RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Revolution Under Siege Gold >> Mods and Scenarios



Message

JJKettunen -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/9/2011 7:10:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Moreover, an AI has the right to do silly or sypid things from time to time. even some real Generals did the same, [:D]


Very true!



Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/9/2011 8:55:17 PM)

OK.Objective regions must be garrisoned by regular units, not militia. A bug of the official version.



JJKettunen -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/9/2011 9:52:46 PM)

Thanks for the info!

One would think that militia units are perfect for garrisoning purposes. [;)]



Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/9/2011 10:43:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Thanks for the info!

One would think that militia units are perfect for garrisoning purposes. [;)]



Only objectives are affected. Others cities may be garrisoned by militia without problem. In you game, this has cost you certainly several hundred of VPs.



Nikel -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/9/2011 11:44:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Very interesting indeed. Many thanks [&o] and good holidays



Good [:)]


Just a small trip, tonight in Porto, tomorrow in Viana do Castelo and then back to Galicia in Spain for some sea food [;)]



Nikel -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/9/2011 11:47:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

OK.Objective regions must be garrisoned by regular units, not militia. A bug of the official version.


In the manual, p.13 it is said:

Important Note: In order to gain credit for a captured Objective or Strategic city, a player must garrison the
location with a regular unit (i.e. no Irregulars, Militias) if the region has a Loyalty rating less than 51%.


Regarding the german help option you added, you are using a graphic already available (Brest-Litovsk), is not better to use a new and different graphic?



JJKettunen -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/9/2011 11:53:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikel

In the manual, p.13 it is said:

Important Note: In order to gain credit for a captured Objective or Strategic city, a player must garrison the
location with a regular unit (i.e. no Irregulars, Militias) if the region has a Loyalty rating less than 51%.


Doesn't explain me getting no points for Ekaterinodar and Novorossijsk though - loyalty over 51%.



Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 12:05:55 AM)

Yes but the manual is often not accurate [:D]. Thanks Nikel, I should have looked in the rulebook first. Now it's possible the rule is relaxed whatever the Loyalty or it is a bug restrained to this peculiar point.

I've not had time to search for a better option picture ( I did for Semyonov). This picture isn't used as far I know in the GC. But if you find a better one...[:)]



JJKettunen -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 12:06:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikel

In the manual, p.13 it is said:

Important Note: In order to gain credit for a captured Objective or Strategic city, a player must garrison the
location with a regular unit (i.e. no Irregulars, Militias) if the region has a Loyalty rating less than 51%.


Doesn't explain me getting no points for Ekaterinodar and Novorossijsk though - loyalty over 51%.




I'll be damned... both are actually below 51%... Maybe I should read the manual more often?



Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 12:11:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikel

In the manual, p.13 it is said:

Important Note: In order to gain credit for a captured Objective or Strategic city, a player must garrison the
location with a regular unit (i.e. no Irregulars, Militias) if the region has a Loyalty rating less than 51%.


Doesn't explain me getting no points for Ekaterinodar and Novorossijsk though - loyalty over 51%.




I'll be damned... both are actually below 51%... Maybe I should read the manual more often?



So not a bug but a feature working as intended. Good news. [:)] I should re read the rulebook too [8|]



Nikel -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 12:22:11 AM)

Confused right now, bug or not? [:'(]

Ekaterinodar is garrisoned by a light but regular unit, is it not?



Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 12:24:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikel

Confused right now, bug or not? [:'(]

Ekaterinodar is garrisoned by a light but regular unit, is it not?



Manual must be uncomplete , partially unaccurate. Good pick indeed, light infantry seems to be unfitted for garrisoning objectives too. Personnaly, I can live with.BTW, it gives one more reason to use corruption and authorize multipartism options [:)]



JJKettunen -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 12:30:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikel

Confused right now, bug or not? [:'(]

Ekaterinodar is garrisoned by a light but regular unit, is it not?



Manual must be uncomplete , partially unaccurate. Good pick indeed, light infantry seems to be unfitted for garrisoning objectives too. Personnaly, I can live with.BTW, it gives one more reason to use corruption and authorize multipartism options [:)]


Do note that I used them very early in the game. They didn't disappear and from earlier experience I knew that I could use them anytime as long as there were EPs enough available. Because I knew it wasn't WAD, I didn't do it. Sorry for not reporting this earlier.



Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 12:31:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikel

Confused right now, bug or not? [:'(]

Ekaterinodar is garrisoned by a light but regular unit, is it not?



Manual must be uncomplete , partially unaccurate. Good pick indeed, light infantry seems to be unfitted for garrisoning objectives too. Personnaly, I can live with.BTW, it gives one more reason to use corruption and authorize multipartism options [:)]


Do note that I used them very early in the game. They didn't disappear and from earlier experience I knew that I could use them anytime as long as there were EPs enough available. Because I knew it wasn't WAD, I didn't do it. Sorry for not reporting this earlier.



