Next Patch (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Commander - The Great War



Message

warspite1 -> Next Patch (12/26/2012 11:36:53 PM)

There are a few common themes becoming clear as more and more games are played out.

Can I ask that people use this thread to post areas that they believe need attention in the next or forthcoming patch?

A few thoughts that come to mind (much has already been discussed but this thread is designed to keep all in one place):

1. Strategic Bombing is simply too powerful. For a game about 1914-18, surely strategic bombing should be negligible? Tactical bombing yes, but not strategic.

2. Disbanding of units needs to be controlled (not eliminated in all circumstances)

3. Armoured Train units. These are too cheap (not initial cost but of subsequent upkeep and so in many games appear in large numbers. They are ahistorical in those numbers (if not completely). There is also a possible bug in terms of their ability to cut through enemy owned territory.

4. Supply needs looking at; specifically the fact that a unit can be out of supply (or on half supply) but never loses strength (if not attacked). Units should gradually lose strength over time if not put back in supply.






m10bob -> RE: Next Patch (12/28/2012 12:32:11 PM)

Just a thought..I would like to see the Germans get a new naval type..."The Raiding Cruiser"(like the Emden), which when at sea, un-intercepted might cost the allies points. The impetus would be there to attempt to intercept the raiding cruiser..



BYU 14 -> RE: Next Patch (12/28/2012 2:25:40 PM)

Just to chime in on supply, if units are left out of supply they actually do start to lose strength after a few turns and will die off if not put back in supply. I think it takes 4-5 turns to start happening though. Can't remember but I lost 2 Turkish units this way when they were cutoff in Russia.



Naskra -> RE: Next Patch (12/28/2012 4:00:46 PM)

There is no river penalty for attacking across the Bosporus or Dardenelles.



warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (12/28/2012 4:33:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BYU 14

Just to chime in on supply, if units are left out of supply they actually do start to lose strength after a few turns and will die off if not put back in supply. I think it takes 4-5 turns to start happening though. Can't remember but I lost 2 Turkish units this way when they were cutoff in Russia.
warspite1

I think this refers to out of supply units only (red dot) and not half supply (yellow dot).

Red dot = the loss of one point per turn according to the Supply Effects rules.
Yellow dot = there is nothing said about half supply units.

As far as efficiency is concerned:

Red dot = no recovery
Yellow dot = recovers 3 efficiency per turn

I agree with the red dot rules, but the Yellow dot rules are too generous. I think that provided a yellow dot unit has an enemy in contact with it. then it should lose a point every two or three turns. This reflects that there will be limited fighting between these units. Efficiency I am less concerned with so long as strength is being drained.



Myrddraal -> RE: Next Patch (12/28/2012 4:34:18 PM)

quote:

There is no river penalty for attacking across the Bosporus or Dardenelles.

Well spotted... if you're still in a position to do so, could you let me know (with a screenshot if that's easier) which hex you noticed this on?



Mad Catter -> RE: Next Patch (12/28/2012 8:47:21 PM)

While I agree that strategic bombing is too powerful, it seems to favor the Entente (in my limited experience) more than the Central Powers.

Do you think this might have been done to simulate the economic effects of the blockade on the Central Powers?

There really is NO blockade penalty that effects the Central Powers (other than intercepting Baltic Sea convoys).

And historically, the increasingly effective blockade played an important role in slowly strangling the Central Powers economies.

So if the strategic bombing gets too badly diminished, then perhaps there should be some negative offset to the Central Powers economies, based on an increasingly effective naval blockade.

This would (and should) force the Central Powers to be more aggressive, just as they were historically.

The naval blockade forced the Central Powers to try to win the war outright. A war of attrition would always end up with them as the loser in the end.



Bossy573 -> RE: Next Patch (12/29/2012 12:01:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Catter

While I agree that strategic bombing is too powerful, it seems to favor the Entente (in my limited experience) more than the Central Powers.

Do you think this might have been done to simulate the economic effects of the blockade on the Central Powers?

