RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ?

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] >> Commander - The Great War >> RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/7/2014 1:45:13 PM

stockwellpete

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kstk

While I respect all the feedback provided by the Beta testers (I have not run it), let me comment the following.
Games do not need to be 100% Historically accurate. We can play being New Generals, we create strategies and tactics based on what the games offers, winning or loosing based on that.If we push too far to replicate the historic conditions, the game can be just a "replication" of WW1, and by itself would become boring.
Kirk23 and all the team have developed an awesome game, much better than Commander at War Europe. I cannot stop playing this game on line, although against AI I win easily.
Lets allow some creativity, regardless of if West or East fronts move or entrench too much. I have made the Turks become marines, British invade low countries, Germans take Spain... Let the creativity become your general!
Humbly and Sincerely, Alejandro.

PS: Please correct Russian surrender mode. I have had to either beat them very hard, or see them surrender at nothing in early 1916!
Thanks for the GREAT game.

The best way to please both the "history-addicts" and the "fantasists" is to provide a tick box pre-game menu to adjust the parameters of the game to taste. Maybe something for the future?

(in reply to Alejandro)

Post #: 91

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/7/2014 2:36:40 PM

Lord Zimoa

Posts: 837
Joined: 10/10/2008
Status: offline

Our aim is to create a fun game against a historic background and try to follow history as close as we can, but in the end, games we design will be open, where you should be able to change history and some outcomes will/can be a-historic.

Creating exact historic simulations contradicts often with this principle, but it is a game after all and that is what we want to create.

This balance is often tricky I admit, but again, our games will always be games in the first place set in historic settings that may eventually lead to hypothetical backgrounds and outcomes.

< Message edited by Lord Zimoa -- 1/7/2014 3:41:48 PM >

_____________________________

www.thelordzgamesstudio.com
www.panzer-corps.com
www.commander-games.com

(in reply to stockwellpete)

Post #: 92

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/7/2014 3:48:09 PM

stockwellpete

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

Our aim is to create a fun game against a historic background and try to follow history as close as we can, but in the end, games we design will be open, where you should be able to change history and some outcomes will/can be a-historic.

Creating exact historic simulations contradicts often with this principle, but it is a game after all and that is what we want to create.

This balance is often tricky I admit, but again, our games will always be games in the first place set in historic settings that may eventually lead to hypothetical backgrounds and outcomes.

Oh yes, you don't want the same outcomes occurring every game because people would soon stop playing. But WW1 was on a knife-edge until mid-1918 so a victory for the Central Powers is quite a credible outcome. The subject matter is absolutely perfect for a war game really. I suppose my approach to these type of games is to stick to the history as far as you can (because it is often very exciting in its own right) and only break from history if there is a compelling reason to (i.e. if it enhances gameplay). In actual fact, if you read up on the history of Europe in the decades prior to 1914 it is not too hard to imagine Britain and Germany being in an alliance against France and Russia in the next war. That is how it seemed to many Europeans living at that time.

< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 1/7/2014 4:48:59 PM >

(in reply to Lord Zimoa)

Post #: 93

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/7/2014 5:58:10 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

Another thing I have noticed is this. At the start of the game the infantry level of most countries starts at I, only Germany starts at II, I believe. Then, when the research for "industrial warfare" is completed infantry levels will rise to II. In my recent single player game the following happened . . .

Serbian infantry started at I, had researched "industrial warfare" by 1/10/14 so troops had become II
Belgian infantry started at I, had researched "industrial warfare" by 29/10/14 so troops had become II
French infantry started at I, had researched "industrial warfare" by 17/9/14 so troops had become II
Austro-Hungarian infantry started at I, had researched "industrial warfare" by 24/9/14 so troops had become II
British infantry started at I, had researched "industrial warfare" by 24/9/14 so troops had become II
Russian infantry started at I, had researched "industrial warfare" by 17/9/14 so troops had become II

Whereas German infantry started at II, had researched the next level by 12/11/14 so troops had become III

So, all the Entente troops from the various countries (except Belgium) do catch Germany up very quickly in the game (before the end of September) and although Germany might pull ahead again in November (when going up to III) this advantage is very short-lived. I think this situation is probably OK for French, British and maybe even Serbian troops, but not for the Belgians and Russians who should not really be able to catch the Germans up.

