Matrix Games Forums

Okay, I added the rail capacity issues to the list and they've been fixed this morning. Was just an oversight on my part.

Frank,
There is also an issue that Austria loses a lot (26 or 30) moral points (says due to cities captured) when Italy surrenders - it does get the political points though - I have a saved game with this on a different computer. This is playing as the CP against the AI. I've had it happen at least twice with the new patch.
Very good new AI.
I have also had Romania fall with only one city captured (once) and hardly any Romanian casualties.

I assume Italy was on the Entente side? I can try and reproduce that but if you have the save available please send it to me

If the Romanian city was Bucharest that can happen. I don't think it should happen if it was one of the other cities. The only other thing I can think of was, did a friendly major power surrender the turn previously?

Supporting 1280 x 960 resoluition would be great. 
 
 

Frank,
My computer is not letting me upload the file with the moral points issue when Italy surrenders (blah..blah...file not supported). When Italy surrenders, the Italian cities under Austrian comtrol have their full point value subtracted from their moral.

Hi von H, can you zip it and email it to me at fhunter@telus.net?

Yes, it was bucharest.

Hi Frank

i reported a few months back that the british ai rarely moves his troops out of England to France. After starting a new 1.23 game i noticed the same. The ai moves his troops to Southampton and than they stay for the rest of the war there. And when the ai moves a few corps to Brest sometimes it is stuck there for the whole game.

Bye
Frank

A new point to mention is that on the diplomatic screens the time for a country to enter is sometimes shown differently even on the same turn if one accesses it twice. This may be intentional of course.

This is a proposal from another thread that seems to have a reasonable degree of support.

It seems unhistorical to me that the CP can trade in the North Atlantic whilst the TE controls the North Sea. Would be it be too difficult in terms of game mechanics to require both sea zones to be at least uncontrolled by the enemy?

This may be intentional of course.

It is intentional.

Control of hexes is a bit odd, although likely not buggy per se.

Example, Serbia surrenders to AH yet a big chunk of Serb territory remains in Serb hands. Shouldn't a surrender result in the loss of control of all hexes?

Germans cut off a huge number of Russia troops in the Polish pocket. I've just had several of them "vanish" but then when trying to move units across Poland those areas are still "Russian" controlled. It'd be nice if "control" depended upon an enemy unit and/or supply at least.

I know I can use cav to clear these things w/o using offensive points but it adds up to an annoyance.

ORIGINAL: ILCK

Control of hexes is a bit odd, although likely not buggy per se.

Example, Serbia surrenders to AH yet a big chunk of Serb territory remains in Serb hands. Shouldn't a surrender result in the loss of control of all hexes?

Germans cut off a huge number of Russia troops in the Polish pocket. I've just had several of them "vanish" but then when trying to move units across Poland those areas are still "Russian" controlled. It'd be nice if "control" depended upon an enemy unit and/or supply at least.

I know I can use cav to clear these things w/o using offensive points but it adds up to an annoyance.

I think Frank has previously confirmed that is intentional as well.

ORIGINAL: geoffreyg

ORIGINAL: ILCK

Control of hexes is a bit odd, although likely not buggy per se.

Example, Serbia surrenders to AH yet a big chunk of Serb territory remains in Serb hands. Shouldn't a surrender result in the loss of control of all hexes?

Germans cut off a huge number of Russia troops in the Polish pocket. I've just had several of them "vanish" but then when trying to move units across Poland those areas are still "Russian" controlled. It'd be nice if "control" depended upon an enemy unit and/or supply at least.

I know I can use cav to clear these things w/o using offensive points but it adds up to an annoyance.

I think Frank has previously confirmed that is intentional as well.

It may be intentional but does it make any sense to have it that way. For example, in a recent game Warsaw was bypassed and the garrison over time was destroyed due to lack of supply. But Warsaw still remained under Russian control even though the nearest Russian unit was hundreds of kilometers to the east. The Germans would be required to expend a valuable HQ point just to occupy it.

Although I hadn't seen it mentioned I was thinking about this rule. I'll toss it out there, for units removed due to supply isolation, should their hexes be governed by :

1. Leave the rule as it is where you need to move cavalry across to change the ownership but use an HQ point to move infantry into any city hexes?
or
2. Have all the isolated hexes switch ownership once units in them have faded away?
or
3. Use rule #2 for non-city hexes and keep the current behaviour for city hexes?

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Although I hadn't seen it mentioned I was thinking about this rule. I'll toss it out there, for units removed due to supply isolation, should their hexes be governed by :

1. Leave the rule as it is where you need to move cavalry across to change the ownership but use an HQ point to move infantry into any city hexes?
or
2. Have all the isolated hexes switch ownership once units in them have faded away?
or
3. Use rule #2 for non-city hexes and keep the current behaviour for city hexes?

The second option seems to be the most logically consistent and realistic of the three. Once all occupying units have been destroyed by supply isolation then there would no longer be a military presence or infrastructure to exert control over the area. Moving in with major military units would not be necessary to establish control over that area. Smaller military police units, government officials and similar such personnel not represented at the scale of corps units would be sufficient to take effective control of the area. Requiring a cavalry corps, or even larger infantry corps, to move in with the expenditure of a HQ point (representing the ammo and resources need to conduct a major offensive) seems to be too a high a cost to pay for such an action.

If this were to be the case for a non-city hex it should equally be true of a city hex unless one is assuming a restive civilian population that would require more effort to control. But for simplicities sake, and for game balance, this probably should not be factored in.

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Although I hadn't seen it mentioned I was thinking about this rule. I'll toss it out there, for units removed due to supply isolation, should their hexes be governed by :

1. Leave the rule as it is where you need to move cavalry across to change the ownership but use an HQ point to move infantry into any city hexes?
or
2. Have all the isolated hexes switch ownership once units in them have faded away?
or
3. Use rule #2 for non-city hexes and keep the current behaviour for city hexes?

Given the scarcity of offensive points and the harsh effects of "control" I think #2 makes the most sense. Presumably the isolated units have surrendered (some deserted as well) and they presumably surrendered to someone and those people would assume "control".

Certainly a surrendered power should not be able to maintain any "control" for sure.

a vote for option 2 here also

I think also because offensive points are so precious that #2 would be the best option in the context the game.
 

I would support option 2 but would suggest that the old owner’s supply level also needs to have reached zero. This would be relevant where an unoccupied city or indeed non- city hex(es) is surrounded and I assume this should be treated the same as when a unit fades away.
A sophistication would be to have a time delay for the switch of sides to simulate police units taking time to arrest the previous elite!