Matrix Games Forums

So I guess that means you would have to restart any games you are playing in multiplayer format, then?

Morsey wrote: Sat Aug 09, 2025 11:02 am So I guess that means you would have to restart any games you are playing in multiplayer format, then?

Yes - I apologize for that.

If you want to keep playing an existing game of Version 6.8 which you began before yesterday's update here is what to look out for. After Serbia surrenders, the offset scripts in this version of the mod will continue to deduct the equivalent number of NM points from Austria-Hungary for the captured Serbian resources, without gaining NM points every turn for those resources. (It turns out that the game engine does not award NM points for captured resources after a major power surrenders). This means that AH will be losing an extra 212 NM points a turn until Serbia is liberated. Also, due to a different glitch, once Serbia surrenders, Russia no longer pays an offset for any Ottoman resources it has captured and it gets the NM value of those resources every turn. You could avoid both of these effects as the CP side by reducing Serbia to its last capital, but not pushing it into surrender. Hope this helps!

Michael

No worries, Michael. I just wanted to make sure if we had to start over.

I have justed updated in my Dropbox the files for both 1914 and 1916 campaigns of version 6.8 to correct some small bugs discovered in a current play-test with Beriand. (If you have a game in progress, DM me and I can explain what needed to be corrected). The latest version of both campaigns have .cgn files dated August 15, 2025.

Michael

In my recent MP game, italy capped though right after it capped it seems to be about to join again. Is this intended? Or a bug?

Stephan4921 wrote: Thu Aug 21, 2025 2:48 pm In my recent MP game, italy capped though right after it capped it seems to be about to join again. Is this intended? Or a bug?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "Italy capped". Are you referring to Italy swinging towards the Entente in early 1915? If you explain a bit more about what happened I can figure out why it happened.

Cheers,

Michael

mdsmall wrote: Thu Aug 21, 2025 6:05 pm

Stephan4921 wrote: Thu Aug 21, 2025 2:48 pm In my recent MP game, italy capped though right after it capped it seems to be about to join again. Is this intended? Or a bug?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "Italy capped". Are you referring to Italy swinging towards the Entente in early 1915? If you explain a bit more about what happened I can figure out why it happened.

Cheers,

Michael

Does he mean 'capitulate' ? Makes no sense otherwise.

Italy capitulated in 1916, but then had an event chain and rejoined the war, but its not on the diplomacy screen and you cant build units out of it or anything. Capped is just a term people use in strategy games when a nation gets annexed, capitulates, etc, Im pretty sure this is a bug?

Stephan4921 wrote: Fri Aug 22, 2025 11:18 am Italy capitulated in 1916, but then had an event chain and rejoined the war, but its not on the diplomacy screen and you cant build units out of it or anything. Capped is just a term people use in strategy games when a nation gets annexed, capitulates, etc, Im pretty sure this is a bug?

Hi Stephan - thanks for explaining that. It is definitely a bug. Looking at your screen-shot, I infer that Austria-Hungary proposed an armistice to Italy (which is a feature in the mod) which Italy automatically accepted, leading to the transfer of Italian territory to Austria-Hungary and Italian mobilization going to 0% for the Entente. Is that correct?

However, I can not see what would have subsequently caused Italy to rejoin the war. Can you describe further the event chain which led to that? The only scripted event that might do that is when Serbia attempts to retreat into neutral Italy but that requires Italy to be mobilized at 50% or above. If you give me a fuller description of what was going on the game when Italy accepted the armistice and then rejoined the way, it might help me find the source of the problem.

Cheers,

Michael

Hi Stephan - I figured out what caused the bug you reported above. If a power withdraws from the war through an armistice, it can start to mobilize again if the conditions are met for Mobilization #2 or Mobilization #3 scripts. In the case you reported above, Italy withdrew from the war after Austria-Hungary offered an armistice through a Decision Event. But then the recurring scripts (Type 2) which led Italy to mobilize in the first place in 1915 started to fire again and Italy eventually reached 100%.

In game terms this is a rare occurrence and not consequential: as you say, a power that has signed an armistice no longer appears in the diplomacy menu, so it can not be attacked, nor can it attack. But still, it looks weird. Fortunately, it is easy to fix by setting a minimum mobilization of 10% for any Mobilization #2 or #3 scripts that might fire after an armistice. That will prevent what you saw from happening.