The other thing is that once a research is achieved a player may allocate it to all his units if they have enough PP's when, in reality, the advance would be rolled out gradually to the various units. So maybe there is a way of slowing down the upgrading of units in an army? So Germany, France and Britain can upgrade 4 infantry units a turn, whereas Austria-Hungary, Russia, Serbia and Italy can only upgrade 2 infantry units a turn. Something along these lines anyway to make things a bit more realistic.

I have slowed down the research programme,as I feel that things are discovered to quickly.

As for the slowing down off upgrading units,as above Germany,France & Britain 4 Infantry per turn etc, I will hand that task over to the software wiz kid.

I am not that fond of the idea to limiting the number of units you can upgrade per turn. I feel that this is something that a commander should be able to control and decide when and how units should be upgraded if he can afford to pay for the upgrade.

And what if someone do not upgrade any units one turn should he then be allowed to upgrade twice as many units next turn?

If you feel that upgrading units goes to fast then you can increase cost for the upgrade or you can make units that upgrade reduce readiness. Or my favourite - units that are to be upgraded may not move during the turn. If they have already moved then they may not be upgraded.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 94

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/7/2014 6:03:39 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Folks I'm sure the powers that be will not be against,changing the names of some off the land units, IE : Garrison & Infantry.

What do you all think about the above suggestion,made by aesopo.

Small Garrison = Regiment?

Garrison = Corps or Division ?

Infantry = Armies ?

I also want to change Battleships - Dreadnoughts officially, in the next patch 1.50!

I would go . . .

Small garrison = Garrison

Garrison = Division

Infantry = Corps

The Dreadnought change is absolutely essential. We need pre-dreadnought battleships and destroyers too at some point.

Pre-Dreadnoughts already sorted!

Guys these changes,only require some time spent, in altering them anything is possible, I'm willing to make the time to do it, just needs the say so off the powers that be!

I like the names as is. If it is changed to 'division' and 'corps' then it sounds like there should be stacking in the game two divisions may stack in a hex. To me infantry units and garrison units has roughly the same number of men but the garrison unit has less able men and less equipment (machineguns and so on).

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 95

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/7/2014 8:52:14 PM

operating

Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

Kirk, Just finished a SP 1915 CP scenario, ended in a draw (Jan. 1919). Captured all of France proper plus Corsica, sank it's BB, although there was 1 left. Question; What does it take to have France offer to surrender? Italy (offered and was accepted) surrendered upon the very last turn, without losing Rome. French units in Italy returned to the production panel. Despite all the quirks with the patch, it was quite an enjoyable (uphill) battle the whole way.

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 96

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/8/2014 9:56:47 AM

stockwellpete

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

I like the names as is. If it is changed to 'division' and 'corps' then it sounds like there should be stacking in the game two divisions may stack in a hex. To me infantry units and garrison units has roughly the same number of men but the garrison unit has less able men and less equipment (machineguns and so on).

Garrison is just the wrong name for the smaller unit as it suggests soldiers are defending a fort or something like that - whereas in the game the garrison units are very mobile and are usually to be found in the trenches.

< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 1/8/2014 10:57:17 AM >

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 97

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/8/2014 10:02:17 AM

stockwellpete

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am not that fond of the idea to limiting the number of units you can upgrade per turn. I feel that this is something that a commander should be able to control and decide when and how units should be upgraded if he can afford to pay for the upgrade.

And what if someone do not upgrade any units one turn should he then be allowed to upgrade twice as many units next turn?

If you feel that upgrading units goes to fast then you can increase cost for the upgrade or you can make units that upgrade reduce readiness. Or my favourite - units that are to be upgraded may not move during the turn. If they have already moved then they may not be upgraded.

When a new advance was made the new equipment was not immediately available to everyone though - it took some time to produce and allocate it all. So to put some sort of restrictions on it per turn would add a layer of difficulty to the game which might be interesting. I mentioned before about increasing the number of logistical upgrade choices from 3 to 6 and two of the ideas "Industry" and "State Control" (i.e. efficiency) could be linked to this issue of production and distribution of technological advances. Something to consider at least, I would say.

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 98

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/8/2014 4:27:45 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am not that fond of the idea to limiting the number of units you can upgrade per turn. I feel that this is something that a commander should be able to control and decide when and how units should be upgraded if he can afford to pay for the upgrade.