There really is NO blockade penalty that effects the Central Powers (other than intercepting Baltic Sea convoys).

And historically, the increasingly effective blockade played an important role in slowly strangling the Central Powers economies.

So if the strategic bombing gets too badly diminished, then perhaps there should be some negative offset to the Central Powers economies, based on an increasingly effective naval blockade.

This would (and should) force the Central Powers to be more aggressive, just as they were historically.

The naval blockade forced the Central Powers to try to win the war outright. A war of attrition would always end up with them as the loser in the end.


By the same token, there is nothing that truly models the incredible supply difficulties, corruption, bankruptcy and shoddy leadership from Russia. The French army's mutiny in 1917 is also not represented. Perhaps the omissions are a necessary wash.

I may not be understanding the naval game correctly, but I don't understand how the German and Austrian navies are represented as being the same size (1 battleship and 1 cruiser a piece). I would love to see that corrected and have some true naval action in the North Sea. Perhaps tie that to a morale factor - including a hit to the Germans (or both sides) for inaction.....



shilton2437 -> RE: Next Patch (12/29/2012 4:59:40 PM)

Apologies if this is not the type of suggestion you are looking for, as it may not be the sort of thing included in a "patch," but it would be nice to have the option to extend any campaign into 1919. Or, alternatively, to have a 1919 scenario, based on the historical situation at the end of 1918.

Similarly, based on a few games that started before 1917 where I played the Entente against the AI, it appears that the AI will not risk war with the US by launching a submarine campaign. As a strategy to maximize the possibility of victory for the AI that may make sense, but it might be nice to include an option that forces a more historical anti-submarine campaign on the AI Germans.

That's my wish list. In terms of actual bugs I have encountered, I have only experienced a couple of crashes from time to time, but I can't really say what action might have precipitated them. They serve to remind me to save the game after each turn.

Thanks for soliciting feedback.



Myrddraal -> RE: Next Patch (12/29/2012 5:59:18 PM)

quote:

They serve to remind me to save the game after each turn.

Note that the game automatically saves at turn end and turn start (AutoSave and AutoSaveEndTurn)



Mad Catter -> RE: Next Patch (12/29/2012 6:18:23 PM)

Thanks for the response.

Actually, I do think factors like the French Mutiny ARE factored into the game (national morale rules).

Some of Russia's problems are also covered by the Russian revolution event.

But let's imagine for a moment that there was ZERO strategic bombing in the game.

What factors (in game) would FORCE the Central Powers to take the offensive, and not just "circle the wagons"?


Under the current system (with greater production), the Entente can simply bomb Germany to bits, thus wrecking their economy.

This seems to force the Central Powers to be more aggressive, and to try to land a knockout punch on France or Russia (or both), before they get clobbered.

I don't mind strategic bombing getting "nerfed" to be less powerful.

But then something should replace it (such as loss of PP's due to increased blockade effectiveness).

Otherwise, the game could get even more static than the Great War really was.

And the Central Powers are getting a "free pass" against one of the Entente's most effective weapons: economic warfare via the blockade.

Thoughts?



Bossy573 -> RE: Next Patch (12/29/2012 7:11:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Catter

Thanks for the response.

Actually, I do think factors like the French Mutiny ARE factored into the game (national morale rules).

Some of Russia's problems are also covered by the Russian revolution event.

But let's imagine for a moment that there was ZERO strategic bombing in the game.

What factors (in game) would FORCE the Central Powers to take the offensive, and not just "circle the wagons"?


Under the current system (with greater production), the Entente can simply bomb Germany to bits, thus wrecking their economy.

This seems to force the Central Powers to be more aggressive, and to try to land a knockout punch on France or Russia (or both), before they get clobbered.

I don't mind strategic bombing getting "nerfed" to be less powerful.

But then something should replace it (such as loss of PP's due to increased blockade effectiveness).

Otherwise, the game could get even more static than the Great War really was.