I have now made this correction to both 1914 and 1916 Icarus V 6.8 and have updated the files in my dropbox. Thanks for brining it to my attention!

For Bill and Hubert: I think this could also happen in the regular game. You might wish to make similar corrections to the scripts in a future update.

Hi - some small corrections made tonight both campaigns:

a) to ensure that the Treaty of Bucharest fires correctly to enable Romania to withdraw from the war;
b) to reduce the German NM penalty for "turnip winter" if the UK says NO to D125 to tighten the blockade in April 1916.

Latest versions of both campaign files are in my Dropbox in the Icarus Version 6.8 folder. The .cgn files are dated September 2, 2025.

I'd like to make some observations and suggest some changes I believe necessary to make to Icarus 6.8, so as to make this variant even more realistic and interesting.

Introduction
I suppose players of SCWWI, especially Icarus, are interested in historical accuracy. There are many other games in the series that can "change" history, so I think that if you're interested in the historical accuracy of WWI, when simulating it, you need to accept its distinctive character, at least on the Western Front, namely its extreme static nature. This despite the fact that, historically, the belligerants, to overcome this static nature, did not hesitate to sacrifice millions of soldiers in badly conceived mass attacks. Icarus has made great efforts to make SCWWI more historical and realistic but in my opinion static accuracy should be implemented more effectively. Playability is fine, but is it possible to create a Icarus version that's even more historical? As for me, no, I'm not capable of using the Editor and proposing new mods and/or scenarios. However, I can submit some ideas that someone might implement. At least, that's my hope.

Research
Infantry Weapons, Artillery Weapons, Trench Warfare and Command and Control progress regardless of the situation on the field. Gas/Shell production guarantees increased ammunition. A player avoids offensive combat as much as possible and miraculously, some time later, finds himself with improved infantry assault capabilities, artillery bombardment capabilities, and headquarters tactical and strategic capabilities. Progress in these areas must be linked to field results, even negative ones. Unfortunately, experience comes only through blood. Do you want to preserve the French army? Fine, but you do so by remaining in the open, wearing red pants and kepis. Attrition warfare should be introduced; only by incurring losses of this type and their accumulation a corps can benefit from tactical improvements and better entrenchments. Likewise, commands can only improve if they have commanded units that have fought and suffered losses. In brief, many of the research areas should be reviewed and/or abolished to transfer their functional contents directly into a ‘field’ evolution scheme of units, including HQ.

Artillery
Icarus has strengthened its forces and partially slowed research, but once it enters the field, say from 1916 onwards, artillery is devastating. You can conquer at least one hex per turn, including Verdun. Note that these territorial gains aren't always decisive for victory; the defender generally creates a new line in the next hex; the only sure outcome is the non-historicity. To simulate this, I think we need to work on ammunition, abolishing the Gas/Shell production research option and replacing it with a rule that starting from 1915, each artillery piece's ammunition is 2, to which additional ammunition can be added via a die roll modified based on progress made in Industrial Technology. Not knowing how much ammunition you have simulates that uncertainty in the command when launching an attack, which, at least from a certain point, you don't have in Icarus. Historically, many attacks were initially successful, then the artillery ran out of ammunition and the attack stalled or failed.

Static nature of Western front
A WW1 simulation must simulate this. Despite all the efforts made in Icarus and the updates, Western Front it's still too ‘fluid’ compared to the story. This is why I suggest the ‘loss absorption’ that could be introduced exclusively on this front. Loss absorption means that, perhaps starting with the third loss of a corps, losses can be partially absorbed by adjacent friendly corps (reserves played an essential role in contain the initial breakthroughs). Likewise, a vacant hex cannot be occupied until the following turn (‘contested hex’). This allows the defender to decide whether to reoccupy it or leave it to the opponent. In this way, the mechanism of attrition battles typical of WW1 could be implemented on the Western Front.

Tanks and German Shock Infantry
Tanks and German Shock Infantry should be able to break the line thanks to the ‘special’ ability to concentrate their attack power and not allow the defender to absorb losses among the defending units. The current rules on Shock Infantry are great and could be used, updating them with the ability to ‘break the line’ denying the absorption of losses. Naturally it should also be added to Tanks too.