And what if someone do not upgrade any units one turn should he then be allowed to upgrade twice as many units next turn?

If you feel that upgrading units goes to fast then you can increase cost for the upgrade or you can make units that upgrade reduce readiness. Or my favourite - units that are to be upgraded may not move during the turn. If they have already moved then they may not be upgraded.

When a new advance was made the new equipment was not immediately available to everyone though - it took some time to produce and allocate it all. So to put some sort of restrictions on it per turn would add a layer of difficulty to the game which might be interesting. I mentioned before about increasing the number of logistical upgrade choices from 3 to 6 and two of the ideas "Industry" and "State Control" (i.e. efficiency) could be linked to this issue of production and distribution of technological advances. Something to consider at least, I would say.

Putting restrictions per turn on upgrades makes the game easier. Or that is my humble opinion anyway.

In my current pvp game, as CP, Germany can afford to upgrade one or two units per turn after repairs are done and then I build no new units. So if (when) I get a convoy through and have enough resources to upgrade more units then I would not be allowed to do so!?

As it is now, if one does not have a complete overflow of resources then prioritizing whether to repair, build and upgrade units is not always a easy task. But if you are only allowed to upgrade a certain number of units per turn then it becomes very easy. The upgrades must then have priority since there is a limit on the upgrades.

If all your nations can afford to upgrade all units at once then maybe you do not fight the enemy and are just dug in and wait for better odds? I would say that to much production for some nations is more troublesome. If you can't afford it all then the upgrade "problem" solves itself.

So if there is a limit on how many units to upgrade should there not be a limit on how many new units you are allowed to produce? Especially since they get the new, upgraded, weapons as well!

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to stockwellpete)

Post #: 99

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/8/2014 4:45:52 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

I like the names as is. If it is changed to 'division' and 'corps' then it sounds like there should be stacking in the game two divisions may stack in a hex. To me infantry units and garrison units has roughly the same number of men but the garrison unit has less able men and less equipment (machineguns and so on).

Garrison is just the wrong name for the smaller unit as it suggests soldiers are defending a fort or something like that - whereas in the game the garrison units are very mobile and are usually to be found in the trenches.

Garrison guard and defend inactive parts of the front and behind the lines. They dug in and defend. They garrison the trenches. I think that the word fits nice enough. They are not intended for active parts of the front or for attack purposes.

If they are renamed as a smaller type of unit, for example division, then I would find it ridiculous that two divisions could not stack in the same hex as a army could stack in.

Historically there has been plenty of weaker units of the same size as the standard formation so I see no trouble with that the different strength units have same size.

You could name them Heavy Infantry and Light Infantry, Infantry and Reserve Infantry, or something else that do not specify the size of the unit. But with that said I prefer the name as is. But I strenuously object to names that imply different sizes.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to stockwellpete)

Post #: 100

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/9/2014 4:04:04 PM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bob.

Kirk, good changes. It won't cause any crashes, I am certain of that. I have tried modding the game a little bit myself, just to see what is possible and there were no problem at all.
Just note that for each SetWarEffort value you need a SEPARATE entry in the localization file:

quote:

war_effort_85 = War Effort increased to 85%
war_effort_80 = War Effort increased to 80%
war_effort_75 = War Effort increased to 75%
etc etc

EDIT: Tested and worked beautifully.

Update I have now added that the Entente also increases their war effort in stages.So now the following Countries increase in war effort: France,Britain,Russia,Serbia,Germany,Austria/Hungary & Turkey what do you guys think off this change in game play? ( Do you want this in the game )

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 1/9/2014 5:12:34 PM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to bob.)

Post #: 101

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/9/2014 6:26:20 PM

stockwellpete

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Update I have now added that the Entente also increases their war effort in stages.So now the following Countries increase in war effort: France,Britain,Russia,Serbia,Germany,Austria/Hungary & Turkey what do you guys think off this change in game play? ( Do you want this in the game )

Yes, definitely put it in the game please, Kirk.

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 102

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/9/2014 6:32:45 PM

stockwellpete

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Putting restrictions per turn on upgrades makes the game easier. Or that is my humble opinion anyway.

In my current pvp game, as CP, Germany can afford to upgrade one or two units per turn after repairs are done and then I build no new units. So if (when) I get a convoy through and have enough resources to upgrade more units then I would not be allowed to do so!?