And the Central Powers are getting a "free pass" against one of the Entente's most effective weapons: economic warfare via the blockade.

Thoughts?


Well, my opinion on the French army mutinies is that they are not modeled. They are not an extension of national morale, rather isolated from national morale. My suggestion is the French army mutinies could be modeled based on the numbers of French troops lost over a period of time once a magic number of casualties were hit overall. They could be remedied with commanders who would become available under certain criteria. The penalties would be a drastically reduced attacking factor and a (lesser) reduced defending factor. The event (mutinies) would hit random units and would be known only to the Entente player. The CP player would have no knowledge. They would have to stumble upon it. Want to prevent that? Time for the British to launch their own offensive and keep the German eyes focused elsewhere. As a CP player, you could engage in your own attempt to bleed France white and launch a Verdun (like) offensive against them. Force them to defend (and counter-attack) and bring their armies closer to the brink. Perhaps that would be a good incentive for the Germans to attack.

Russia is simply non-historically strong in this game. But it is tougher to model this as I am sure it would make the game just about unwinnable for the Entente player.

The strategic bombing factor does not fit in the game. Insofar as I am aware, until 1918, the air war was about controlling observation of the enemy lines and dispositions. It needs to be changed to reflect this, IMHO, by reducing the number, range, effectiveness and abilities of bombers, and enhancing the scouting properties of fighters. If the enemy has fighters in the area, their scouting range can be reduced or eliminated just by having your own fighters in the area. If you want to eliminate that, then its up to you to defeat the enemy fighters.

In my most recent games, it is clear that if the CP just sit back, they will lose. They HAVE to attack to win. The material advantages for the Entente are just overwhelming.

The opening months of the war in this game are just breathtaking. Swirling battles, encirclements, close shaves, counter encirclements. Just awesome. In one recent game as the CP, I had defeated Russia by 1916, Romania and Serbia about the same time. But I could not crack the line in France or Italy. France, Britain and Italy pretty much did what they did in the actual war: ground down my army in France to the point I could not produce enough to win. I ended up losing to their material advantage, i.e. it was a battle of attrition - exactly the way it played out in real life. One of the best wargaming experiences I have ever known. Just brilliant.

My suggestion is to make America's entry mandatory at a certain point with a number of American units getting past any submarines. There is the clock you are looking for if you are a CP player.




fodder -> RE: Next Patch (12/30/2012 12:27:17 AM)

GET RID OF THE AMMO CAP!!!!! Sorry for shouting.

Artillery ruled the WWI battlefields, but with the ammo cap you can't field more than two artillery units and have any chance of supplying them for more than a turn or two. This is very unrealistic. This is WWI, I should be able to field four or five artillery units and have stock piled enough ammo to be able to fire them for a month or two at a time.

The armoured train also needs to be looked at, if not removed. Armoured trains are not and never were front line armoured fighting vehicles. At best they were mobile or self propeled artillery or anti aircraft weapons. In game maybe they could be made so they could move and fire or fire and move the same turn as artillery or anti aircraft weapons.



warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (12/30/2012 12:38:58 AM)

From what I can tell - though I may be wrong - the Russian Black Sea Fleet remains in the game even when all ports have been captured. If this is the case then shouldn't this be treated as similar to out of supply i.e. if a Ship cannot make port then it gradually reduces in number?



pat.casey -> RE: Next Patch (12/30/2012 3:30:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fodder

GET RID OF THE AMMO CAP!!!!! Sorry for shouting.

Artillery ruled the WWI battlefields, but with the ammo cap you can't field more than two artillery units and have any chance of supplying them for more than a turn or two. This is very unrealistic. This is WWI, I should be able to field four or five artillery units and have stock piled enough ammo to be able to fire them for a month or two at a time.

<snip>


I think this only works though if they change the way artillery's battlefield effects are modelled. As it stands now, 4 artillery strikes will pretty much vaproize even a top tier infantry unit in entrenchment level 16. You can literally walk your way to victory just by vaproizing a section of line, moving the guns, and vaporizing another one.