Italian front
The Italian front presents characteristics typical of both the Western Front’s staticty and the Eastern Front’s fluidity. Certainly, to simulate General Cadorna's famous senseless attacks on the Isonzo, rules should be applied that force Italy to attack even with no chance of success. On the other hand, AH twice managed to create the conditions for a breakthrough, once in 1916 (Strafexpedition), which was contained, and once in 1917 (Caporetto), which was successful. I leave it to the imagination of a potential creator of these suggestions to simulate all this.

House rules
I'd like to add some considerations on the historicity in Icarus, aware that many of these issues have already been addressed in the forum. Attacking the Russian fleet in ports with the German fleet is like Captain America saving the world from the Nazis. In general, I would forbid any port attacks, especially in the Adriatic, but I would definitely do so at least in the Baltic. Regarding the Adriatic, if Germany doesn't invade Belgium, the Royal Navy shouldn't be allowed to enter that area before the DOW. I don't see it as unrealistic for British naval units to stand between Austrian or German units (in the North Sea and the Mediterranean, excluding the Adriatic) and French units. Let's just say that London would have give a hand to Paris, even during neutrality. Sending an Ottoman corps to Basra before the DOW is also anti-historical. Finally, no Belgian HQ in Mesopotamia. Naturally, all of these can be decided by house rules without ad hoc interventions on the scenario.

Conclusions
What can persuade a player to launch attacks with very little chance of success? Just the necessity. If you don't launch them, you don't progress, and if you don't progress, you don't break through. In this regard, the Entente's and Germany’s chances of breakthrough must be maximally linked to the development respectively of Tanks, and Shock Infantry. Can the game be more boring if such rules are applied? Surely yes, but my idea is to provide the possibility to those who want to play it to have a scenario or a module that is historically more realistic (and boring ).

teletabicus wrote: Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:03 pm I'd like to make some observations and suggest some changes I believe necessary to make to Icarus 6.8, so as to make this variant even more realistic and interesting.

Hi Teletabicus - I very much appreciate your interest in the mod and your very comprehensive suggestions on how to make the game more historical, and perhaps more interesting. Having worked on this mod for the last several years, I have a pretty good sense of what is and is not possible with the Strategic Command game system and unfortunately most of your suggestions are beyond the scope of what can be changed using the Game Editor.

teletabicus wrote: Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:03 pm I suppose players of SCWWI, especially Icarus, are interested in historical accuracy. There are many other games in the series that can "change" history, so I think that if you're interested in the historical accuracy of WWI, when simulating it, you need to accept its distinctive character, at least on the Western Front, namely its extreme static nature.

You are absolutely right the in real life, World War One (especially on the Western Front) was very static, while SC WW1 is considerably more dynamic. In the autumn of 1918, the Entente armies broke the back of the German Army in the "Hundred Days Campaign" which did not even see them reach Brussels. In contrast, it is normal in a game of SC WW1 or Icarus that a winning Entente offensive in the West will see Entente armies push into the Rhineland and even the Ruhr before Germany national morale hits 1% and the Central powers collapse. Making trenches as powerful as they were by 1917 in the West would entail pushing their defensive bonus much higher than they are now; and they would require far longer than one turn to build. They should also incur significant movement penalties to cross, even if lightly defended. Every trench hex would have the properties of something close to a Major Fortress in the existing game. There is no way to do all those things with the existing game engine. It would require a different game, probably on a smaller scale, to model what World War One trench warfare actually looked like, even when the lines started to move again during the offensives of 1918.

teletabicus wrote: Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:03 pm Technology:
Infantry Weapons, Artillery Weapons, Trench Warfare and Command and Control progress regardless of the situation on the field. Gas/Shell production guarantees increased ammunition. A player avoids offensive combat as much as possible and miraculously, some time later, finds himself with improved infantry assault capabilities, artillery bombardment capabilities, and headquarters tactical and strategic capabilities. Progress in these areas must be linked to field results, even negative ones. Unfortunately, experience comes only through blood. Do you want to preserve the French army? Fine, but you do so by remaining in the open, wearing red pants and kepis. Attrition warfare should be introduced; only by incurring losses of this type and their accumulation a corps can benefit from tactical improvements and better entrenchments. Likewise, commands can only improve if they have commanded units that have fought and suffered losses. In brief, many of the research areas should be reviewed and/or abolished to transfer their functional contents directly into a ‘field’ evolution scheme of units, including HQ.

