Problems with 1.30F

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Problems with 1.30F

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 >> Problems with 1.30F

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Problems with 1.30F - 12/3/2008 9:29:24 PM

Lascar

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

There are some problems showing up with 1.30 F.

1.The rail point cost for transferring resources between CP countries has tripled from 1:1 to 3:1. I don't know if this is also happening with the TE but for the CP it is a serious disadvantage.

2.The Ottomans no longer are producing Industrial points in the early game. Up till this version the Ottomans were able to produce one IP which is needed for them to be able to produce trenches and have at least a slight chance of holding their position when attacked.

3. The status of pro-ET neutrals is once again blacked out for the CP player. In version C they were able to see the status, although oddly it seemed to be intermittent.

Post #: 1

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/3/2008 11:15:44 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar

There are some problems showing up with 1.30 F.

1.The rail point cost for transferring resources between CP countries has tripled from 1:1 to 3:1. I don't know if this is also happening with the TE but for the CP it is a serious disadvantage.

This makes the F beta patch unusable IMO

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 2

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/4/2008 11:24:07 AM

Kaliber

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/11/2008
Status: offline

I got the question about the ottoman IP from one of my opponents. I guess the reason why I was getting it from start was that I had conquered Tblissi and the resource next to it. If the ottomans don't get their IP at start that is indeed a problem. Either revert to the initial setting or give them some trenches/arms at start. The last suggestion would IMO be a good idea anyway. The ottomans shouldn't be a walkover.

I agree that the rp requirements for transferring austrian resources to Germany is now too high. I'd say a compromise (2 rail points?) would be a good idea.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 3

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/4/2008 3:48:18 PM

Lascar

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliber

I got the question about the ottoman IP from one of my opponents. I guess the reason why I was getting it from start was that I had conquered Tblissi and the resource next to it. If the ottomans don't get their IP at start that is indeed a problem. Either revert to the initial setting or give them some trenches/arms at start. The last suggestion would IMO be a good idea anyway. The ottomans shouldn't be a walkover.

I agree that the rp requirements for transferring austrian resources to Germany is now too high. I'd say a compromise (2 rail points?) would be a good idea.

Actually even 2 for 1 is too high. The Austrians already have one of the lowest rail point capacities among the major powers and have great difficulty transfering a significant amount of resources and moving troops around on top of that. It is the CP that relies the most on the transfer of resource/food to try to offset the huge resource and production advantage of the TE. No need to shift the balance of the game to even less in favor of the CP.

(in reply to Kaliber)

Post #: 4

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/4/2008 5:13:46 PM

EdinHouston

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

FYI, in all my games as the CP, I found that on some turns after their entry, they get 0 production. Later on they seem to get 1 unit pretty predictably, but in the early going I usually have a turn or two with 0 production.

Regarding transporting CP resources, doesnt shipments from the Ottomans TO Germany, use *German* rail capacity? Its only when the Germans are shipping something to Turkey that it uses Turkish rail capacity. This might mean that when the OE is shipping all those resources to Germany after Bulgaria enters, that it will take a few turns to do this, but IMO thats realistic. If we are worried about play balance, I would personally change other more fundamental things, like what it takes to knock Russia out of the war, or increased Uboat effectiveness (against tranports AND combat squadrons), or something like that. Thats my 2 pfennigs worth.

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 5

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/4/2008 6:36:43 PM

Kaliber

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/11/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliber

I got the question about the ottoman IP from one of my opponents. I guess the reason why I was getting it from start was that I had conquered Tblissi and the resource next to it. If the ottomans don't get their IP at start that is indeed a problem. Either revert to the initial setting or give them some trenches/arms at start. The last suggestion would IMO be a good idea anyway. The ottomans shouldn't be a walkover.

I agree that the rp requirements for transferring austrian resources to Germany is now too high. I'd say a compromise (2 rail points?) would be a good idea.

Actually even 2 for 1 is too high. The Austrians already have one of the lowest rail point capacities among the major powers and have great difficulty transfering a significant amount of resources and moving troops around on top of that. It is the CP that relies the most on the transfer of resource/food to try to offset the huge resource and production advantage of the TE. No need to shift the balance of the game to even less in favor of the CP.

I guess you're right. The management of austrian rps have become something of a struggle. In an ongoing game, I've lauched an attack on Italy. It was easy enough to get the troops in (they came with german rps), but I still don't know how I'm going to get them out (on austrian rps)!

I haven't quite made out the new resource transportation system yet, but I figure the main idea was to allow transfers to Russia from different routes. I guess the new 3 rp requirement is there to keep this within reasonable limits.