As it is now, if one does not have a complete overflow of resources then prioritizing whether to repair, build and upgrade units is not always a easy task. But if you are only allowed to upgrade a certain number of units per turn then it becomes very easy. The upgrades must then have priority since there is a limit on the upgrades.

Well, I can see the point you are making, but it depends on the situation. You may have to reinforce units in a crucial theatre rather than upgrade units where you are close to a breakthrough so it is not necessarily always an easy decision to make.

quote:

If all your nations can afford to upgrade all units at once then maybe you do not fight the enemy and are just dug in and wait for better odds? I would say that to much production for some nations is more troublesome. If you can't afford it all then the upgrade "problem" solves itself.

I agree that surplus PP's are a problem in the game for the Entente side in this latest beta patch.

quote:

So if there is a limit on how many units to upgrade should there not be a limit on how many new units you are allowed to produce? Especially since they get the new, upgraded, weapons as well!

Yes, I would like to see this too.

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 103

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/9/2014 6:35:52 PM

stockwellpete

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

But I strenuously object to names that imply different sizes.

But the units are different sizes according to their respective statistics. Being able to merge two "divisions" into one "corps" might be an interesting addition to the game, but it would need a lot of testing first.

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 104

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/9/2014 7:20:49 PM

Hotschi

Posts: 548
Joined: 1/18/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline

"Corps" stands for the current Infantry, and "Division" for Garrison?

If so, this would mean one builds 2 Garrisons, which are cheaper and faster to build than Infantry, and when they appear, merges them into a Corps...

Not a good idea.

_____________________________

"A big butcher's bill is not necessarily evidence of good tactics"

- Wavell's reply to Churchill, after the latter complained about faint-heartedness, as he discovered that British casualties in the evacuation from Somaliland had been only 260 men.

(in reply to stockwellpete)

Post #: 105

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/9/2014 7:41:47 PM

stockwellpete

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hotschi

"Corps" stands for the current Infantry, and "Division" for Garrison?

If so, this would mean one builds 2 Garrisons, which are cheaper and faster to build than Infantry, and when they appear, merges them into a Corps...

Not a good idea.

Excuse me, but I wrote that it would need some testing first, so obviously any anomalies would have to be corrected.

(in reply to Hotschi)

Post #: 106

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/10/2014 3:12:45 AM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

quote:

I agree that surplus PP's are a problem in the game for the Entente side in this latest beta patch.

quote:

quote:

The PP's advantage for the Entente,has now been reduced, when 1.40 is released officially, the game will be a lot more balanced.

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 1/10/2014 4:14:16 AM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to stockwellpete)

Post #: 107

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/10/2014 12:19:17 PM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

New in game hot tip.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 108

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/10/2014 12:58:10 PM

dogancan

Posts: 189
Joined: 9/25/2007
From: Ankara - Turkey
Status: offline

any guess abuout the release of the final version of the patch? I am a newbie and really impressed with the game. much easier to play than expected and wish to make a Turkish AAR about it. Should I wait a coupke of hours/days for the new patch (and a more balanced gameplay) or let myself be crushed in the AAR?

(honestly, I think even after the new patch, I will probably be crushed. It seemd impossible for me to defend the vast areas in the eastern front let alone organizing an offensinve campaign. Still, playing the game and reading A World Undone at the same time is a priceless experience. Congrats for that.)

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 109

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/10/2014 1:12:43 PM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

Hello dogancan, welcome to this very interesting game,I have to say that the vast majority off the forum members here, will offer you very sound advice on game play strategy. As for the final release off the 1.40 patch I can't say, but what I can say is that, the software wiz kid, is extremely busy trying to get all cross platform version's of the game good to go.An updated hot fix is in the pipeline, which fixes most off the gamers issues with the 1.40 Open beta patch, as per game balance etc.

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to dogancan)

Post #: 110

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/10/2014 1:43:44 PM

dogancan

Posts: 189
Joined: 9/25/2007
From: Ankara - Turkey
Status: offline

many thanks for that and for your efforts to improve the game. For now I am checking other AAR's to see what I am doing right and wrong. As said, most important of all, the game is really fun to play and have that "just one more turn" feel. I always feel that enemy is at the point of collapse and just one or two turns later they will surrender. think that is quite historical.