The existing game engine tries to capture much of what you are suggesting through the accumulation of experience points, which are the biggest single determinant of combat effectiveness. Every combat, on attack or defence, gives the participating units more experience; and there is a significant difference in the odds which a corps with one full point of experience can achieve, versus a newly built corps going into combat for the first time.

teletabicus wrote: Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:03 pm Artillery:
Icarus has strengthened its forces and partially slowed research, but once it enters the field, say from 1916 onwards, artillery is devastating. You can conquer at least one hex per turn, including Verdun. Note that these territorial gains aren't always decisive for victory; the defender generally creates a new line in the next hex; the only sure outcome is the non-historicity. To simulate this, I think we need to work on ammunition, abolishing the Gas/Shell production research option and replacing it with a rule that starting from 1915, each artillery piece's ammunition is 2, to which additional ammunition can be added via a die roll modified based on progress made in Industrial Technology. Not knowing how much ammunition you have simulates that uncertainty in the command when launching an attack, which, at least from a certain point, you don't have in Icarus. Historically, many attacks were initially successful, then the artillery ran out of ammunition and the attack stalled or failed.

You are quite right that the game engine models in a fairly imperfect way the shell shortages that were a major feature of World War One combat. They only means available is through investing in Gas/Shell tech and Logistics (in the regular game) and these techs yield a uniform benefit every turn which can not be modified by a die roll. I think it would be great if the devs could add a "shell unreliability factor" so that not every shell fired would necessarily de-entrench, demoralize or potentially kill a strength point; and that investment in Gas/Shell tech would increase the reliability of the shells that are fired. Perhaps that is possible in the future, but it is not possible to mod that effect at present.

teletabicus wrote: Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:03 pm Static nature of Western front:
A WW1 simulation must simulate this. Despite all the efforts made in Icarus and the updates, Western Front it's still too ‘fluid’ compared to the story. This is why I suggest the ‘loss absorption’ that could be introduced exclusively on this front. Loss absorption means that, perhaps starting with the third loss of a corps, losses can be partially absorbed by adjacent friendly corps (reserves played an essential role in contain the initial breakthroughs). Likewise, a vacant hex cannot be occupied until the following turn (‘contested hex’). This allows the defender to decide whether to reoccupy it or leave it to the opponent. In this way, the mechanism of attrition battles typical of WW1 could be implemented on the Western Front.

Also very true, but not possible to do with the existing game engine.

teletabicus wrote: Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:03 pm Tanks and German Shock Infantry:
Tanks and German Shock Infantry should be able to break the line thanks to the ‘special’ ability to concentrate their attack power and not allow the defender to absorb losses among the defending units. The current rules on Shock Infantry are great and could be used, updating them with the ability to ‘break the line’ denying the absorption of losses. Naturally it should also be added to Tanks too.

This effect could be modelled to some degree by allowing tanks and shock infantry to de-entrench at a higher level than 1 per turn. I have done that already in Icarus by allowing tanks at Level 2 in Tank Development to de-entrench by 2 per turn. It would be possible to give shock infantry that capability too. In my experience, by the time both tanks and shock infantry have reached a high level of effectiveness, both sides usually have enough artillery shells available to be able to de-entrench a target unit fully without the need of extra de-entrenchment by other units.

teletabicus wrote: Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:03 pm Italian front:
The Italian front presents characteristics typical of both the Western Front’s staticty and the Eastern Front’s fluidity. Certainly, to simulate General Cadorna's famous senseless attacks on the Isonzo, rules should be applied that force Italy to attack even with no chance of success. On the other hand, AH twice managed to create the conditions for a breakthrough, once in 1916 (Strafexpedition), which was contained, and once in 1917 (Caporetto), which was successful. I leave it to the imagination of a potential creator of these suggestions to simulate all this.