In order to keep this new feature, maybe the best solution is an increase in the number of austrian rps? To 18? I know this is probably also going to meet opposition, since it would make the austrians more mobile in case they choose to forsake resource transportation. An easier alternative would be to simply give the germans a few more resources (swiss and scandinavian trade?)

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 6

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/4/2008 7:49:06 PM

Bronze

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

Keep in mind that while AH had a lot of rail stock, their inefficiency was made evident over and over with rotting captured food in the later years and very slow troop movements through out the war. 2:1 at least should represent this while 3:1 is perhaps to high.

(in reply to Kaliber)

Post #: 7

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/4/2008 8:11:17 PM

Lascar

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Hindenburg

Keep in mind that while AH had a lot of rail stock, their inefficiency was made evident over and over with rotting captured food in the later years and very slow troop movements through out the war. 2:1 at least should represent this while 3:1 is perhaps to high.

That is best represented by the low number of AH rail points--12, only 2 above the Ottomans. The 2:1 ratio is, I believe, a global ratio that would apply to all major powers. Going back to 1:1, which was the case since GoA came out, seems to have the least overall negative impact.

(in reply to Bronze)

Post #: 8

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/4/2008 8:27:48 PM

Lascar

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliber

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliber

I got the question about the ottoman IP from one of my opponents. I guess the reason why I was getting it from start was that I had conquered Tblissi and the resource next to it. If the ottomans don't get their IP at start that is indeed a problem. Either revert to the initial setting or give them some trenches/arms at start. The last suggestion would IMO be a good idea anyway. The ottomans shouldn't be a walkover.

I agree that the rp requirements for transferring austrian resources to Germany is now too high. I'd say a compromise (2 rail points?) would be a good idea.

Actually even 2 for 1 is too high. The Austrians already have one of the lowest rail point capacities among the major powers and have great difficulty transfering a significant amount of resources and moving troops around on top of that. It is the CP that relies the most on the transfer of resource/food to try to offset the huge resource and production advantage of the TE. No need to shift the balance of the game to even less in favor of the CP.

I guess you're right. The management of austrian rps have become something of a struggle. In an ongoing game, I've lauched an attack on Italy. It was easy enough to get the troops in (they came with german rps), but I still don't know how I'm going to get them out (on austrian rps)!

I haven't quite made out the new resource transportation system yet, but I figure the main idea was to allow transfers to Russia from different routes. I guess the new 3 rp requirement is there to keep this within reasonable limits.

In order to keep this new feature, maybe the best solution is an increase in the number of austrian rps? To 18? I know this is probably also going to meet opposition, since it would make the austrians more mobile in case they choose to forsake resource transportation. An easier alternative would be to simply give the germans a few more resources (swiss and scandinavian trade?)

The problem is not that there is not enough resources. Right now AH can run a surplus of over 20 RMs by 1916 and is barely able to ship 4-6 a strategic phase to Germany which has the industrial capacity to use them.

I did argue for increasing AH rail points to 18, although Frank is open to it he has some reservations also and would need to be convinced by more players to go that route.

The best way to limit the number IPs or food shipped to Russia is by the cap that Frank has placed on transfers. Right now, with that cap and the need to assign additional dedicated sea transports for these transfers via sea, it already seems to be placing a significant constraint to these transfers to Russia.

(in reply to Kaliber)

Post #: 9

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/4/2008 11:11:34 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

There most certainly is a strong imbalance with 1.30 F.

I concur that transfer of large amount of resources through the Central powers by train is quite ahisorical if not to say nigh on impossible. But the way the economic system is put together CP is depending on making those transfers. In other games like Fatal Alliances German usually have more resources and Austria are actually very short of resources for production purposes and the Ottomans just enough for themselves. I find this a reasonable approach. I have no clue to on what basis resources have been allotted as they have in GOA?

My main reason to be against increasing Austrias rail movement allowance is that it would make it possible to shift larger forces around more freely and mainly German forces. This was very difficult in WW1 and would imbalance GOA IMO. Besides France is having a relatively low amount of rail movement compared to the Austrians as it is.

Bottomline is my preferred solution would rather be to alter ownership of raw material hexes to Germany if that can be supported by Franks research on data for making these choices in the first place rather than altering rail movement allowances.

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 10

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/4/2008 11:14:41 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

Oh I forgot. And if sticking with the normal transfer rule where you could transfer 1 unit for 1 rail movement that was just another way to plan ahead between economic and military necessities which I found quite intriguing.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 11

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/5/2008 12:02:31 AM

Kaliber

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/11/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco

There most certainly is a strong imbalance with 1.30 F.

