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: 1.4.2 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: 1.4.2 PATCH Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/8/2014 4:37:33 PM   
operating


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

Orm says;
Gas not yet used in our game.

I play the Entente in this game and I consider Bulgaria not entering the war as a game-breaker. No fun at all. When I noticed it I considered surrendering at once. Only reason I didn't is because I plan to DOW Bulgaria instead. I just hope that the penalty for that is not to great.

_____________________________

"You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment."

If I am reading this right: "The winning side wants to surrender"??? Sounds like Bulgaria has seen enough not to want getting pressed into a meat grinder. If your desire is to be a "Good Sport", I doubt there is a penalty for Declaring War on Bulgaria, also, it might not effect Italy, Romania or Portugal from entering. The only way to know for sure is to play (experiment) it out in SP. It's the maddening thing about MP not having saved games, however, that is for everyone's protection (tendency for some to go over to the Dark Side).

As to Warspite's question: I have to wonder if his NM has a correlation to Bulgaria's status. Hopefully a moderator, like Johnny Bravo speaks up on this, while Kirk is on Vacation.

<edit>

In my SP 1914 scenario, it's May 1915 Italy has just entered. Declared war on Bulgaria, saw no penalties diplomatically

< Message edited by operating -- 3/8/2014 5:47:34 PM >

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 61
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/8/2014 4:53:48 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

Orm says;
Gas not yet used in our game.

I play the Entente in this game and I consider Bulgaria not entering the war as a game-breaker. No fun at all. When I noticed it I considered surrendering at once. Only reason I didn't is because I plan to DOW Bulgaria instead. I just hope that the penalty for that is not to great.

_____________________________

"You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment."

If I am reading this right: "The winning side wants to surrender"??? Sounds like Bulgaria has seen enough not to want getting pressed into a meat grinder. If your desire is to be a "Good Sport", I doubt there is a penalty for Declaring War on Bulgaria, also, it might not effect Italy, Romania or Portugal from entering. The only way to know for sure is to play (experiment) it out in SP. It's the maddening thing about MP not having saved games, however, that is for everyone's protection (tendency for some to go over to the Dark Side).

As to Warspite's question: I have to wonder if his NM has a correlation to Bulgaria's status. Hopefully a moderator, like Johnny Bravo speaks up on this, while Kirk is on Vacation.
warspite1

Operating the point I am trying to make is, I don't care what the reason is, and I certainly don't care if its lack of NM. I think the concept is wrong.

Let's say that is the reason.

The game is barely 4 months old - its early in the new year 1915. If the German NM affects Bulgaria then what the games designers are saying is - if ever the Germans get a bad start - quit playing. As I say, where is the fun trying to turn around a difficult game?

If it is the use of Poison Gas then how does that work? So In order to delay Italy and get Bulgaria, Germany does not research a key technology? And what is the quid pro quo i.e. what persuades the Allies that they should not want to research poison gas or do they get that "gratis"?

Thanks for your help in clarifying.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to operating)
Post #: 62
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/8/2014 5:05:12 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		What does NM mean?

----

I have done slightly better than historically. Russia launched a a strong offence towards Königsberg and managed to capture the city before the German reinforcements arrived. Other than that I think the lines are close to historical. Germany have launched a counter offence and they will soon liberate Königsberg.

Germany were historically prepared to lose this region to Russia in order to succeed versus the attack on France. I doubt that losing this city would have affected the Bulgarian position historically.

And in the game it certainly should not. Capture Konigsberg and win the game would be the result if this is the case. I consider Bulgaria cancelling the countdown a game breaking bug taking the fun out of the game. Thankfully I can get around it by declaring war on Bulgaria around the date that they would have entered the war.

Note that I am not sure that Königsberg is the reason for that the countdown stopped. I actually doubt it because the countdown for Bulgaria continued even after Königsberg was captured. But it is the only thing that I can think of because other than that the game follows history fairly close.

I want to win on the battlefield. Not by capturing a city that I can't hold!





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 operating)
Post #: 63
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/8/2014 5:25:26 PM   
operating


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

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

Orm says;
Gas not yet used in our game.