House rules
I'd like to add some considerations on the historicity in Icarus, aware that many of these issues have already been addressed in the forum. Attacking the Russian fleet in ports with the German fleet is like Captain America saving the world from the Nazis. In general, I would forbid any port attacks, especially in the Adriatic, but I would definitely do so at least in the Baltic. Regarding the Adriatic, if Germany doesn't invade Belgium, the Royal Navy shouldn't be allowed to enter that area before the DOW. I don't see it as unrealistic for British naval units to stand between Austrian or German units (in the North Sea and the Mediterranean, excluding the Adriatic) and French units. Let's just say that London would have give a hand to Paris, even during neutrality. Sending an Ottoman corps to Basra before the DOW is also anti-historical. Finally, no Belgian HQ in Mesopotamia. Naturally, all of these can be decided by house rules without ad hoc interventions on the scenario.

As you say, most of these constraints are better introduced using house rules. In Icarus, I suggest not allowing either side to send most European minor units to the Middle East. The defensive bonus for naval units in port against bombardment by naval units at sea can be easily increased.

teletabicus wrote: Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:03 pm Conclusions
What can persuade a player to launch attacks with very little chance of success? Just the necessity. If you don't launch them, you don't progress, and if you don't progress, you don't break through. In this regard, the Entente's and Germany’s chances of breakthrough must be maximally linked to the development respectively of Tanks, and Shock Infantry. Can the game be more boring if such rules are applied? Surely yes, but my idea is to provide the possibility to those who want to play it to have a scenario or a module that is historically more realistic (and boring ).

Sorry, I could not be more positive about your suggestions! But I hope you will continue to find things of interest in the SC WW1, especially with the various new features I have tried to add with the Icarus mod.

Michael

New Version 6.9 Available

After three months of further play-testing of Version 6.8 and helpful feedback from other players, I am pleased to release the latest update to my Icarus mod for Strategic Command World War One. This update is based on the most recent version (1.16) of the standard game and the Call to Arms campaign. Files for both the Icarus 1914 and 1916 campaigns, along with an updated Guide, Decision Events Log, Mobilization Events Log and National Morale Events Log have been uploaded to my Dropbox. You can download them here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/sfquo2y4 ... tkr9m&dl=0

Version 6.9 is a more limited update to the mod, compared to earlier versions. Two of the most important features are roll-backs of innovations introduced in Version 6.8, based on subsequent play-testing, as follows:

- Resources captured from enemy majors now transfer their full NM value every turn from the losing to the winning power (as in the regular game), with the following important exception: for Russia and the Ottoman Empire, settlements, towns, ports and fortresses have 0 NM value per turn for either side if captured. This does not affect the one-time NM value of any of these Russian or Ottoman resources if they are designated as NM objectives.

Comment: Play-testing showed that Germany, in particular, needs to gain the full NM value each turn of captured enemy resources in order to withstand the long-term effects of the Entente blockade. However, certain Russian resources were excluded from this provision to enable Russia to survive somewhat longer against a concerted CP attack. The same exclusion was extended to the Ottomans, in order to reduce Russia's ability to offset their NM losses every turn by capturing new resources in Anatolia.

- The Slavic Corps units introduced in Version 6.8 belonging to a new minor for Austria-Hungary have been removed and returned to Austria-Hungary's normal order of battle and build limits.

Comment: Slavic Corps were introduced so that some Austro-Hungarian units would have a higher risk of attrition than others. However, as a minor, they could be commanded by German generals and this proved too powerful an advantage for the CP side, especially when Austria-Hungary was attacking Serbia and defending against Russia. Instead, the desertion scripts for all Austro-Hungarian units have been increased in this version of the mod.

Other new features of the mod are as follows:

- A new Minor victory condition has been added for the Central Powers. If the USA has entered the war by January 26, 1918, then the Central Powers can win a minor victory on the last turn of the game if they hold Warsaw and Verdun on but not Paris, provided that German National Morale is 20% or above. If the USA has not entered the war by this date, or German National Morale has fallen below 20%, then the Central Powers must hold Paris as well as Warsaw and Verdun, at the end of the game in order to win a Minor Victory.

- Desertion scripts have been strengthened for Italy, Austria-Hungary and Russia. New desertion scripts have been added for the Ottomans, starting from the start of the war. All desertion scripts work on the basis of zones (as described in the Guide) so that the number of units affected when a desertion script fires is reduced, but frequency of at least one desertion script firing in a given turn for a given major is increased.