I concur that transfer of large amount of resources through the Central powers by train is quite ahisorical if not to say nigh on impossible. But the way the economic system is put together CP is depending on making those transfers. In other games like Fatal Alliances German usually have more resources and Austria are actually very short of resources for production purposes and the Ottomans just enough for themselves. I find this a reasonable approach. I have no clue to on what basis resources have been allotted as they have in GOA?

My main reason to be against increasing Austrias rail movement allowance is that it would make it possible to shift larger forces around more freely and mainly German forces. This was very difficult in WW1 and would imbalance GOA IMO. Besides France is having a relatively low amount of rail movement compared to the Austrians as it is.

Bottomline is my preferred solution would rather be to alter ownership of raw material hexes to Germany if that can be supported by Franks research on data for making these choices in the first place rather than altering rail movement allowances.

I guess one of the reasons why the ottomans have resources is that it makes them strategically important. If they have little or no surplus resources and a useless army, there's really no point for either side to focus on them. That would somewhat limit things.

Regarding RP costs for transferring resources, I think we need Franks opinion on this. What was the underlying thought behind the new system? Any arguments for switching back to the old transport cost within the new system?

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 12

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/5/2008 12:38:43 PM

ulver

Posts: 527
Joined: 9/9/2001
From: Danmark, Europe
Status: offline

Their strategy importance was on control of the Bosporus. It is pretty silly that they have the ability to transfer massive amount of resources to the CP. I agree that both theirs and Austrians should be drastically curtailed in exchange for giving Germany some more.

(in reply to Kaliber)

Post #: 13

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/6/2008 3:38:03 PM

BK6583

Posts: 411
Joined: 10/8/2002
Status: offline

Well I just uploaded yesterday - I believe this railway cost for resource transport is a show stopper. Whether it's cut back to two or even one or whether the other suggestions to add more resource hexes to Germany and Austria are done something does need to be done soon.

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 14

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/6/2008 5:28:33 PM

Kaliber

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/11/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BK6583

Well I just uploaded yesterday - I believe this railway cost for resource transport is a show stopper. Whether it's cut back to two or even one or whether the other suggestions to add more resource hexes to Germany and Austria are done something does need to be done soon.

Yes, you're right. In an ongoing game as CP I'm really starting to feel the effect of this. We're in july 15 and although I'm on top of things (1.6 mill casualties vs 2.7 for the TE) I feel the CP production is not adequate with this new system. Basically, the CP are now forced to go Serbia or Romania first in order to open up a route towards the ottomans - which I haven't done and which the possibility of a russian setup in south-western Poland makes very hazardeous. Alternatively, they have to build transports to get atlantic trade (with what IPs?)

On the other hand, I feel a reduction in rp costs back to the original 1 would be a mixed blessing for the CP, since the allies could quite possibly supply Russia with a lot of food/IPs with the new system. Ulver pointed out the importance of the ottomans lies in their control of the Bosporus. This is of course true, but also keep in mind (as Frank himself pointed out) that the allies can now transfer resources overland through the Balkans and into Russia.

I suggest to keep the cost at 3, but to transfer some austrian resource hexes to Germany (3?). There are also alternative possibilities, but upon reflection, I think this solution would work best within the overall new framework of the resource transportation system. I hope Frank will look into this (as well as the problem with Ottoman starting production) as soon as possible.

I think this great game is getting close to a final version. US corps strenght have been reduced (now we only need to delay US entry a bit). Likewise, it was a good idea to cut back the number of impulses in the Aug 14 turn to 3. This has increased french survivability. May I also suggest adding a few (2 or 3) austrian B corps at setup? I don't think this would hurt general play balance (on the contrary) and it might provide an efficient counter to the russian "drive for Vienna" setup. I suspect it could be hard work for Frank to limit russian initial deployment in Poland, so this might provide a good workaround. Maybe some final naval tweaks are also needed, but I prefer to leave this question to others.

(in reply to BK6583)

Post #: 15

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/6/2008 5:44:07 PM

Kaliber

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/11/2008
Status: offline

Another point worth mentioning:

the cancel button doesn't work when transferring resources. This is quite a hazzle, since I often reconsider my choices (particularly with the 3 rp cost).

(in reply to Kaliber)

Post #: 16

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/6/2008 7:01:46 PM

FM WarB

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliber

May I also suggest adding a few (2 or 3) austrian B corps at setup? I don't think this would hurt general play balance (on the contrary) and it might provide an efficient counter to the russian "drive for Vienna" setup.

Add two Austrian "corps" and one "HQ" and you'd get initial Austrian forces about right.

