Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk
Russia has surrendered, CP has a vast # of units way out on this front. Usually in the past, disband all garrisons (not worth the upkeep in the time to bring back to home turf), to save the 2 PP for upkeep. In this patch, disbanding these units on Russian soil, does not result in a savings of 2 PP upkeep (per garrison), on or after the current turn. Is this a intended or unintended result?

Naturally, I would rather disband a unit on home turf, and get the full potential of doing so (recovering MP, reduce upkeep, and increasing PP).

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I have played two games as the Central Powers in single player (standard difficulty) . . .

Both games ended in defeat for the Central Powers by autumn 1915. I could tell that I was going to lose by the spring of 1915. In both games I managed to achieve on the Western Front what Germany managed in real life by November 1914. I never seriously threatened Paris but I knocked Belgium out of the game by taking Antwerp. After then the Western Front became locked even though trenches were very slight. On the Eastern Front I held the Russians outside Konigsberg and Danzig in one game although I did lose Cracow and Posen for a while; in the other game I did manage to take Warsaw in the spring of 1915 but I lost it after 2-3 months again. In both games the Russians overwhelmed me in 1915. Also, in both games the Austro-Hungarians defeated the Serbs but then they became complete "basket cases" in 1915 and collapsed very quickly. In one game the Turks were going 50/50 with the British and Russians in 1915, in the other they collapsed catastrophically in Palestine in 1915 even though they were holding the Russians in the Caucasus. In both games my navies performed well and sank lots of convoys and enemy shipping.

The game still seems very unbalanced to me. Germany cannot fight a two front war for more than 6 months it seems. Basically it plays like 1914 followed by 1918 with 1915, 1916 and 1917 missing. Not good.

Other observations (in no particular order) . . .
i) Austria-Hungary too weak, unable to generate surplus PP's after start of 1915
ii) Germany too dependent on its convoys for surplus PP's
iii) Turkey is the most dynamic of the Central Powers in the game which is completely unrealistic
iv) Serbia is slightly underpowered, collapses before Bulgarians enter the war
v) British send far too many units too quickly to Palestine front in 1914
vi) Russians have horde like quality and become far too strong in 1915
vii) Italian infantry reach level 3 very quickly when joining the war, they should be level 1, I would think
viii) German infantry are caught up by French and British at level 2, when really the German army should always be the best army in the game (the quality of the British army declined in 1915 as BEF was replaced by "pals" batallions and then by conscripts in 1916
ix) logistical upgrades are now prohibitively expensive for the Central Powers and are virtually taken out of the game. This is a shame. The cost should be reduced so decisions about munitions, research labs, transport options are restored
x) airships always inflict 1 damage on enemy cities, too powerful
xi) AI turn often very slow
xii) when AI turn moving the screen seems to halt mid-move before resuming
xiii) AI fleet is bonkers!(I realise you will deal with this in 1.50, Kirk)

quote:

Whats wrong with the picture? The picture has not changed

quote:

most off the day

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I have played two games as the Central Powers in single player (standard difficulty) . . .

Both games ended in defeat for the Central Powers by autumn 1915. I could tell that I was going to lose by the spring of 1915. In both games I managed to achieve on the Western Front what Germany managed in real life by November 1914. I never seriously threatened Paris but I knocked Belgium out of the game by taking Antwerp. After then the Western Front became locked even though trenches were very slight. On the Eastern Front I held the Russians outside Konigsberg and Danzig in one game although I did lose Cracow and Posen for a while; in the other game I did manage to take Warsaw in the spring of 1915 but I lost it after 2-3 months again. In both games the Russians overwhelmed me in 1915. Also, in both games the Austro-Hungarians defeated the Serbs but then they became complete "basket cases" in 1915 and collapsed very quickly. In one game the Turks were going 50/50 with the British and Russians in 1915, in the other they collapsed catastrophically in Palestine in 1915 even though they were holding the Russians in the Caucasus. In both games my navies performed well and sank lots of convoys and enemy shipping.

The game still seems very unbalanced to me. Germany cannot fight a two front war for more than 6 months it seems. Basically it plays like 1914 followed by 1918 with 1915, 1916 and 1917 missing. Not good.

Other observations (in no particular order) . . .
i) Austria-Hungary too weak, unable to generate surplus PP's after start of 1915
ii) Germany too dependent on its convoys for surplus PP's
iii) Turkey is the most dynamic of the Central Powers in the game which is completely unrealistic
iv) Serbia is slightly underpowered, collapses before Bulgarians enter the war
v) British send far too many units too quickly to Palestine front in 1914
vi) Russians have horde like quality and become far too strong in 1915
vii) Italian infantry reach level 3 very quickly when joining the war, they should be level 1, I would think
viii) German infantry are caught up by French and British at level 2, when really the German army should always be the best army in the game (the quality of the British army declined in 1915 as BEF was replaced by "pals" batallions and then by conscripts in 1916
ix) logistical upgrades are now prohibitively expensive for the Central Powers and are virtually taken out of the game. This is a shame. The cost should be reduced so decisions about munitions, research labs, transport options are restored
x) airships always inflict 1 damage on enemy cities, too powerful
xi) AI turn often very slow
xii) when AI turn moving the screen seems to halt mid-move before resuming
xiii) AI fleet is bonkers!(I realise you will deal with this in 1.50, Kirk)

Hi guys, this is for everyones attention,I'm in the process of making final adjustments to the game before official release,I have looked at this entire thread very carefully, and taken notes,I will cover the vast majority of the issues raised within the threads feedback,as to Game balance issues etc,there are some things that can't be done for 1.40 at this time,but will be addressed for 1.50. The main thing for me is the Naval AI being nuts in most cases!