I play the Entente in this game and I consider Bulgaria not entering the war as a game-breaker. No fun at all. When I noticed it I considered surrendering at once. Only reason I didn't is because I plan to DOW Bulgaria instead. I just hope that the penalty for that is not to great.

_____________________________

"You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment."

If I am reading this right: "The winning side wants to surrender"??? Sounds like Bulgaria has seen enough not to want getting pressed into a meat grinder. If your desire is to be a "Good Sport", I doubt there is a penalty for Declaring War on Bulgaria, also, it might not effect Italy, Romania or Portugal from entering. The only way to know for sure is to play (experiment) it out in SP. It's the maddening thing about MP not having saved games, however, that is for everyone's protection (tendency for some to go over to the Dark Side).

As to Warspite's question: I have to wonder if his NM has a correlation to Bulgaria's status. Hopefully a moderator, like Johnny Bravo speaks up on this, while Kirk is on Vacation.
warspite1

Operating the point I am trying to make is, I don't care what the reason is, and I certainly don't care if its lack of NM. I think the concept is wrong.

Let's say that is the reason.

The game is barely 4 months old - its early in the new year 1915. If the German NM affects Bulgaria then what the games designers are saying is - if ever the Germans get a bad start - quit playing. As I say, where is the fun trying to turn around a difficult game?

If it is the use of Poison Gas then how does that work? So In order to delay Italy and get Bulgaria, Germany does not research a key technology? And what is the quid pro quo i.e. what persuades the Allies that they should not want to research poison gas or do they get that "gratis"?

Thanks for your help in clarifying.


In SP I do delay upgrading to poison gas, letting the AI use it first, every time I use it first, Italy enters sooner (as well as Romania and Portugal) and I believe Bulgaria stalls. Historically, I don't know the answer, I just know the repercussions in the game. There must of been research done to justify in game effects.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 64
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/8/2014 5:33:27 PM   
Orm


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

ORIGINAL: operating


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

Orm says;
Gas not yet used in our game.

I play the Entente in this game and I consider Bulgaria not entering the war as a game-breaker. No fun at all. When I noticed it I considered surrendering at once. Only reason I didn't is because I plan to DOW Bulgaria instead. I just hope that the penalty for that is not to great.

_____________________________

"You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment."

If I am reading this right: "The winning side wants to surrender"??? Sounds like Bulgaria has seen enough not to want getting pressed into a meat grinder. If your desire is to be a "Good Sport", I doubt there is a penalty for Declaring War on Bulgaria, also, it might not effect Italy, Romania or Portugal from entering. The only way to know for sure is to play (experiment) it out in SP. It's the maddening thing about MP not having saved games, however, that is for everyone's protection (tendency for some to go over to the Dark Side).

As to Warspite's question: I have to wonder if his NM has a correlation to Bulgaria's status. Hopefully a moderator, like Johnny Bravo speaks up on this, while Kirk is on Vacation.
warspite1

Operating the point I am trying to make is, I don't care what the reason is, and I certainly don't care if its lack of NM. I think the concept is wrong.

Let's say that is the reason.

The game is barely 4 months old - its early in the new year 1915. If the German NM affects Bulgaria then what the games designers are saying is - if ever the Germans get a bad start - quit playing. As I say, where is the fun trying to turn around a difficult game?

If it is the use of Poison Gas then how does that work? So In order to delay Italy and get Bulgaria, Germany does not research a key technology? And what is the quid pro quo i.e. what persuades the Allies that they should not want to research poison gas or do they get that "gratis"?

Thanks for your help in clarifying.


In SP I do delay upgrading to poison gas, letting the AI use it first, every time I use it first, Italy enters sooner (as well as Romania and Portugal) and I believe Bulgaria stalls. Historically, I don't know the answer, I just know the repercussions in the game. There must of been research done to justify in game effects.


The effects of using gas first is interesting but has no relevance in regards of Bulgaria since poison gas has not been used in our game.