(in reply to Kaliber)

Post #: 17

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/6/2008 7:40:29 PM

HannoMeier

Posts: 155
Joined: 8/5/2001
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline

3:1 ratio, this could not be serious. Even with 1:1 it is hard enough as the CP. I would even argue for 18 AH rail points and an 1:1 ratio.

The La Grande Guerre 1914-1918 boardgame / World War One uses the following ratios:
Germany 20
AH 11
US 9
France 14
Italy 9
Russia 10
Turkey 6
Minors 3

Regards, Hanno

(in reply to FM WarB)

Post #: 18

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/6/2008 8:36:44 PM

Lascar

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanno Meier

3:1 ratio, this could not be serious. Even with 1:1 it is hard enough as the CP. I would even argue for 18 AH rail points and an 1:1 ratio.

The La Grande Guerre 1914-1918 boardgame / World War One uses the following ratios:
Germany 20
AH 11
US 9
France 14
Italy 9
Russia 10
Turkey 6
Minors 3

Regards, Hanno

I agree with you on this and I have also made the case to Frank that the Austrian rail points should be increased to 18.

If there is concern that reducing the 3:1 ratio back to 1:1 would give to much of an advantage to the TE for transfers to Russia that would best be addressed by adjusting the transfer cap to a lower level for transfer to Russia (from 10 to 4 or 3). The rail point/resource ratio has been 1:1 since GoA came out and there is no compelling reason to change it.

(in reply to HannoMeier)

Post #: 19

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/6/2008 10:31:54 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

[/quote]
...but also keep in mind (as Frank himself pointed out) that the allies can now transfer resources overland through the Balkans and into Russia.
[/quote]

But only through Entente controlled hexes

(in reply to Kaliber)

Post #: 20

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/6/2008 11:09:12 PM

Lascar

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco

...but also keep in mind (as Frank himself pointed out) that the allies can now transfer resources overland through the Balkans and into Russia.

But only through Entente controlled hexes

And in addition to that they need to ship to Salonika on dedicated sea transports.

In our game the TE is not even close to being in a position to ship food or IPs to Russia and we are now at the end of 1916. The fear that the new transfers rules would result in a flood of IPs and food arriving in Russia from Britain seem to have been unfounded.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 21

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/6/2008 11:33:30 PM

FM WarB

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar
In our game the TE is not even close to being in a position to ship food or IPs to Russia and we are now at the end of 1916. The fear that the new transfers rules would result in a flood of IPs and food arriving in Russia from Britain seem to have been unfounded.

What happened to the North Sea to Archangel sea route?

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 22

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/6/2008 11:45:42 PM

Lascar

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar
In our game the TE is not even close to being in a position to ship food or IPs to Russia and we are now at the end of 1916. The fear that the new transfers rules would result in a flood of IPs and food arriving in Russia from Britain seem to have been unfounded.

What happened to the North Sea to Archangel sea route?

There is a North Sea--Baltic Sea--Petrogard route but I don't see a North Sea--Archangel route.

< Message edited by Lascar -- 12/7/2008 1:00:56 AM >

(in reply to FM WarB)

Post #: 23

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/7/2008 3:47:15 PM

BK6583

Posts: 411
Joined: 10/8/2002
Status: offline

Ok - I recognize that there comes a point where a game's been tweaked as far as is reasonable. That said, I believe we're not there yet. Playing CP against AI and even though I've not used unrestricted sub warfare and have invested from turn 1 Diplomatic 'Overtures' with the USA (and getting 'appreciated' messages almost every turn) the friggin USA entered Nov 1916!! Yes, France first strategy declarations on Belgium and Luxemburg should be a factor, and yes, I did declare war on Italy and Romania during the course of this game, but I never got one of those "America is concerned" messages for those two latter declarations. Frank, please reexamine the USA entry parameters.

Regards,

Bob

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 24

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/8/2008 11:31:39 AM

Kaliber

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/11/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliber

May I also suggest adding a few (2 or 3) austrian B corps at setup? I don't think this would hurt general play balance (on the contrary) and it might provide an efficient counter to the russian "drive for Vienna" setup.

Add two Austrian "corps" and one "HQ" and you'd get initial Austrian forces about right.

Good to see I'm not the only one who has been thinking about this.

Actually, I think the austrian army is too small compared to their resources. If my count is correct, Austria has 21 corps to Germanys 60. France, who had a population comparable to the KuK Monarchy, fields about 40 corps. As a result, unless the austrian army was mauled in the opening turns, after the fighting bogs down on the eastern front, they start building subs in the med, planes or offensive points for the germans.