Historically this didn't work (although it was tried multiple times); you ran into a point of diminishing returns with an artillery bombardment where you were basically bouncing the mud without materially impacting the enemy's ability to resist.

As part of a combined arms assault, artillery ruled the WW I battlefield, especially in 1918 or so when the the entente and central powers finally sorted out tactical systems to break heavy entrenchments.

By itself though, it was a force of attrition. It cause casualties, but it couldn't destroy entrenched troops or vaporize them such that the infantry could just waltz in and take possession of the ground.



Amaranthus -> RE: Next Patch (12/30/2012 3:50:41 AM)

I think the game needs a better way of reflecting the later value of creeping barrages vs heavy pounding. Perhaps as Arty tech develops it could be more likely to force a retreat, rather than vaporize troops as pat so aptly put it. That, combined with a diminishing returns curve on multiple arty strikes, would do a lot to enhance realism.



pat.casey -> RE: Next Patch (12/30/2012 3:59:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaranthus

I think the game needs a better way of reflecting the later value of creeping barrages vs heavy pounding. Perhaps as Arty tech develops it could be more likely to force a retreat, rather than vaporize troops as pat so aptly put it. That, combined with a diminishing returns curve on multiple arty strikes, would do a lot to enhance realism.


Maybe this is already modelled (I admit to not being an expert on the internals of the combat system), but an artillery effect which:

1) Killed a small number of troops (1 str point ot so with strong diminishing returns)
2) Tended to drive entrenchment down from 16 to a minium of about 8 (highly shelled ground is itself very defensible)
3) Provided an assault bonus to subsequent, *same turn* infantry assaults on the same position
4) Late war artillery systems could also add a mallus to the defenders firepower against *same turn* infantry assaults to simulate defenders having to stay under cover during a creeping barrage

Would seem like a much more historical (and much less abusable) mechanism.



JeffroK -> RE: Next Patch (12/30/2012 6:27:42 AM)

I havent brought the game, its not at a level which I want in a WW1 game.

However I followed the development and have read the AAR's that have been posted and have some concerns.
The game is too mobile, at some point it has to settle down into the trenches, but they dont seem to hold?

It appears to me that supply away from the rail net is too generous. While France & Germany may have good infrastructure, the Balkans, Russia & Mid East should represent the basic communications of the regions, maybe full supply on a rail line, half supply 1 hex away and out of supply 2 hexes away.

Units from minor nations (Belgium, Nederlands, Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria, Turkey in Europe et al) should have some limits on where they can deploy, maybe only within 2 hexes of their borders.

Sea & Air Bombardment should be nerfed, maybe cause a 1 SP loss, dont make players afraid of holding the coastline.

I support the arguements above to limit the power of Artillery & reckon Armoured trains should get tossed. Maybe the right use of Aircraft is to spot for Arty, fighters to defend the observors or win control over a hex. The ability to stat bomb didnt work until about 1944 and is not possible in this era.

I like the idea of "a bit" of espionage/leakages, not a lot but could be a skill you spend time/money developing.

Make arrival of Allies (Italy, Turkey, USA) extremely variable or dependent on Victory Points or similar, too often you see players preparing for the arrival rather than keeping enough of a garrison available.

Rename the Garrison units, call them Reserve Armies or similar.

Keep on with developing the game, I think you have a great base and its down to tinkering with the bits & pieces.



warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (12/30/2012 7:29:24 PM)

I have tried to counter a German airship that it ripping the **** out of London with TWO fighters of my own. My fighters - which are a) expensive and b) much needed elsewhere, but I am desperate. However, they have failed to even damage the airship....



kirk23 -> RE: Next Patch (12/30/2012 8:05:27 PM)

Does the game not have anti-aircraft guns to protect Cities,and if that don't work Mod the Zepplin so that its less effective,historically they were pretty crap slow and unmanouverable,I just bought the game,and I'm going through the manual,to see whats in game and to see what I can add!



warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (12/30/2012 8:09:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Does the game not have anti-aircraft guns to protect Cities,and if that don't work Mod the Zepplin so that its less effective,historically they were pretty crap slow and unmanouverable,I just bought the game,and I'm going through the manual,to see whats in game and to see what I can add!
warspite1

kirk23 - the developers are aware of this problem but until this is resolved players are trying house rules to prevent Strategic Bombing becoming the war winner of The Great War....



soldier1 -> RE: Next Patch (1/2/2013 12:23:20 AM)

I'd like to see strikes and the home front expanded upon as others have suggested. Having individual cities strike could cut their production capacity and these uprisings could be quelled by sending in garrisons. If left unchecked strikes could could spread or cause national morale to drop and even effect research. Theres currently little reason to secure the home front at the moment and against the AI i don't leave any units within my national borders. Civil unrest was a real concern for the great powers during WW1 and the national morale feature doesn't quite do it justice



Naskra -> RE: Next Patch (1/2/2013 3:06:59 AM)

Zeppelin attacks ought to effect morale, not production. And not much.



Amaranthus -> RE: Next Patch (1/2/2013 3:24:11 AM)

Agreed Naskra, and fighters should be more effective at intercepting bombers, especially when the fighter unit is sitting over the target city.



warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (1/2/2013 7:54:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: soldier1

I'd like to see strikes and the home front expanded upon as others have suggested. Having individual cities strike could cut their production capacity and these uprisings could be quelled by sending in garrisons. If left unchecked strikes could could spread or cause national morale to drop and even effect research. Theres currently little reason to secure the home front at the moment and against the AI i don't leave any units within my national borders. Civil unrest was a real concern for the great powers during WW1 and the national morale feature doesn't quite do it justice

warspite1

This could be easily handled; a country HAS to keep a % of its units within its home borders at all times. One of the things I picked up in my first AAR was that Bulgarian troops were sent all over the place - but none were left within Bulgaria - allowing the Romanians to take Sofia easily when the former entered the war.

So, depending on the size of a country - and its commitment to the cause - x number must be maintained or there is a morale dice throw each turn that the required garrison level is not maintained. Players then have the choice as to whether they risk it or not.



warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (1/2/2013 7:55:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaranthus

Agreed Naskra, and fighters should be more effective at intercepting bombers, especially when the fighter unit is sitting over the target city.
warspite1

Yes, see post 19.



warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (1/2/2013 7:57:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Naskra

Zeppelin attacks ought to effect morale, not production. And not much.
warspite1

Personally I would like to see all strategic bombing removed from the game - tactical yes, strategic no - but an effect on morale does make sense if you maintain strategic bombing, rather than a production hit.



kirk23 -> RE: Next Patch (1/4/2013 7:11:08 PM)

Well I normally like to play games as the Germans,but for the last 4 games I have played as the Entente,for 14 - 20 turns into each game as I'm testing settings,anyway what I have discovered is this,I use the Russian Battlefleet to intercept the Swedish iron ore convoy to Germany,and on every occasion I have destroyed it with no sign of the German navy there to protect it!!![&:]

So I decided to look for the missing German Battlefleet,and the AI keeps it sitting twiddling there thumbs in Wilhelmshaven,now this in 1914 but I think the German sailors have already gone on strike![:D]

Anyone else noticed this problem in there games?



stormbringer3 -> RE: Next Patch (1/4/2013 7:26:48 PM)

There is a problem with that convoy. It is never random in any aspect. You can also send in a British sub and always destroy it. I have made a decision that if I play the Entente I just leave it alone for play balance.



kirk23 -> RE: Next Patch (1/4/2013 8:02:14 PM)

Does the AI escort and protect any convoys or for that matter does it seek them out and attack,I think that as far as the naval game goes, these should be one of the main reasons for having ships in the first place,I want a game that at least tries to follow history,where would Britain be if during the war they just let the merchant ships fend for themselves,I don't care about play balance war is not balanced,its about winning nothing else![;)]



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078125