Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

My list

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> My list Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
My list - 8/12/2008 6:22:51 PM   
FrankHunter

 

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline
As I understand it, looking it over the threads, these are the issues that have come up since version 1.23 was uploaded?

1. Able to amphib in a contested sea zone. Now fixed
2. Can't build German inf and cav at some point late in the game
3. If France is conquered the Brits are still able to amphib troops to Brest
4. When Unrestricted U-Boat warfare was on and there were 20+ subs operating, they didn't find any merchantmen. (so far I haven't been able to find a problem here as there don't seem to be any merchantmen at sea and the UBoats do find DD's or vice versa)
5. Germany gets abundance of food after Russia falls. (Strangely I haven't been able to reproduce this yet by simply setting Russia to surrender, perhaps the Russian surrender isn't the reason? If anyone has a save of a game before this happened that would be extremely helpful)

Are there any other issues anyone knows about that I should look at?

Thanks!
Post #: 1
RE: My list - 8/12/2008 7:01:10 PM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline
Strategic Movement still does not work reliably or consistently. Specifically, for British units on the continent.

_____________________________


(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 2
RE: My list - 8/12/2008 7:08:54 PM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline
Regular (non-strategic) movement. How is it determined which individual units move first during the execution phase? You are sitting next to a huge a stack of German troops. You know you can't stop them, so you order a move in the other direction to avoid annihilation. Seems to be a matter of chance as to which stack moves first....BEF annihilated again. Shouldn't all non-strategic moves from a friendly hex to another friendly hex execute before moves into enemy controlled hexes?

Same goes for naval units. They should be able to get away without getting shot by a newly arriving attacking force.

_____________________________


(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 3
RE: My list - 8/12/2008 7:25:40 PM   
Lascar


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

Regular (non-strategic) movement. How is it determined which individual units move first during the execution phase? You are sitting next to a huge a stack of German troops. You know you can't stop them, so you order a move in the other direction to avoid annihilation. Seems to be a matter of chance as to which stack moves first....BEF annihilated again. Shouldn't all non-strategic moves from a friendly hex to another friendly hex execute before moves into enemy controlled hexes?

Same goes for naval units. They should be able to get away without getting shot by a newly arriving attacking force.

I see your point there. Apparently the readiness of the units involved affect which move first. Perhaps the attacker's readiness for calculating this should include a penalty for being the attacker moving into an enemy hex.

(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 4
RE: My list - 8/12/2008 7:37:30 PM   
Lascar


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter


5. Germany gets abundance of food after Russia falls. (Strangely I haven't been able to reproduce this yet by simply setting Russia to surrender, perhaps the Russian surrender isn't the reason? If anyone has a save of a game before this happened that would be extremely helpful)


I was the one that noticed that in a PBEM I was playing. I don't know if I still have that turn file because that is now a few months ago. I thought perhaps it was something in the design after you extended the CP occupied territory into the Ukraine to reflect the treat of Brest-Litovsk.

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 5
RE: My list - 8/12/2008 7:39:54 PM   
FrankHunter

 

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Strategic Movement still does not work reliably or consistently. Specifically, for British units on the continent.


That would be because British units on the continent are not using British strategic movement capacity. For example, if they're in France they use French capacity.

quote:

Regular (non-strategic) movement. How is it determined which individual units move first during the execution phase? ... Shouldn't all non-strategic moves from a friendly hex to another friendly hex execute before moves into enemy controlled hexes?


Prior to movement each unit is "rated" to see in what order they move. Activated units should move before non-activated units. Higher quality before lower quality, higher readiness before lower readiness, troops before artillery etc and there is also a random element added. Activated before inactivated is because it should be very difficult to carry out a strategic withdrawal in the face of an enemy offensive.





(in reply to Lascar)
Post #: 6
RE: My list - 8/12/2008 7:42:21 PM   
FrankHunter

 

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I thought perhaps it was something in the design after you extended the CP occupied territory into the Ukraine to reflect the treat of Brest-Litovsk.


