Version 1.2 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918



Message

FrankHunter -> Version 1.2 (9/20/2007 7:47:43 PM)

List of changes and fixes made for version 1.2 which should be available soon

- Make Russian a little more resilient to territorial losses
- Check Russian Revolution probability
- Display the Difficulty level (Handicap) on the Victory screen
- Fixed : In 1917 the Brits should be at level 3 tank tech
- Check reaction to an invasion of the Ottomans
- No home port listed for some squadrons
- Keep ships at sea on patrol when suffering only minnor damage
- Fixed : Strategic movement problem by US-Britain across France
- Check sending German transports into a controlled sea zone
- Check using amphib points in the same turn they've already been used
- Fix scuttling when a port falls
- Fixed : Damaged and under-construction ships in port not being destroyed when port lost
- AI is able to amphib British corps before Amphib is allowed
- Return to port should not happen until the end of the actual turn, not the end of the naval turn.
- Check Unrestricted sub warfare (25% increase in finding and sinking)
- Can't create Assault troops at start of 1917 scenario
- Check surrenders, especially Austrian, Ottoman and British.
- Make sure that artillery and HQs alone in a hex can be overrun
- Artillery versus trenches adjustment
- Increase counter-battery effectiveness with artillery technology
- Check US reinforcement delays
- Check missing German and French reinforcements
- Slightly lower trench cost
- Remove entrenchment ability during strategic phase and add it to regular orders
- Increase mountain defences against assault
- Fractions of captured food should produce
- Fixed : Forces removed for garrison duty becoming reinforcements in 3 years
- Added Hot keys for menu selections
- Check that large surface ships cannot pass between the North Sea and the Baltic
- Block amphibious invasions against ports if there's large surface vessels there
- Fixed : Numbers on victory screen equals number of casualties times 3 (not times 2 as stated in the manual).
- Fixed : PBEM glitch
- Slightly increase strength of French frontier forts
- Siege artillery should have no effect on non-forts. Reg artillery should have no effect on forts
- Fixed : Surrounded units are capable of being disbanded.
- Fixed : Terrain issues
- Assault : Removed for training for one turn is back in the game
- Chenge Minor production to be more like major powers
- Allow transfers of industrial points to minors
- Put a cap on amount of RM, Food and Industrial Pts that can be transferred in a turn (tied to strategic movement)



flintlock -> Looks Good! (9/20/2007 8:12:05 PM)

Quite a comprehensive list there, Frank! It really is good to see the ongoing support and commitment to this very enjoyable title. Many thanks.



SteveD64 -> RE: Looks Good! (9/20/2007 8:58:24 PM)

that looks good.  thanks Frank [:)]



Lascar -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/20/2007 9:28:27 PM)

This patch should make an already brilliant game shine even brighter. Thanks.



*Lava* -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/20/2007 9:49:09 PM)

Wow!

Some big changes there.

Excellent.

Ray (alias Lava)



Juergen -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/20/2007 10:01:36 PM)

Nice:)



Pford -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/20/2007 10:09:25 PM)

Will there be support for higher resolutions? Mine is 1920x1200 and to play GoA requires bottomless masochism at this setting. It's sitting unused on the hard drive.[:@]



hjaco -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/20/2007 10:36:44 PM)

Great support work Frank. I am quite amazed that you are able to give this kind of support without being part of a large game developing company.

I think this should get the game most of the way that the majority of users would like it to go [8D]



hjaco -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/20/2007 10:38:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

- Put a cap on amount of RM, Food and Industrial Pts that can be transferred in a turn (tied to strategic movement)



How is that going to work for Britain shipping resources to an ally ?



Hanal -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/20/2007 11:40:44 PM)

Will be firing up this game again once this great update comes out!!!



SMK-at-work -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 3:52:11 AM)

Some of these are news to those of us supposedly with inside info.....but I think some of them may stil change..:)



Joel Rauber -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 4:57:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Some of these are news to those of us supposedly with inside info.....but I think some of them may stil change..:)

Well, you did say there were lots of changes that I didn't mention (know about) in another thread. [;)]

Looks like a great list of changes & fixes.[8D]


quote:

Remove entrenchment ability during strategic phase and add it to regular orders


Will the unit entrenching be able to do anything else during that phase? Or is it viewed as expending the turn entrenching?

quote:

- Siege artillery should have no effect on non-forts. Reg artillery should have no effect on forts


So does that mean there is no point is using a siege artillery to bombard infantry in the open?



