talk about "overrun in 1939". It would take a few years, no doubt. I said, they would do so if they had really focussed on it. What means that they had to invest in their landbased fighting abilities instead of their naval abilities. Exactly the same way the player has to do when he wants a "Land-Japan".

Hi Strategiclay, my focus in historical strategy games is always on the question: would/could this really happen? From this point of view I think: yes - the Japs would really have overrun the Chinese when they had tried it seriously. And if they had made it so, the US would never enter war to save chinese lives. They were strictly pacifistic until Pearl Harbor. What they really did and what maybe could be tuned is to embargo the japanese income of MPP when the Japs are too aggressive. This would be more historical accurate for me than swinging into the war. Maybe we can define some cities in China and Southeast Asia that will cause a MPP drain every turn when Japan holds them and the US is not at war? And this could be increased annually.

Good ideas, Strategiclayabout. But what ist your intention? Is it to counter the "anti-USA diplomacy strategy" or is it to balance Japan vs. China? If it's the first case, it's the wrong way I think. Because for me the "anti-USA diplomacy strategy" is gamey and should be deactivated. No major nation should be able to influence another major nation by diplomacy - regardless whether allied or hostile. The (Axis-) players can "control" the US-mobilization by their aggressiveness. And nothing else. If it's the second case, there is no need to rise american mibilization in response to japanese success in China. Because when Japan decides to conquer China, it will do so but it costs them a lot MPP which they need for their navy. If you believe that Japans way in China is too easy, lets discuss about it (I don't think so) and manage the things between Japan and China directly.

If the Axis wants to take Egypt, it will do so. Italy itself hasn't enough power, but with german aid it becomes possible. But Germany needs all the MPP to prepare for Barbarossa. Every unit sended to the Med will result in weaker forces against the SU. Taking Egypt or not is an Axis decision - not an Allied. And if the UK looses Egypt, the SU should perform better against Germany. AoD is a global game. Don't look only to one specific area. Every concentration of power at one point has a disadvantage at another point.

That's for me the most important wrong thing. Conquering Britain doesn't eliminate the UK from the war. It only takes them some MPP and moves the Capital to Egypt. And this is the KO for Italy because they now have a much stronger enemy in the Med. New troops start in Egypt and can conquer North Africa without any problem. IMHO this is quite unrealistic. A successful Sealion should bring a neutralized UK (and Commonwealth) with the disadvantage of an instant DOW US->Axis (no raise in USSR % mobilization).

Italian BB's and CA's are also very useful to bomb down Malta's supply. Four Ships can reduce it to zero in one turn and the following air strikes are much more effective. But this is only a possibility when France is fallen and the french Navy is out of war. And be aware of the british navy. They have a CV in the Med.

I meant: when the AI normally would build 2 corps and 2 armies and there were 3 corps and 1 army to build for half price, would the AI change it's building list?

Does the AI prefer building units at half costs?

Tested the Hotfix with 1944 Bagration Scenario as Axis (first turn SU). Two things are to note. 1. The (SU) AI still tends to retreat first a few units before launching the assault. Not a big problem because this are only three or four Cavalry or Arti-Tank units. But still strange. 2. In some times the AI has an unit next to it's victim but moves before attack and loses the prepared bonus (I suppose there is one in AoC).

Taking the full game time and the later conflict with the US, the first 2 years can't be rated only by the pure progress in China. The more important question is, what did the progress cost? When the Axis player decides to conquer China at any cost, he will do so. But in this case he will soon lose naval supremacy because he can't buy enough carriers. China will fall but they have served their purpose by draining Japans MPP.

No, I tested only the normal Barbarossa with the official Patch. This stuff works ... I'll test the hotfix with B2B in a few hours.

Hi Hubert, a quick test after updating to v1.02 showed a "normal" AI beaviour. Seems to working as intended.

Hi Al, yesterday I tried AoC first time as Soviet Union. So the Axis AI made the first move. Setting was Beginner and without Exp Bonus. I wondered, that their first action was to retreat some units (about a quarter of total number of units) back from the frontline and then the AI started Barbarossa only with the remaining forces. The result was a sightly weaker punch against soviet forces than it could be. Maybe you can deactivate this "retreat-checking" at least for the first 3 turns? Edit: game version was v1.01.

You can copy and rename your complete game folder before the update to V1.02. This folder contains the old game version because the update targets the standard installation folder.

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=312&Itemid=543

In a PvP game, China is a very, very hard opponent. When Japan wants to conquer China, they have to invest large amounts of MPP. An undistinguished played Japan can be driven out of the country. Only a AI-controlled China should get some help if necessary.

Great work, Hubert & Bill.

Look here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1432147#post1432147 By doing exactly this, spawning new units in the Hlukhiv-pocket in the west of Kursk, HvS flanked the Army Group South and brought them in serious trouble. This is the Point where this game overturned.

Hi Bill! Yes, I see the sense of the existence of Industrial Centers. Especially in China. But what about deployments in Yarkand and Khotan? They have no rail connection to the capital or an Industrial Center od any primary or secondary supply source. Or Kunming? You can cut the connections of Kunming to the rest of China. But new deployments cann still placed there. My example wasn't the best to show the result of these mechanics. China has too less railroads, they need other places for deployments. The problem is everywhere, where you cut the rail connections and isolate regions from capital or Industrial Centers, but new units spawn there from nowhere.