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 111

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/11/2014 8:37:43 AM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

I had the opportunity to consider attacking a submarine with my Zeppelin. As the submarine was is a green dot I did not expect to do any damage to the submarine but I was shocked that the combat prediction showed that while the sub would take no damage my zeppelin would take 3 in damage.

It is my understanding that subs of this time had no air defence at all. The had a deck gun but it was not intended as air defence. I am not even sure that it could be fired against air targets. Armed aircraft is not even yet researched so how can it be that my zeppelin should take so much in damage? Should that not have been a 0-0 combat with, maybe, some reduction in efficiency?

Edit: What I am trying to say is that the submarines air attack value is way to high. Should it not begin at zero or close to zero and then be be increased during the war?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Orm -- 1/11/2014 9:42:48 AM >

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to dogancan)

Post #: 112

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/12/2014 12:45:11 PM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

Submarine anti - aircraft settings have been corrected thanks for highlighting this Orm

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 1/12/2014 1:45:48 PM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 113

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/12/2014 8:12:00 PM

istari6

Posts: 56
Joined: 12/12/2013
Status: offline

Kirk,

My feelings are very similar to dogancan - I've been playing CGTW while reading A World Undone, Catastrophe: 1914 and other WW1 books and its been a fantastic experience! Thanks so much to you and the team for making a terrific game!! I knew the basics about WWI before picking up your game, but I've had a truly enjoyable time both learning and playing over the past month.

At this point, I have one SP 1914 campaign left to beat - CP under Hard rules. I'm holding off until 1.40 is released, but it sounds like there might be a hotfix which brings it to 95%? Do you think the hotfix will be very close to the final release? Would love to dive back in and play one more game, but the 1.40 additions sound like they're worth waiting for :).

BTW - I read on the Slitherine forum that Commander: Europe at War II is in production. I will be a first day buyer for that game based on the great experience I've had with CGTW. Hopefully we'll see CEAW II in 2015?

Chris

< Message edited by istari6 -- 1/12/2014 9:12:35 PM >

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 114

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/12/2014 8:20:19 PM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

All going well within the next 2 - 3 weeks, should see all the open beta issues ironed out,that being the case,then 1.40 will then be an official full release and not a beta!

I must say, that I never realized just how much work, is involved in getting games like this, patched and improved.But hopefully all the efforts of the guys behind the scene, along with my own efforts, make for a game that everyone can really enjoy playing,at least that's the goal

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 1/12/2014 9:35:50 PM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to istari6)

Post #: 115

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/13/2014 5:22:13 AM

istari6

Posts: 56
Joined: 12/12/2013
Status: offline

Kirk,

Appreciate the fast reply, and happy to wait for 2-3 more weeks for the full 1.40 patch. Know the hard work is much appreciated, this is a great game.

Chris

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 116

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/13/2014 7:05:22 AM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

New in game hot tip.

As a follow up to this earlier post, I thought I should demonstrate exactly what I meant when I said,do not attack any ship while in its home port! This picture shows the German Battleship attempting to attack the Transport in port, note the expected losses, The German Battleship will get gubbed big time so please do not do this anymore in game you are all fore warned.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 117

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/13/2014 7:07:55 AM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

This is what happens if you do proceed in this foolish attack on the Transport in its home port, as I said earlier please don't do this any more you will loose ok!

It is hoped that this will now put an end,to the tactic off leaving your warships, camped next to your enemies ports,for prolonged periods during a game,as you can see this tactic will no longer be a viable option!

This tactic of close blockade worked great during the Napoleonic wars, when Nelson commanded the sailing ships of the line,but this is world war 1, and after the advent of the Torpedo,both the British & German admiralty, both realized that a close blockade, was now an impossible tactic to use.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 1/13/2014 9:14:52 AM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 118

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/15/2014 6:28:43 PM

operating

Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

Saved E July 1917 SP (1916 Scenario start) at beginning of turn, then again a separate save at end of turn, both CTD when starting next turn. This happened the same way for succeeding E 1916 games, except the other CTD in June 1917. Next will try CP 1916 to see if it plays out.

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 119

RE: Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ? - 1/17/2014 11:39:31 PM

operating

Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

CP 1916 SP CTD 19 Feb. 1917/turn 27. Rebooted, still CTD.

< Message edited by operating -- 1/19/2014 7:25:38 AM >

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 120