Thanks, I will look at. [:)] Finally a bug. Mine. [:D]

And fixed. Next version [8D]



Nikel -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 12:46:12 AM)

Thanks to Keke your plans to continue modding Struggle for a Vast Future in Augusts are somewhat ruined [;)]

or are you doing both in parallel? Good night to both of you [:)]



JJKettunen -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 12:55:28 AM)

G'night. [:)]



Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 1:11:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

G'night. [:)]



Let's hope you will not dream about Voroshilov taking the right decision [:D]



Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 1:12:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikel

Thanks to Keke your plans to continue modding Struggle for a Vast Future in Augusts are somewhat ruined [;)]

or are you doing both in parallel? Good night to both of you [:)]



I hope not. AACW is simpler than RUS( smaller map, better design of the original game and part of the mod yet done ).



Nikel -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 1:24:03 AM)

Oops, still here, very late, though 1 hour less here [:)]

RUS was not awarded, both for WitE

http://www.alanemrich.com/CSR_pages/results.php?theYear=2010


Now good night, really [:)]



Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 1:30:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikel

Oops, still here, very late, though 1 hour less here [:)]

RUS was not awarded, both for WitE

http://www.alanemrich.com/CSR_pages/results.php?theYear=2010


Now good night, really [:)]


For graphism, I prefer those of RUS, but WiTE are excellent too.



JJKettunen -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 9:05:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikel

Oops, still here, very late, though 1 hour less here [:)]

RUS was not awarded, both for WitE

http://www.alanemrich.com/CSR_pages/results.php?theYear=2010


Now good night, really [:)]


For graphism, I prefer those of RUS, but WiTE are excellent too.


My opinion on WitE is restricted by a non-disclosure agreement, but let's just say that I prefer RUS too.



Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 4:24:03 PM)

HI Il willrelease tonight a new version of FY, compatible with ongoing games ( no need to restart). Fixes some bugs.



JJKettunen -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 4:26:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

HI Il willrelease tonight a new version of FY, compatible with ongoing games ( no need to restart). Fixes some bugs.


Good. I have already started a new GC. [X(]



JJKettunen -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 5:07:45 PM)

...and my 'White Wolves' were slaughtered by... guess who? [:@]



Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 5:15:50 PM)

Breaking news: I've found a way to let a faction absorb another. SO in the next version, Siberians will absorb Southern Whites if they meet the minimal conditions I've defined. There's one caveat, as 3 stars of the aborbed faction can't form army or corps, but I'm going to replace them with thses same leaders as Siberians/ so It will just need to replace them with a stack to form an army.




JJKettunen -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 5:31:50 PM)

So no way for a WHI/UKR -coalition? [;)]



Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 5:41:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

So no way for a WHI/UKR -coalition? [;)]



I don't think so. I would need the reverse command, that doesn't seem to exist. And it would be prone to gamey tactics: I ally with Ukrainians, I let them without supplies and in a few turns, I've one less opponent.



JJKettunen -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 9:35:42 PM)

What rotten luck! Don Estuary got frozen with a Red gunboat detachment on it. It has hindered land movement to Donbas for two turns already. [:@]



Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/10/2011 9:42:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

What rotten luck! Don Estuary got frozen with a Red gunboat detachment on it. It has hindered land movement to Donbas for two turns already. [:@]



Not exactly realist, but that's a imitation of the game engine. Occurences are rare, by chance.



Chilperic -> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 (8/11/2011 2:19:48 PM)

The new version of Fatal Years is available on my my blog ( see my sig)

New rule:


Siberian faction will now lose at least 1 NM per turn. On the contrary, they will get not only the NM given by capture of strategic objectives, but supplementary NM when:

- controlling Arkhangelsk/Perm axis (10 NM),
- controlling Tzaritsyn for 5 turns (10 NM)
- controlling after January 19 some cities beyond Simbirsk/Syzran/ Saratov (5 NM each for Penza, Kunetsk, Cheboksary, Arzamas and Sysran)
- controlling Perm (2 NM), Kazan (4 NM)
- controlling Samara after January 19 (2 NM).

Last, when Siberian faction will have conquered all these objectives, Siberian will become the Official Russian Government for Western Allies. Among the advantages, better help, some Allied units, and the end of NM losses, and MAINLY, if Tzaritsyn is controlled:

The Southern White faction becomes controlled by you. You will be able to move the WHI units, get part of WHI options…..


Notes: Siberian Side has now a real interest to be played, and in PBEM with 3 players, this rule has for primary effect to create frictions beween the 2 White players, unless Southern is willing to leave the game of course

A VERY HUGE STEP forward. [:)]

Compatible with ongoing games



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.046875