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Read Stockwellpete's post, he has improved his game play, and makes some good points. The thought occurred to me: Could the CP AI get more PP, but not when SP playing as the CP against the Entente AI?

PS; And still be at "Balanced" setting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Read Stockwellpete's post, he has improved his game play, and makes some good points. The thought occurred to me: Could the CP AI get more PP, but not when SP playing as the CP against the Entente AI?

PS; And still be at "Balanced" setting.

You mean the AI cheats !

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Convoy Protection Tip !

I find the best way for Germany to protect its Baltic Convoy, is always to keep your force concentrated,avoid trying to track the enemy down,let them come to you.

quote:

Convoy Protection Tip !

I find the best way for Germany to protect its Baltic Convoy, is always to keep your force concentrated,avoid trying to track the enemy down,let them come to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flimbo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Convoy Protection Tip !

I find the best way for Germany to protect its Baltic Convoy, is always to keep your force concentrated,avoid trying to track the enemy down,let them come to you.

quote:

Convoy Protection Tip !

I find the best way for Germany to protect its Baltic Convoy, is always to keep your force concentrated,avoid trying to track the enemy down,let them come to you.

Kirk, your convoying is certainly effective, but not exactly benificial for the gameplay from my point of view. I want use the my fleet the way I want to and can't do so if 6 (!!!) ships have to be dedicated to convoying in the baltic sea most of their time.
Also, you have to consider that the fleet shown on your picture costs 7 PP maintenance every turn. The convoy from Sweden gives only 20-30 PP every 4-5 turns. Overall a bad deal. I agree that the player should be forced to protect his convoys, but not that much.
Anyway, if CP gets more PP from cities in the official patch, as you mentioned in a previous post, that issue won't be such a problem anymore.
Looking forward to the official version! I think there are some decent improvements so far. Most importantly the game seems to run stable and I'm now able to actually finish a campaign without a repeatable crash. I don't bother about pictures and text messages screwing up baltic and north sea or whatever. Gameplay-wise such flaws are not important at all in my opinion.

quote:

Kirk, Have ownership of 99.9% of Russia the last couple of turns, they should have gone into Unconditional Surrender. The problem is: That Russia has 3 hexes down to the right of the Caspian Sea, that are inaccessible by land (from any direction). There are no ports on this sea, so troop transports are out of the question, airplanes cannot land there, So what does one do to capture those 3 hexes??????

Suggestion: Make a map change to go from Russian hexes to Prohibited Zone hexes, which is one solution to me, another would be to make Baku a port, then again if you transport any troops there they will be trapped, they won't be able to embark out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk
Russia has surrendered, CP has a vast # of units way out on this front. Usually in the past, disband all garrisons (not worth the upkeep in the time to bring back to home turf), to save the 2 PP for upkeep. In this patch, disbanding these units on Russian soil, does not result in a savings of 2 PP upkeep (per garrison), on or after the current turn. Is this a intended or unintended result?

Naturally, I would rather disband a unit on home turf, and get the full potential of doing so (recovering MP, reduce upkeep, and increasing PP).

I'm sure its intended,it also depends on the strength of the unit,at the time you disband them.You get less UpKeep for units that are not at full strength when they are disbanded.

The “Disband” button allows you to disband units. For every strength
point the unit has left, you’ll recover 5% of its original production cost.
This means you can recover a total of 50% of the original cost for a unit
that still has 10 strength points.
You’ll recover 10% MP for every strength point, meaning you can recover
the full 100% if the unit still has 10 strength points.

quote:

You get less UpKeep for units that are not at full strength when they are disbanded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

British start with a cavalry unit in Southampton. Really that should be an infantry unit as BEF was mainly infantry.

quote:

Another area to look at is the "efficiency" rating. All units appear to start at 10 at the moment. Maybe newly deployed units should start off at 4 or 5 so that they have to be "in play" for 3-4 turns before reaching 10? This would simulate new troops getting their bearings on the battlefield. And maybe units with efficiency ratings below 5 should lose one hex of movement too? Little things like this would make the game more interesting and would probably discourage the disbanding of units with high efficiency ratings (but with high casualties) as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Please remember this is still a beta release,we will look closely at gamer's feedback, and fine tune Countries PP etc.Before official 1.40 patch release!