_____________________________

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 operating)
Post #: 65
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/8/2014 5:44:01 PM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		NM; National Morale, check it out on Management window. A combination of troop (MP) loss, cities won/loss, and opponent/ally surrenders, naval win/losses (especially BBs). Not sure if CP recaptures Koenisburg if it will restore NM %ages, however, Entente will lose NM % when it happens (I'm pretty sure about that).

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 66
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/8/2014 5:53:08 PM   
operating


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

If it is the use of Poison Gas then how does that work? So In order to delay Italy and get Bulgaria, Germany does not research a key technology? And what is the quid pro quo i.e. what persuades the Allies that they should not want to research poison gas or do they get that "gratis"?


No, You continue to research artillery, let it progress in every category, except RR gun (which is lame). Wait for the opportunity after the other side makes a mistake using poison gas before upgrading. OK, you do take some initial losses, getting up to speed, but you win diplomatically.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 67
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 12:20:23 AM   
operating


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

Warspite says
The game is barely 4 months old - its early in the new year 1915. If the German NM affects Bulgaria then what the games designers are saying is - if ever the Germans get a bad start - quit playing. As I say, where is the fun trying to turn around a difficult game?

If it is the use of Poison Gas then how does that work? So In order to delay Italy and get Bulgaria, Germany does not research a key technology? And what is the quid pro quo i.e. what persuades the Allies that they should not want to research poison gas or do they get that "gratis"?

Thanks for your help in clarifying.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.


This is the diplomat picture end of my turn 26.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 68
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 12:22:18 AM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		AI uses poison gas turn 26.









Attachment (1)

< Message edited by operating -- 3/9/2014 1:27:00 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 69
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 12:31:57 AM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		Turn 27: Romania and Portugal appear in the diplomatic window on the march to war at 20+, instead of 25+, more than likely because of AI's use of poison gas, the same would hold true for an MP match.

<edit>
I would have done a better post if I knew how to get more than 1 SS in a post.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by operating -- 3/9/2014 1:35:06 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 70
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 7:12:27 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

If it is the use of Poison Gas then how does that work? So In order to delay Italy and get Bulgaria, Germany does not research a key technology? And what is the quid pro quo i.e. what persuades the Allies that they should not want to research poison gas or do they get that "gratis"?


No, You continue to research artillery, let it progress in every category, except RR gun (which is lame). Wait for the opportunity after the other side makes a mistake using poison gas before upgrading. OK, you do take some initial losses, getting up to speed, but you win diplomatically.
warspite1

So in WWI Bulgaria joined the war on the side of the Central Powers after the Germans first used Chlorine gas, they joined the war after the Schliefffen Plan had gone wrong and the Germans were stalled in the west, they joined after the Austro-Hungarians had made a total mess of the war. But this is ignored and once again, CTGW is mucking about with Bulgarian entry?

Sorry but to me this makes no sense.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/9/2014 8:13:34 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to operating)
Post #: 71
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 8:34:39 AM   
Orm


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

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

Warspite says
The game is barely 4 months old - its early in the new year 1915. If the German NM affects Bulgaria then what the games designers are saying is - if ever the Germans get a bad start - quit playing. As I say, where is the fun trying to turn around a difficult game?

If it is the use of Poison Gas then how does that work? So In order to delay Italy and get Bulgaria, Germany does not research a key technology? And what is the quid pro quo i.e. what persuades the Allies that they should not want to research poison gas or do they get that "gratis"?

Thanks for your help in clarifying.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.


This is the diplomat picture end of my turn 26.





And the Bulgarian entry into the war had been halted a long time ago in this game!

Edit: And this was long before poison gas was used!!!

< Message edited by Orm -- 3/9/2014 10:35:30 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 operating)
Post #: 72
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 8:39:11 AM   
Orm


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

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

If it is the use of Poison Gas then how does that work? So In order to delay Italy and get Bulgaria, Germany does not research a key technology? And what is the quid pro quo i.e. what persuades the Allies that they should not want to research poison gas or do they get that "gratis"?