In addition to adding two or three austrian corps at start (I'm more sceptical about an additional HQ, I feel the allocation is well balanced), I suggest adding 3-5 austrian corps in late 1915 - early 1916. To compensate, the germans could receive 2-4 corps less. The germans never have the resources to replenish their corps anyway.

Thoughts and remarks on this topic would be appreciated.

(in reply to FM WarB)

Post #: 25

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/8/2008 2:05:08 PM

FM WarB

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline

Austria maxed out at 26 Korps and Germany 65. More than this can be built in the game, but a "corps" in the game is not the same as a historical Korps. What exactly it is, I'm still not sure.

(in reply to Kaliber)

Post #: 26

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/8/2008 2:10:11 PM

FM WarB

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline

Slight update to previous post of mine:

German Korps West Front, August 1914
1.Armee: Gd, II, III, IV, IX, III.Res, IV.Res. II.Kav
2.Armee: VII, X, Gd.Res, VII.Res, X.Res
3.Armee: XII. XII, XIX, XII.Res I.Kav
4.Armee: VI, VIII, XVIII, VI.Res, XVII.Res
5.Armee: V, XIII, XVI, V.Res, VI.Res IV.Kav
6.Armee: I.Bav, II.Bav, III.Bav, XXI, I.Bav.Res, XIV.Res, III.Kav
7.Armee: XIV, XV, XIV.Res
in Schleswig-Hosltein: IX.Res
in W�rzburg: II.Bav.Res
German Korps East Front, August 1914
8.Armee: I, XVII, XX, I.Res
West Prussia/Danzig: XVII.Res
Landwehr Korps
Totals: 25 1st line Korps, 17 reserve Korps, one Landwehr Corps 4 Kav Korps (some split between armies)
43 total inf Korps
Austrian Korps Russian Front, August, 1914 (accounting for Conrad's indecision*)
1.Armee: I, V, X 3, 9. Kav Divs
2.Armee: III, IV*, VII*, XII 1, 5, 8. Kav Divs
3.Armee: XI, XIV 2, 4,11. Kav Divs
4.Armee: II, VI, IX 6, 10* Kav Divs
Austrian Korps Serbian Front, August 1914
5.Armee: VIII, XIII
6.Armee: XV, XVI
Res. Kummer (2 Landsturm divs) 7.Kav div
Totals: At start: 16 Korps and 11 Kav Divs. 17 if you count Gruppe Kummer.
Korps were not "standard", and 8 out of 46 inf divs are listed at Army, not Korps level.
XVII Korps, formed 20 Aug, 1914

Web sources:
http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/
http://home.comcast.net/~jcviser/index.htm/

Print souces continue to roll in

(in reply to FM WarB)

Post #: 27

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/8/2008 8:27:26 PM

Sieben_slith

Posts: 51
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline

Is this game ever going to get a stable patch? I bought it almost a year ago and have never played it through to the end, because every time I start, a new patch comes along. I have 1.23; 1.24 and 1.25 died aborning and 1.30 is now at version F with no end in sight. I don't want to join the ranks of the grognards arguing about how many rail points Austria gets or how to transfer supplies to Russia, I just want to play an accurate and instructive strategic simulation of WWI.

< Message edited by Sieben Elfriend -- 12/8/2008 8:29:05 PM >

_____________________________

A soldier has a hard life, and but little consideration.

Robert E. Lee (in a letter to his wife, Mary), 1855

(in reply to FM WarB)

Post #: 28

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/8/2008 9:02:19 PM

Lascar

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieben Elfriend

Is this game ever going to get a stable patch? I bought it almost a year ago and have never played it through to the end, because every time I start, a new patch comes along. I have 1.23; 1.24 and 1.25 died aborning and 1.30 is now at version F with no end in sight. I don't want to join the ranks of the grognards arguing about how many rail points Austria gets or how to transfer supplies to Russia, I just want to play an accurate and instructive strategic simulation of WWI.

Many of the grognards have been playing this since it came out and have been able to identify many bugs and suggested improvements that Frank was willing to implement. It has become a more accurate and instructive simulation because of the efforts of the grognards and Frank so that both the grognards and persons like yourself can eventually reap the benefits of those efforts.

(in reply to Sieben_slith)

Post #: 29

RE: Problems with 1.30F - 12/8/2008 9:18:50 PM

boogada

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

If I remember correctly almost all version were stable. Bugs occurred now and then, which is not a good thing, but often those did not kill the game. And over time the game has improved steadily. I think its a great game that's worth the struggle with the patches.

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 30