Right, Germany should get a few more food because of the extension of the boundary into food hexes that haven't seen any war and are therefore in good shape. But not the amount reported.

I'll just keep trying to reproduce it.

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 7
RE: My list - 8/12/2008 8:55:31 PM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter


That would be because British units on the continent are not using British strategic movement capacity. For example, if they're in France they use French capacity.


Yes, I know. And even with ample French rail factors available it is a crap shoot for the UK units to move.


_____________________________


(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 8
RE: My list - 8/12/2008 9:01:30 PM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline
quote:

Prior to movement each unit is "rated" to see in what order they move. Activated units should move before non-activated units. Higher quality before lower quality, higher readiness before lower readiness, troops before artillery etc and there is also a random element added. Activated before inactivated is because it should be very difficult to carry out a strategic withdrawal in the face of an enemy offensive.

Now you are saying that you have to declare an "offensive" in order to have a chance at a clean retreat? Boy, that even sounds, eh, stupid.......

Any chance that you will rethink that? Or at least factor into the equation: moving to enemy hex, not moving to enemy hex....? Moving to, not moving to enemy controlled sea zone??

_____________________________


(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 9
RE: My list - 8/12/2008 9:43:41 PM   
FrankHunter

 

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline
We know that a "withdrawal in the face of the enemy" is one of the most difficult of operations as the advancing troops are well supplied and coming on fast.

So allowing forces to simply walk backwards in good order faster than advancing forces would turn that on its head. There would be no point in invading Russia if Germany has to pay for offensives but the Russians can retreat at no cost.


(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 10
RE: My list - 8/12/2008 10:01:00 PM   
arichbourg


Posts: 32
Joined: 7/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Are there any other issues anyone knows about that I should look at?

Thanks!



To me, ships leaving Constantinople going to Eastern Med, yet being intercepted in the Black Sea, is a bug.

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 11
RE: My list - 8/12/2008 10:45:38 PM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter
We know that a "withdrawal in the face of the enemy" is one of the most difficult of operations as the advancing troops are well supplied and coming on fast.

So allowing forces to simply walk backwards in good order faster than advancing forces would turn that on its head. There would be no point in invading Russia if Germany has to pay for offensives but the Russians can retreat at no cost.

There is no point to invading Russia. Or France either.

You may be on to something. Looks like the game needs redesigned from the ground up. You can start by calling "offensives" something other than "offensives", if you are going to require them for RETREATING units.

_____________________________


(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 12
RE: My list - 8/12/2008 10:50:10 PM   
arichbourg


Posts: 32
Joined: 7/2/2005
Status: offline
They're not retreating . . . they're just advancing in a different direction.

(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 13
RE: My list - 8/13/2008 1:55:02 AM   
FrankHunter

 

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

There is no point to invading Russia. Or France either.


There is if you're the Central Powers.

quote:

You can start by calling "offensives" something other than "offensives"


Just call them "activations" instead of offensives.




(in reply to arichbourg)
Post #: 14
RE: My list - 8/13/2008 4:07:10 AM   
FrankHunter

 

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Same goes for naval units. They should be able to get away without getting shot by a newly arriving attacking force.


I've just checked this and it was a bug. Naval units ordered to return to port should have been doing so before the next battle phase.

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 15
RE: My list - 8/13/2008 4:51:43 AM   
FrankHunter

 

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline
I've also added "being intercepted in the Black Sea" to my list too.

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 16
RE: My list - 8/13/2008 5:42:59 AM   
EdinHouston

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 7/26/2008
Status: offline
edited

< Message edited by EdinHouston -- 8/13/2008 5:44:52 AM >

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 17
RE: My list - 8/13/2008 5:46:10 AM   
EdinHouston

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 7/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

We know that a "withdrawal in the face of the enemy" is one of the most difficult of operations as the advancing troops are well supplied and coming on fast.

So allowing forces to simply walk backwards in good order faster than advancing forces would turn that on its head. There would be no point in invading Russia if Germany has to pay for offensives but the Russians can retreat at no cost.