No, You continue to research artillery, let it progress in every category, except RR gun (which is lame). Wait for the opportunity after the other side makes a mistake using poison gas before upgrading. OK, you do take some initial losses, getting up to speed, but you win diplomatically.
warspite1

So in WWI Bulgaria joined the war on the side of the Central Powers after the Germans first used Chlorine gas, they joined the war after the Schliefffen Plan had gone wrong and the Germans were stalled in the west, they joined after the Austro-Hungarians had made a total mess of the war. But this is ignored and once again, CTGW is mucking about with Bulgarian entry?

Sorry but to me this makes no sense.

It, sadly, makes sense. The game is broken. Bulgarian entry is bugged. To me this game is now unplayable.


< Message edited by Orm -- 3/9/2014 10:41:33 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 warspite1)
Post #: 73
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 11:32:16 AM   
operating


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

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

If it is the use of Poison Gas then how does that work? So In order to delay Italy and get Bulgaria, Germany does not research a key technology? And what is the quid pro quo i.e. what persuades the Allies that they should not want to research poison gas or do they get that "gratis"?


No, You continue to research artillery, let it progress in every category, except RR gun (which is lame). Wait for the opportunity after the other side makes a mistake using poison gas before upgrading. OK, you do take some initial losses, getting up to speed, but you win diplomatically.
warspite1

So in WWI Bulgaria joined the war on the side of the Central Powers after the Germans first used Chlorine gas, they joined the war after the Schliefffen Plan had gone wrong and the Germans were stalled in the west, they joined after the Austro-Hungarians had made a total mess of the war. But this is ignored and once again, CTGW is mucking about with Bulgarian entry?

Sorry but to me this makes no sense.

It, sadly, makes sense. The game is broken. Bulgarian entry is bugged. To me this game is now unplayable.


The diplomatic picture resets, when each side receives surrenders. Bulgaria goes on the march to war when Serbia surrenders and , or when Serbia and Italy surrenders and don't forget usually by this time Belgium has surrendered. Looking at Orm's SS, CP has not accomplished a whole heck of a lot, which does not make it very enticing for a potential ally. Don't forget; that Bulgaria's PP is about 4-8, with 1 RR. Have not played MP in some time, where the dynamics are so different from SP, so I have to wonder if the goal posts could be changed for an MP match that runs on SP thinking?

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 74
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 11:33:51 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		Such a shame. When this game came out it was a little revelation. Yes the treatment of the naval war was pretty poor and there were one or two things that needed amending - e.g. it was impossible to have the US enter, but overall, the game was stable, relatively bug-free and bags of fun. With some work it could only get better.... or so I thought.

What on earth has happened? There was the total disaster of Russia going into melt down if the Germans said Boo! and Romania not coming into the war as a result. Then it was decided that Bulgaria should never come into the war, and now that has been revised and she can come in, provided the Germans don't get a bad start or research advanced technology to help them get over the bad start??

Oh well. Time to put away again. At least I had my monies worth in the first six months of its release.



_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 75
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 11:45:09 AM   
Orm


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

ORIGINAL: operating

The diplomatic picture resets, when each side receives surrenders. Bulgaria goes on the march to war when Serbia surrenders and , or when Serbia and Italy surrenders and don't forget usually by this time Belgium has surrendered. Looking at Orm's SS, CP has not accomplished a whole heck of a lot, which does not make it very enticing for a potential ally. Don't forget; that Bulgaria's PP is about 4-8, with 1 RR. Have not played MP in some time, where the dynamics are so different from SP, so I have to wonder if the goal posts could be changed for an MP match that runs on SP thinking?


Neither Belgium, Italy nor Serbia had surrendered, historically, when Bulgaria entered the war.

CP in my game is very close to the historical success of the Central Powers.

So at this point I agree with Warspite1; "Oh well. Time to put away again".



_____________________________

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 operating)
Post #: 76
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 11:48:24 AM   
operating


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

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Such a shame. When this game came out it was a little revelation. Yes the treatment of the naval war was pretty poor and there were one or two things that needed amending - e.g. it was impossible to have the US enter, but overall, the game was stable, relatively bug-free and bags of fun. With some work it could only get better.... or so I thought.