- There is no longer a discount over time in the NM gains for the Central Powers or the NM losses for the Entente when Serbia surrenders.

- The NM cost to Austria-Hungary of losing Lemberg has been reduced from 2500 to 2000 NM points and the cost of Czernowitz has been reduced from 1000 to 500 NM points.

- Germany gains 1000 NM points when Bulgaria joins the Central Powers.

- The UK will lose 250 NM points per turn if the German navy can place a DN,BB, BC, CA or CL unit on one of four red hatch-marked hexes in the North Sea in front of London.

- The Ottomans will lose 100 NM points per turn if a German, Austro-Hungarian or Bulgarian unit occupies Constantinople.

- A new DE for Russia allows them to build a new Russian HQ on the Romanian border once Romania has entered the war on the Entente side, at a cost of 50 MPPs per turn for four turns.

- A new British DE allows them to build a new Armoured Car unit which will arrive in Russia on June 17, 1916 at a cost of 50 MPPs per turn for two turns.

- Italy, Serbia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire are all capped at level 2 in Command and Control (this is an increase by 1 for Austria-Hungary and a decrease by 1 for Italy and Serbia compared to Version 6.8)

- Italy does not start in 1914 with any tech chits invested but they receive 125 MPPs through a special war bond on December 5, 1914 allowing them to start investing in tech the next turn.

- Germany starts the 1914 campaign with a chit invested in Production Tech.

- The special attrition effects in the Carpathians for Austro-Hungarian units in the three winter turns of 1915 have been extended to include Russian units as well.

As always, I look forward to comments and feedback on this latest version of the mod. I would encourage players who have downloaded earlier versions of Icarus to give Version 6.9 a try.

Best regards,

Michael

Hello, in the newest version I got game-crashing error:



Which kills the PBEM game; early 1915.
I'm Centrals, so it's not even my loop, no clue what exactly is wrong here. Saw some transports in Red Sea-Persian Gulf area.

And if anyone knows player with nick 'TofkY', let me kow

Beriand wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 8:19 am And if anyone knows player with nick 'TofkY', let me kow

Hey, thats me. I actually had the same Problem yesterday with a PBEM against Redmonkey too. I think it's related to the Red Sea to Persian Gulf Loop. I thought it was fixed in the new version. Sorry to hear it happened in our game too, I was really enjoying it. Hope it get's fixed soon.

TofkY wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 11:43 am Hey, thats me. I actually had the same Problem yesterday with a PBEM against Redmonkey too. I think it's related to the Red Sea to Persian Gulf Loop. I thought it was fixed in the new version. Sorry to hear it happened in our game too, I was really enjoying it. Hope it get's fixed soon.

Oh, hello then. Yes, I was curious how it would develop in spring-summer in Poland. Fortress Hindenburg^TM (Konigsberg) seemed to be holding against all odds

So how do you achieve this error? Send two units through the loop, and do not move the first so the second has no place to arrive, or is it unclear?

I don't know but I think the Error is caused by using the loop from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf. At least that was the one I used and I only send one Unit and the hexes weren't blocked.

Hi Beriand and TofkY,

Thanks to both of for flagging this problem. I'm stumped however: I made no changes to those loop scripts in tany version of this mod and have never seen this issue crop up before. I was using the same loop script in a test game of Icarus 6.8 against Beriand less than a month ago. I just ran another test using 1914 Version 6.9 and the loops scripts worked normally.

One possibility is that the files became slightly corrupted when I pasted them into Dropbox. I did notice a glitch with one photo in the 1914 campaign so I uploaded it again over the weekend. Perhaps both of you could try downloading the mod again and testing to see if that loop from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf works properly.

I will also ask Bill to see if he can put his finger on the problem based on the screenshot above. Please stay tuned!

Michael

TofkY wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 5:33 pm I don't know but I think the Error is caused by using the loop from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf. At least that was the one I used and I only send one Unit and the hexes weren't blocked.

We've been unable to recreate the error, so if you are able to recreate it, please can you describe the steps to helps us narrow it down?

You can always email me directly as that is quicker and easier, i.e. with screenshots and (if possible) a saved turn or PBEM challenge to a turn showing it.

bill.runacre@furysoftware.com