RE: Next Patch

RE: Next Patch (Full Version)

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

Message

wodin -> RE: Next Patch (1/13/2013 3:29:23 AM)
Mike production issues and usage..they couldn't make the arty quick enough..remember no one expected the war at the start to go on aslong as it did nor have a real idea on the role of Arty. SO both sides didn't plan for the sort of Arty amount that was used. It took awhile for new armament factories to start up and build up steam. There was a massive outcry on the Brit side with regards to the issues at the time..many blamed the government also the factories where plagued by strikes over wages etc etc. Also remember Britain had had a disarmament policy leading upto the war so they where low on everything from uniforms to ammo to weapons. Germany also went through far more rounds during the start of the campaign than they had expected leading to severe shortages towards the end of the first battle of Ypres, this lasted well into 1915. So really neither side should have the ability to stockpile huge amounts of ammo for about 14 months (Germany should have a decent stockpile at first but once it runs out it should take awhile for production to rise enough to stockpile beyond immediate necessity (In 1915 Germany should have enough for two offensives and the allies for two but again the Arty wouldn't be on the scale of Verdun onwards). Britain should struggle with Arty until the winter of '15. I'm not so sure about the French, but they too suffered Arty shortages not long after the war started. from Verdun onwards you should be able to dish out intense Arty barrages and still have enough to last for smaller scale attacks or for defense. Neither side had the production at the scale it needed to be and it took awhile for it all to start up. As i said no War had ever been like this..infact as far as the British go Arty units had very little training in co operation with the Army and there was even tension between to two services. WW1 was the dawn of Arty working alongside the Infantry.

warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (1/13/2013 7:00:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaranthus Strat bombing seems to me to be the biggest game breaker to fix in this patch. If you get a deadlock by 1916 or so, it's the only thing that ends up counting - a crazy back and forth of fleets of bombers until one side or the other withers away first. The land war ceases to have a meaning. I love the 1914-15 game, but after that, it's broken - and I really want it fixed, because I do love the game. I've just had another game end on an agreed stalemate because of this. Two possible fixes are to 1) dramatically decrease effectiveness (e.g. only 1 in 5 strikes of a Zepp does -1, and maybe 1 in 3 for a bomber), or 2) impacts NM only, with no effect on PP (and NM impact would have to be low and probably on a diminishing curve). warspite1 ...or better still just remove strategic bombing completely. It wasn't a factor in WWI, its a boring element of the game anyway - as you say its just each side sending waves of planes over - OR if you are to keep it in, make it affect morale NOT production.

Orm -> RE: Next Patch (1/13/2013 7:39:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Amaranthus Strat bombing seems to me to be the biggest game breaker to fix in this patch. If you get a deadlock by 1916 or so, it's the only thing that ends up counting - a crazy back and forth of fleets of bombers until one side or the other withers away first. The land war ceases to have a meaning. I love the 1914-15 game, but after that, it's broken - and I really want it fixed, because I do love the game. I've just had another game end on an agreed stalemate because of this. Two possible fixes are to 1) dramatically decrease effectiveness (e.g. only 1 in 5 strikes of a Zepp does -1, and maybe 1 in 3 for a bomber), or 2) impacts NM only, with no effect on PP (and NM impact would have to be low and probably on a diminishing curve). warspite1 ...or better still just remove strategic bombing completely. It wasn't a factor in WWI, its a boring element of the game anyway - as you say its just each side sending waves of planes over - OR if you are to keep it in, make it affect morale NOT production. Here is a few suggestions to help reduce effectiveness of massive strategic bombing campaigns. 1) After each strategic bombing mission the bombing units gets a loss in efficiency. 2) After each strategic bombing mission during winter there is a risk of loss of strength points in addition to the efficiency loss. 3) Fighters interception range increased. It is my understanding that the weather was a major threat to zeppelins on bombing missions. I suspect that bombers were affected during bad weather as well.

warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (1/13/2013 7:46:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Amaranthus Strat bombing seems to me to be the biggest game breaker to fix in this patch. If you get a deadlock by 1916 or so, it's the only thing that ends up counting - a crazy back and forth of fleets of bombers until one side or the other withers away first. The land war ceases to have a meaning. I love the 1914-15 game, but after that, it's broken - and I really want it fixed, because I do love the game. I've just had another game end on an agreed stalemate because of this. Two possible fixes are to 1) dramatically decrease effectiveness (e.g. only 1 in 5 strikes of a Zepp does -1, and maybe 1 in 3 for a bomber), or 2) impacts NM only, with no effect on PP (and NM impact would have to be low and probably on a diminishing curve). warspite1 ...or better still just remove strategic bombing completely. It wasn't a factor in WWI, its a boring element of the game anyway - as you say its just each side sending waves of planes over - OR if you are to keep it in, make it affect morale NOT production. Here is a few suggestions to help reduce effectiveness of massive strategic bombing campaigns. 1) After each strategic bombing mission the bombing units gets a loss in efficiency. 2) After each strategic bombing mission during winter there is a risk of loss of strength points in addition to the efficiency loss. 3) Fighters interception range increased. It is my understanding that the weather was a major threat to zeppelins on bombing missions. I suspect that bombers were affected during bad weather as well. warspite1 All these would help but I still come back to the same question; why is this a feature of the game when it wasn't (to any material extent) in real life?

warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (1/16/2013 10:05:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Lord Zimoa - is there anything you can tell us at this stage re the direction that the naval war is heading and your thoughts on what is achievable here - either in this next patch or thereafter? Many thanks. warspite1 Anything you can tell us please guys?

warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (1/20/2013 1:21:38 PM)
Any news on plans for Strategic Bombardment please in the next patch? I am in the middle of yet another game, totally ruined by this feature? [&:]

Lord Zimoa -> RE: Next Patch (1/20/2013 1:23:45 PM)
Yes, will be adjusted/re-balanced.

warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (1/20/2013 1:44:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa Yes, will be adjusted/re-balanced. warspite1 Great - thank-you [:)]

Naskra -> RE: Next Patch (1/25/2013 11:14:26 PM)
A fix is needed for the US entering the war. I have never seen it join the Entente. I have never seen , on these pages, any report of it joining the Entente. If enough convoys are sunk/damaged, the diplomatic status of the US will change to "enemy", but it will not go to war.

warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (1/26/2013 6:33:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Naskra A fix is needed for the US entering the war. I have never seen it join the Entente. I have never seen , on these pages, any report of it joining the Entente. If enough convoys are sunk/damaged, the diplomatic status of the US will change to "enemy", but it will not go to war. warspite1 I have seen it happen in just one game. The British convoys were being splattered by 4-sub wolfpacks and the US did come in very early. However, it takes ages for the US to build up units, research tech, and transport over to Europe so I do not think the Germans have too much to worry about unless the US enters early.

Orm -> RE: Next Patch (1/27/2013 5:16:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Naskra A fix is needed for the US entering the war. I have never seen it join the Entente. I have never seen , on these pages, any report of it joining the Entente. If enough convoys are sunk/damaged, the diplomatic status of the US will change to "enemy", but it will not go to war. warspite1 I have seen it happen in just one game. The British convoys were being splattered by 4-sub wolfpacks and the US did come in very early. However, it takes ages for the US to build up units, research tech, and transport over to Europe so I do not think the Germans have too much to worry about unless the US enters early. I've seen USA enter the war in 1915 and I did not appreciate the experience. But thanks to fleet superiority I managed to sink a lot of US troops before they reached the European shores. I feel that there is little reason for CP to focus on the navy at this point. If you ignore the navy the CP is stronger at land and no US interference. But if you focus on the sea war then it is likely that US enters the war early to punish you. I would prefer a US entry that didn't depend so much on the convoy war.

warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (1/27/2013 5:39:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Naskra A fix is needed for the US entering the war. I have never seen it join the Entente. I have never seen , on these pages, any report of it joining the Entente. If enough convoys are sunk/damaged, the diplomatic status of the US will change to "enemy", but it will not go to war. warspite1 I have seen it happen in just one game. The British convoys were being splattered by 4-sub wolfpacks and the US did come in very early. However, it takes ages for the US to build up units, research tech, and transport over to Europe so I do not think the Germans have too much to worry about unless the US enters early. I've seen USA enter the war in 1915 and I did not appreciate the experience. But thanks to fleet superiority I managed to sink a lot of US troops before they reached the European shores. I feel that there is little reason for CP to focus on the navy at this point. If you ignore the navy the CP is stronger at land and no US interference. But if you focus on the sea war then it is likely that US enters the war early to punish you. I would prefer a US entry that didn't depend so much on the convoy war. warspite1 I think it makes sense for US entry to be linked to how Russia/France are doing. But there is another big problem: If France are taken out what are the British supposed to do? They cannot continue fighting in France - and nor can the Americans - unless they stick to the coast, otherwise they will be on half-supply. How are the British and Americans supposed to recapture Paris - or even Brussels - without supply? There needs to be some means of waging war without a capital.

kirk23 -> RE: Next Patch (1/27/2013 5:46:04 PM)
If France is defeated,and Britain & America need to try and recapture PARIS for example,then I feel as a supply source,the only alternative has to be done by Naval units,as long as a clear path extends to the land forces,then the Naval units should be deemed,to give full supply![;)]

Amaranthus -> RE: Next Patch (1/28/2013 7:33:29 AM)
Yes kirk23, that is a logical solution, otherwise invasion is essentially impossible unless you manage to take Brussels.