What on earth has happened? There was the total disaster of Russia going into melt down if the Germans said Boo! and Romania not coming into the war as a result. Then it was decided that Bulgaria should never come into the war, and now that has been revised and she can come in, provided the Germans don't get a bad start or research advanced technology to help them get over the bad start??

Oh well. Time to put away again. At least I had my monies worth in the first six months of its release.



Have you swapped sides with Orm, and received the same results?

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 77
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 11:53:05 AM   
operating


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

Orm says;
Neither Belgium, Italy nor Serbia had surrendered, historically, when Bulgaria entered the war.

CP in my game is very close to the historical success of the Central Powers.


I find your revelation very interesting, I hope the Powers to be, take note of this.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 78
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 11:57:32 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: operating


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Such a shame. When this game came out it was a little revelation. Yes the treatment of the naval war was pretty poor and there were one or two things that needed amending - e.g. it was impossible to have the US enter, but overall, the game was stable, relatively bug-free and bags of fun. With some work it could only get better.... or so I thought.

What on earth has happened? There was the total disaster of Russia going into melt down if the Germans said Boo! and Romania not coming into the war as a result. Then it was decided that Bulgaria should never come into the war, and now that has been revised and she can come in, provided the Germans don't get a bad start or research advanced technology to help them get over the bad start??

Oh well. Time to put away again. At least I had my monies worth in the first six months of its release.



Have you swapped sides with Orm, and received the same results?

warspite1

In our other game, where I am the Entente, the Germans are doing better then historically - holding a line north of Paris, pushing into Russia and have broken the Serbian front line.

In this instance Bulgaria is on track to come into the game - as expected.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to operating)
Post #: 79
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 12:20:58 PM   
operating


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

warspite1

In our other game, where I am the Entente, the Germans are doing better then historically - holding a line north of Paris, pushing into Russia and have broken the Serbian front line.

In this instance Bulgaria is on track to come into the game - as expected.

Can you remember how Italy and others were reacting to these events? Historically and in game, Italy enters May 1915 (which you already knew). Unless there are influences to alter that. Italy was reluctant to join a war against it's former Allies. Do you have any suggestions on the diplomatic picture about the game?

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 80
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 2:04:13 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

warspite1

In our other game, where I am the Entente, the Germans are doing better then historically - holding a line north of Paris, pushing into Russia and have broken the Serbian front line.

In this instance Bulgaria is on track to come into the game - as expected.

Can you remember how Italy and others were reacting to these events? Historically and in game, Italy enters May 1915 (which you already knew). Unless there are influences to alter that. Italy was reluctant to join a war against it's former Allies. Do you have any suggestions on the diplomatic picture about the game?
warspite1

Depends what the game is trying to achieve. As far as I am concerned, this is supposed to be a fun game, based on WWI, that either side can win. Its not a hugely detailed game in terms of OB and historical accuracy and does not need to be - so long as it has a WWI flavour.

I do not see how a fun, balanced game is possible if all the minors + Italy may or may not come in. This concept makes the game too predictable (in terms of play balance) and too dependent on early success or failure - thus making scenarios a foregone conclusion. E.g Germany makes a bad start - right no Bulgaria. Russia is struggling, right no Romania. The game becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bulgaria, the US, Turkey, Italy and Romania should all come in to the war on the side that they historically came in on. Yes, to add to replayability, the actual entry dates may be varied, but the fact of their entrance, and on whose side, should not be. Again to aid replayability, the set up of those countries units should not be set in stone, but should be up to the owning player.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to operating)
Post #: 81
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/9/2014 3:26:25 PM   
operating


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

warspite1

Depends what the game is trying to achieve. As far as I am concerned, this is supposed to be a fun game, based on WWI, that either side can win. Its not a hugely detailed game in terms of OB and historical accuracy and does not need to be - so long as it has a WWI flavour.

