Conquest of Faeroes

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Conquest of Faeroes

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Tech Support >> Conquest of Faeroes

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Conquest of Faeroes - 11/4/2015 8:20:12 PM

Larry Smith

Posts: 203
Joined: 4/14/2001
From: Williams Lake, BC, Canada
Status: offline

I was cruising through the end of turn when I got a the usual messages related to the conquest of Denmark [Greenland & Iceland reverting to neutrals] and then I got the same with regard to the Faeroes. This had occured during an earlier game as well. The thing is, I had a British division sitting in the Faeroes minor port hex both times. The first time I thought it was a minor glitch, since I had put the division there during the return to port phase, and the ship carrying the division had been Norwegian; I thought maybe there was an issue with non-cooperating minors. This time, however, I had made certain to set the division there during a disembarkment phase. Hence, the Faeroes should have gone to the CW.

The file is at the start of the Reform Armies/Corps phase.

Attachment (1)

Post #: 1

RE: Conquest of Faeroes - 11/5/2015 5:41:06 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

There are indeed some things going wrong here. First, there is the Faroes islands. Later on, I'm also getting the impression that there is something going wrong with the Dutch cruiser Jacob van Heemskerk, which should become an Axis vessel, but is given to the CW instead. I'm going to report this as bugs.

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Larry Smith)

Post #: 2

RE: Conquest of Faeroes - 11/5/2015 7:16:18 PM

Larry Smith

Posts: 203
Joined: 4/14/2001
From: Williams Lake, BC, Canada
Status: offline

Okay. I'll just invade the place later.

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 3

RE: Conquest of Faeroes - 11/7/2015 1:38:38 AM

Larry Smith

Posts: 203
Joined: 4/14/2001
From: Williams Lake, BC, Canada
Status: offline

I just noticed that despite playing the US Entry option to occupy both Greenland & Iceland, neither have been, and both are still neutral. Any chance of someone tweeking a save game to fix that? If so, let me know, and I'll post a current save. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can find a save file from when the option was played.
Must have been during the Jan/Feb 1940 turn - I forgot to save during that turn, so I don't have a file for it.

< Message edited by Larry Smith -- 11/7/2015 2:42:56 AM >

(in reply to Larry Smith)

Post #: 4

RE: Conquest of Faeroes - 11/7/2015 7:35:24 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

I think playing the option allows you to move US units there, and then the control should change. In other words, playing the option does not immediately cause control to change, it only allows you to enter the hexes with U.S. units.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Larry Smith)

Post #: 5

RE: Conquest of Faeroes - 11/7/2015 10:10:16 AM

Larry Smith

Posts: 203
Joined: 4/14/2001
From: Williams Lake, BC, Canada
Status: offline

My experience has been that control always changed automatically, and there'd be a message about the US "conquering" Iceland and Greenland. It works the same as when the Japanese get to occupy French Indochina and Madagascar - the territory becomes the property of Japan. Likewise, when the options are played, the US just gets those territories, and can reinforce at will thereafter.

Regardless, I've got the option played, but control did not change to the US. If anyone can fix that with some beta tools, great, let me know and I'll post the file. Otherwise, I'll just have to "invade" and not bother to align, which would also work.

Thanks for the reply!

< Message edited by Larry Smith -- 11/7/2015 11:10:44 AM >

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 6