*Lava* -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 4:57:28 AM)

BTW..

Frank didn't you say there was something about when reinforcing, a unit should go down a class?

Ray (alias Lava)



SMK-at-work -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 5:08:01 AM)

Siege artillery - yes there will be no point in bombarding troos in the open with them.....they were only ever miniscule numbers of guns - eg 4 x 420mm Big Bertha's for Liege, and some Italian forts were destroyed by only 1 Austrian gun.  So in the wider scheme of things, with hundreds of smaller guns in major bombardments, they actually added little - the 420's fired 8 rounds/hour, the Austrian 300's up to about 20 AFAIK.

In compensation I would expect their cost to drop too.

however this is possibly one of the things not fixed in stone....it might be more "natural" just to treat them as ordinary artillery....

Frank did say somewhere that units drop a class when they've received 2 x their original strength as replacements - that's an existing system.



Joel Rauber -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 5:10:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Siege artillery - yes there will be no point in bombarding troos in the open with them.....they were only ever miniscule numbers of guns - eg 4 x 420mm Big Bertha's for . . .


Seems reasonable to me.



06 Maestro -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 8:00:38 AM)

That is an impressive amount of changes/fixes-once again, thanks.

BTW, have you considered bonus combat values associated with certain HQ's?[;)]  Sometime down the road, this could be worth looking in to.



FrankHunter -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 9:00:12 AM)

quote:

Will there be support for higher resolutions? Mine is 1920x1200 and to play GoA requires bottomless masochism at this setting. It's sitting unused on the hard drive.


I can support any resolution but the problem is my monitor only goes up to 1280 by 1024.  Beyond that I'd be flying somewhat blind.  However, I could give 1600 by 1200 a try.


quote:

How is that going to work for Britain shipping resources to an ally ?


Same as now but for each RM, Food or Ind Pt the country doing the shipping loses one Strategic Movement point.  However, let's say the Turks ship 5 RM to Germany, who should pay for that?  Germany or the Ottomans?  Right now its the Ottomans but I may actually change this so that the country receiving the point pays the SM point.


quote:

Will the unit entrenching be able to do anything else during that phase? Or is it viewed as expending the turn entrenching?


Its considered to have spent the impulse entrenching.


quote:


So does that mean there is no point is using a siege artillery to bombard infantry in the open?


I will probably leave Siege artillery with a 1 point strength when bombarding other targets. 


quote:

Frank didn't you say there was something about when reinforcing, a unit should go down a class?


Already in the game.


quote:

BTW, have you considered bonus combat values associated with certain HQ's


HQs used to have bonuses.  For example Brusilov.  However, I had a really difficult time deciding who should get bonuses and who shouldn't due to lack of english language information on most of the generals.  So I took it out before testing began.

A couple of other things I forgot

- Arty damage was also fixed
- Ability to turn Unrestricted UBoat warfare on and off
- Changed some fort values and added a few.  Not as many as historically but I think this will be closer to the right effect.
- Cancel 1 point cost to ordering naval squadrons to return to base.


Two suggestions made here I really wanted to add but haven't so far is

1. "but I for one would like to see a report on what exactly is causing hits or bumps to morale. I would also like to see a list of killed naval units"
2. "Am i the only one who lack combat report from last move when figuring out what to do next ? The data from last impulse combat is depicted in the beginning of your turn. A new button to display this info again during a turn would be highly appreciated."





hjaco -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 10:11:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter


quote:

How is that going to work for Britain shipping resources to an ally ?


Same as now but for each RM, Food or Ind Pt the country doing the shipping loses one Strategic Movement point. However, let's say the Turks ship 5 RM to Germany, who should pay for that? Germany or the Ottomans? Right now its the Ottomans but I may actually change this so that the country receiving the point pays the SM point.



The problem being of course that Britain always have an abundance of unused strategic movement points....

In any case i would state that there should be a cost on the same basis just as with normal strategic movement i.e. you pay for each country moving through.

I have no idea how many metric tons 1 RM/Food/IP represents but it really would have been a great burden on infrastructure moving this around - i guess at least as troublesome as with troops which after all can enter/leave a train by themselves, where as heavy cargo can't.



ulver -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 12:47:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter


I can support any resolution but the problem is my monitor only goes up to 1280 by 1024. Beyond that I'd be flying somewhat blind. However, I could give 1600 by 1200 a try.