Totally in agreement with you here.


quote:

I do not see how a fun, balanced game is possible if all the minors + Italy may or may not come in. This concept makes the game too predictable (in terms of play balance) and too dependent on early success or failure - thus making scenarios a foregone conclusion. E.g Germany makes a bad start - right no Bulgaria. Russia is struggling, right no Romania. The game becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Would agree with you to a point. Only because the game would have to be totally reconstructed, which right now, does not seem likely to happen, except through patches (that may or may not reflect players' points of view). One thing I can say; Is the game is in a state of constant build, which in some games does not happen, or,but rarely.

quote:

Bulgaria, the US, Turkey, Italy and Romania should all come in to the war on the side that they historically came in on. Yes, to add to replayability, the actual entry dates may be varied, but the fact of their entrance, and on whose side, should not be.

First sentence: Well they do come onto the side intended, but, a savvy opponent, who knows the in and outs of "this game", can change that balance in play, but they have to work at it, with a successful strategy, it's not always a given (especially in MP).

quote:

Again to aid replayability, the set up of those countries units should not be set in stone, but should be up to the owning player.

There's merit to what you have to say here, however, starting sequences "seem" to be historical. The only differences are: A player who pays attention to the diplomatic panel, can anticipate a country's entrance and plan movements accordingly. The only reason I chime in on that: Is because nobody then really expected a war to happen so quickly, actually it was such a brief time for all these countries to have preparedness to mobilize for total war (including positioning).

I've learned plenty about WW1 since the release of this game, Yes, There is room for improvement (like any game), Yes I support the playability of the game, for it has been fun, in spite of some odd features.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 82
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/11/2014 9:31:42 PM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		Did anybody notice that the shell production went down in 1915 for Germany? This SS 1915.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 83
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/11/2014 9:32:44 PM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		1914





Attachment (1)

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 84
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/11/2014 10:01:25 PM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		Shell production should have increased at least by 1 shell per turn onto previous total, with each succeeding year. This being 1916 should have been 11 shells per turn. Historical Shell production went up from 1914, not down....OR, for game purposes the shell production should have naturally increased, not decreased.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 85
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/12/2014 10:31:58 PM   
Dorb


Posts: 371
Joined: 10/8/2013
From: Ohio
Status: offline 		I don't want to play a game that follows history to the tee, just a hint of historic direction. I want to play what could have been with the tools they had. Really don't want to be on history rails that I have to follow.

< Message edited by Dorb -- 3/12/2014 11:32:29 PM >

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 86
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/12/2014 11:31:51 PM   
operating


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

ORIGINAL: Dorb

I don't want to play a game that follows history to the tee, just a hint of historic direction. I want to play what could have been with the tools they had. Really don't want to be on history rails that I have to follow.

I have to agree with you, for if this game (as it is) were to be historical in every way, it would be a train wreck. However, where there have been patch changes to the game it should be symmetrical.

(in reply to Dorb)
Post #: 87
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/13/2014 5:07:45 AM   
amtrick

 

Posts: 82
Joined: 12/30/2013
From: United States
Status: offline 		Just finished playing the (balanced) 1914 scenario as CP. Ran the entire 118 turns and got the “Ultimate Victory” with the US and Portugal still standing on the Entente side. Made several missteps along the way, so I think I could do better. Before moving on to play the same scenario from the Entente side, I thought I would stop and summarize what I had learned and observed along the way. Some this may be repeats from earlier posts, so bear with me. Here we go:

1. The Small Garrisons are a useful concept (small, local defense forces), but have to more limited in their mobility. They really need to stick around their hometown and not be allowed up on the front lines. Yeah, they’re slow, but the AI is incredibly patient about moving them forward, where they slide into an entrenchment and require substantial effort to get out. Plus they require no manpower or PP spend to reinforce. Really skews the gameplay.
2. Artillery shell production needs to be really tweaked to get any near historical levels. You just can’t build it up fast enough. Plus, as I learned in the latter stages of the game, your inventory is capped at 90! This means three artillery units can burn through lord knows how many turns of production in about three turns. Then you are practically back at square one.
3. Convoys should be moved by the human player. Unless I missed a setting somewhere (entirely possible) the AI moves all convoys. And South Atlantic CP convoys will doggedly keep trying to make for Cuxhaven, even if the CP controls Brest or Nantes. Just not very realistic. And very frustrating to see all though PPs chewed up in the English Channel.
4. The AI does run slow, especially while Russia is in the war … probably figuring out how to move all those @#$%^&* Small Garrisons. Once you knock Russia out of the war, it gets back to more reasonable levels. I needed quite a few save and reloads (even quiting the game in between) to clear RAM and that seemed to help, but a mid-game turn for the AI could easily take 10-15 minutes. I would just find small chores to do and check back in every once in a while.
5. After I was reminded by "operating" to RTFM (thank you), I was able to supply amphibious invasions on the beach (keep a surface ship next to the unit) and knock Great Britain out of the war. But I did notice that you can’t supply units not on the beach, not even when you capture a port city. Seems to fly in the face of every amphib ops manual (see D-Day and Cherbourg) I know of. There may be something in the rules engine that makes this happen, but it shouldn’t happen. I can see not being able to use a captured port for a turn or two … but never?
6. Britain can simply materialize units in Egypt. Magic transportation isn’t realistic and if this is going on, something in the rules engine should be changed to avoid this.
7. Hate to say it, but I have a tendency to accidently move a unit to somewhere I didn’t really want it to go. How about adding a “last movement undo” button?


_____________________________

RickD

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 88
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/13/2014 5:14:00 AM   
amtrick

 

Posts: 82
Joined: 12/30/2013
From: United States
Status: offline 		A few other comments on some topics that have been discussed in the forums:

1. I know the naval portion of the AI is being reworked (in fact the entire AI is being reworked), but it really needs it. I was able to absolutely isolate Great Britain and France with 7 submarines. I mean, nothing got through. This is because the AI didn’t have a rudimentary idea about convoy operations. And here’s the thing, you don’t need six ships to protect a convoy. You need three surrounding it with one open hex between them. The subs can get through to attack, but the escorts can get their licks in, too. And this means the CP subs have to return to a friendly port to refit, which means they can’t be out ambushing convoys. Now you have a more even Battle of the North Atlantic, especially as anti-submarine techs come on line.
2. I noticed an exchange concerning Bulgaria’s entry into the war. In my game it seemed to take a while (Serbia had surrendered and Italy come into the war), but it happened and made a big difference on the Eastern Front. The Bulgarians took out the Romanians (I DOW on them) and forced the Russians to divert forces to cover their southwestern border, thinning out the line facing the Germans and Austrians. I think I am in favor of the minors + Italy joining the war more or less when they did historically, with a moderate plus or minus (5 or 10 turns) based on game events, but I don’t think you should be able to game the system to keep them out indefinitely.
3. Not saying it is right, but I fought primarily an infantry/artillery war with the CP. I only kept labs for AH inf/arty and German inf/arty/armor. If there were more PP available I would have kept aircraft open, next. Dirigibles are useful for pounding enemy artillery, but other aircraft either develop too late to be effective or cost too much or both. I’m sure the French would have agreed with me at the end when they were throwing fighters and bombers into the front lines in a vain attempt to slow down by infantry corps.
4. I noticed a suggestion that other unit types should be added. Can’t remember all of the suggestions, but I do remember sappers/engineers (for mining enemy entrenchments). I would suggest that these are actually a technology to research. The relative scale difference of the corps units in the game versus something like engineer battalions is too large.

Someone in the forums noted they had been a gamer for several decades. So have I, having started with SPI and Avalon Hill back in the early ‘70’s. So I love hex- and turn-based wargames, and think that CTGW is going to be one of my favorites. It really has the high-casualty, grind-it-out feel of WWI, where the breakthrough always seemed just out of reach. Looking forward to the further improvements and enhancements to the game.


_____________________________

RickD

(in reply to amtrick)
Post #: 89
RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 3/16/2014 6:59:11 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		The bug whereby a refusal to accept a surrender cannot be actioned still exists. I am the Entente and have been asked whether or not to accept Austrian surrender. I say no - to no effect. I can only advance the turn if I say yes.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to amtrick)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Commander - The Great War >> RE: 1.4.2 PATCH Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

1.859