I agree that the game design would not work well if units could retreat and avoid combat while attackers had to burn HQ points chasing them. That mainly applies to the eastern front because there just isnt that much room to retreat on the western front.

But in terms of military history in WWI, it would be very difficult for attacking troops to actually 'catch' defenders doing a strategic retreat (or just plain running away). The main reason is simply that an attacker is advancing away from their supply while the defenders are retreating back towards theirs. Beaten defenders were consistently able to retreat and avoid total destruction, simply because the attackers could not maintain their rate of advance. Battles happened when defenders chose to stand their ground and fight, not because attackers ran them down and forced a battle. This happened many times in the war, especially in 1918 when Ludendorff's offensives would succeed in smashing the line, but simply couldnt advance fast enough to totally destroy the enemy (and of course the defender could always reinforce a new line of defense to the rear by bringing in troops via railroad far more quickly than the attacking army could advance).

In terms of Russia, one of the reasons for the German Schlieffen (France-first) plan was their concern that the Russian army could simply retreat deep into the Russian hinterlands and avoid a quick, decisive engagement near the frontier. While railroads could bring troops up to the front lines very rapidly, advancing beyond that front line was basically at the speed of marching infantry, ie, the same speed as Napoleon's troops marched into Russia. And we know how that worked out for him, trying to chase down the Russian army and force a decisive battle ;)

Of course, in WWII mechanized forces and airpower totally changed all this, and made it possible to pursue an enemy faster than many of them could retreat, and indeed, to break deep into the enemy's rear before they even began to retreat.

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 18
RE: My list - 8/13/2008 8:03:40 AM   
06 Maestro


Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline
Whenever a retreat was forced, many soldiers were lost due to the breakdown in command. In battles where a withdrawal was short, the prisoner count was not that big. On the other hand, where there were significant withdrawals under pressure, there were hundreds of thousands of prisoners (East Front and West Front). To break off action while under massive attack is easier said than done.

(in reply to EdinHouston)
Post #: 19
RE: My list - 8/13/2008 4:52:08 PM   
geoffreyg


Posts: 123
Joined: 4/1/2008
From: London
Status: offline
I will try to track down a saved game with the failure for CP units in build queue to appear.
Just to confirm I again over the last few days had a failure for British units to strategically move on continent despite ample French and British rail capacity.
I still get the bug where cancelling a move sometimes generates erroneous addtional rail points.

(in reply to 06 Maestro)
Post #: 20
RE: My list - 8/13/2008 5:40:19 PM   
FrankHunter

 

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline
Okay, I added the rail capacity issues to the list and they've been fixed this morning. Was just an oversight on my part.


(in reply to geoffreyg)
Post #: 21
RE: My list - 8/13/2008 7:31:44 PM   
Bronze

 

Posts: 194
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 22
RE: My list - 8/13/2008 7:38:43 PM   
FrankHunter

 

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Bronze)
Post #: 23
RE: My list - 8/14/2008 2:00:48 AM   
Snowbart1943

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 3/25/2007
Status: offline
Supporting 1280 x 960 resoluition would be great. 


(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 24
RE: My list - 8/15/2008 10:50:55 PM   
Bronze

 

Posts: 194
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 25
RE: My list - 8/15/2008 10:56:49 PM   
FrankHunter

 

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline
Hi von H, can you zip it and email it to me at fhunter@telus.net?


(in reply to Bronze)
Post #: 26
RE: My list - 8/15/2008 11:00:30 PM   
Bronze

 

Posts: 194
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
Yes, it was bucharest.

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 27
RE: My list - 8/18/2008 2:35:00 PM   
fthein

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Nürnberg, Germany
Status: offline
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

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 28
RE: My list - 8/18/2008 4:17:41 PM   
geoffreyg


Posts: 123
Joined: 4/1/2008
From: London
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to fthein)
Post #: 29
RE: My list - 8/18/2008 4:30:24 PM   
geoffreyg


Posts: 123
Joined: 4/1/2008
From: London
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> My list Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.750