If public begging is allowed quite a few 17’ laptops, like mine, runs 1400x900 native resolution so…… [;)]

I for one would really enjoy it so pretty please with sugar on top. [&o]



HannoMeier -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 3:10:29 PM)

It seems you could do amphibious invasions without activation. Please also consider changing this, as this really is typically more effort than an offensive (especially corps size invasions)

Regards, Hanno



sol_invictus -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 4:15:12 PM)

These changes/fixes sound fantastic Frank. Bravo! I would really encourage you to at least make the obvious HQ bonus changes, just to give some more flavor to the HQs. I think everyone would agree that Brusilov, Kemal, Hindenburg, Hutier, Mackensen, and Below should be a bit better than say, Nivelle. I am sure others could add to the list of better than average army commanders.



Joel Rauber -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 4:39:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

These changes/fixes sound fantastic Frank. Bravo! I would really encourage you to at least make the obvious HQ bonus changes, just to give some more flavor to the HQs. I think everyone would agree that Brusilov, Kemal, Hindenburg, Hutier, Mackensen, and Below should be a bit better than say, Nivelle. I am sure others could add to the list of better than average army commanders.


I'd be careful with this one, and for the reasons that Frank stated.



hjaco -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 4:51:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Rauber


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

These changes/fixes sound fantastic Frank. Bravo! I would really encourage you to at least make the obvious HQ bonus changes, just to give some more flavor to the HQs. I think everyone would agree that Brusilov, Kemal, Hindenburg, Hutier, Mackensen, and Below should be a bit better than say, Nivelle. I am sure others could add to the list of better than average army commanders.


I'd be careful with this one, and for the reasons that Frank stated.



I agree. The discussions would be endless "He was certainly better than that.....". So if it were going to be implemented it should be randomized each game until first combat and then revealed. And then again even bone heads like Haig learned something along the process and how should that be simulated ?

In the end we are the generals in the game.



James Ward -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 5:02:53 PM)

What sort of bonus would an HQ get?



FrankHunter -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 7:04:58 PM)

The way the rules used to work is any corps activated by a general with a combat bonus received the equivalent as a quality shift during battle. 

So let's say Brusilov had a bonus of 2 and his Russians were quality 6 and 7.  Well, they'd attack as quality 8 and 9 if activated by him.  Quality ranged from -2 to +2.

The generalship rules did add some colour but again, most of the generals were 0 simply because I couldn't find information on them.  Random generalship would work, perhaps as an option although if it existed as an option it would be hard not to have an historical default.


quote:

It seems you could do amphibious invasions without activation. Please also consider changing this, as this really is typically more effort than an offensive (especially corps size invasions)


That's a good point, an amphibious invasion is basically an even more involved form of an offensive.  I may change that.


And I'll look to blindly adding 1400x900 and 1600x1200 resolution and you guys can tell me how it turned out?




James Ward -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/21/2007 10:27:45 PM)

quote:

How is that going to work for Britain shipping resources to an ally ?


Same as now but for each RM, Food or Ind Pt the country doing the shipping loses one Strategic Movement point.  However, let's say the Turks ship 5 RM to Germany, who should pay for that?  Germany or the Ottomans?  Right now its the Ottomans but I may actually change this so that the country receiving the point pays the SM point.


Could you just cap it at like 5 of an item per turn assuming there was a route to get it there?
What nation would ever send ALL of their excess food or resources to another nation while they were also at war? Seeing as how you control multile nations you can do it in the game so a cap would act as a brake while also allowing you to assit your ally to a degree.



StkNRdr -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/22/2007 1:14:50 AM)

The changes look great Frank.  Looking forward to the release.

HQ's should be treated the same, I agree that we are the generals.

Don't want to drive you nuts about resolutions but a 1280 X 960 would be great also.  The current 1280 resolutions cut off the bottom text on 4:3 aspect monitors.



jimwinsor -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/22/2007 1:20:41 AM)

Generals could do some tactical things better than others, such that we the players in charge of strategy would entrust the better ones with more important commands. Faster readiness recovery for troops in their hex, for example?



pat.casey -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/22/2007 2:49:14 AM)

Another option which might be a bit less contentious would be to allow "assault" supply to a given HQ.

So for 2 activiation points (instead of one), I could be under "assault" supply and get, say, a 2 pt quality shift or some such.



sol_invictus -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/22/2007 4:47:27 PM)

I feel that the player is the Head of State or Chief of the General Staff and not several Generals at the same time. Having to decide where we want our best Generals would add more strategic decisions to the game while also adding a tad more historical flavor.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.1875