krieg63 -> RE: Next Patch (1/28/2013 3:32:08 PM)
after playing more than 12 game against human player I think it will be fine to have some optional realistic rules. at least some point 1st - train have nothing to do in a ww1 game, but that really minor as there are not efficiency. 2nd - do not allow landing again port or capital 3rd - perhaps the more important; change the surrender rules. those for Russia are very good, it will be fine to have the same for France, Turkey and Austria and perhaps also Germany. during ww1 none of major country capital was taken as cp country have surrender before. 4th - review strategic warfare

Jonathan Pollard -> RE: Next Patch (1/28/2013 7:45:02 PM)
Historically armored trains were very important during the Russian Civil War in the battle for control of the Trans Siberian Railroad. I think the Czechoslovak Legion basically fought its way across the entire length of that railroad using armored trains. I think the most unrealistic thing about them is that they can do amphibious invasions as long as the target hex has a railroad. At first I thought that even allowing them to be moved by sea may be unrealistic, but I found out that some merchant ships of the era did exist that could carry locomotives without disassembling them.

JJKettunen -> RE: Next Patch (1/28/2013 8:19:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard Historically armored trains were very important during the Russian Civil War in the battle for control of the Trans Siberian Railroad. I think the Czechoslovak Legion basically fought its way across the entire length of that railroad using armored trains. I think the most unrealistic thing about them is that they can do amphibious invasions as long as the target hex has a railroad. At first I thought that even allowing them to be moved by sea may be unrealistic, but I found out that some merchant ships of the era did exist that could carry locomotives without disassembling them. Now how many army and/or corps sized armoured train units were there? It's another unit type that should be a small support unit, but alas there are none. Yes, the Czech Legion covered a lot of miles by train, but they didn't have huge fleets of them armoured.

Lord Zimoa -> RE: Next Patch (1/31/2013 10:00:15 AM)
Some news about the upcoming 1.20 CTGW open Beta patch at our Facebook page or for those who don`t use that, I also posted it on the Commander development diary on the Commander website http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Lordz-Games-Studio/162489177110682?v=wall http://www.commander-games.com/2013/01/little-update-about-the-upcoming-new-patch/

FOARP -> RE: Next Patch (1/31/2013 1:57:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kirk23 If France is defeated,and Britain & America need to try and recapture PARIS for example,then I feel as a supply source,the only alternative has to be done by Naval units,as long as a clear path extends to the land forces,then the Naval units should be deemed,to give full supply![;)] Much more sensible and easier to implement is to make ports deliver full supply - this would prevent the position where units in some parts of the map literally cannot be in 100% supply even if it is their home turf because they do not include a capital. Ireland and Sicily are examples here.

warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (2/5/2013 7:31:09 PM)
WHERE IS THE NEXT PATCH!!!!!?????!?!?!?!?! [;)]

IainMcNeil -> RE: Next Patch (2/6/2013 10:08:56 AM)
It is with production at the moment and in the process of preparing and building the patch.

parusski -> RE: Next Patch (2/6/2013 3:58:36 PM)
quote: warspite1: There needs to be some means of waging war without a capital. But what kind of war can a nation realistically expect to wage if it loses it's capital?

Lord Zimoa -> RE: Next Patch (2/6/2013 5:48:38 PM)
New Open Beta Commander: The Great War v1.20 now available! http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3265366

warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (2/6/2013 6:53:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: parusski quote: warspite1: There needs to be some means of waging war without a capital. But what kind of war can a nation realistically expect to wage if it loses it's capital? warspite1 I was talking specificaly about the ability of the British / Americans to carry on fighting in France if France is defeated. Without a capital they can't - it's game over. Same with Amphibious invasions - you don't need to worry about them - just make sure the enemy can't take a capital (full supply) or a city (half supply) and the enemy is stuck on the coast....

warspite1 -> RE: Next Patch (2/6/2013 7:11:25 PM)
Bummer...so I can't download the patch until my existing outstanding games have been finished? [:(]

Jonathan Pollard -> RE: Next Patch (2/6/2013 7:22:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Bummer...so I can't download the patch until my existing outstanding games have been finished? [:(] Not only that, if you decide to do a separate install for the patch, any games started with the patch will probably be impossible to finish if the separate server is closed when the patch stops being beta.

parusski -> RE: Next Patch (2/6/2013 9:29:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: parusski quote: warspite1: There needs to be some means of waging war without a capital. But what kind of war can a nation realistically expect to wage if it loses it's capital? warspite1 I was talking specificaly about the ability of the British / Americans to carry on fighting in France if France is defeated. Without a capital they can't - it's game over. Same with Amphibious invasions - you don't need to worry about them - just make sure the enemy can't take a capital (full supply) or a city (half supply) and the enemy is stuck on the coast.... Right, that does make sense. I was heading down the guerrilla path.

JeffroK -> RE: Next Patch (2/7/2013 1:24:13 AM)
Capital cities could be seen as irrelvant in talking about supplying the troops. Would it be more relevant to use "Resource Centres" representing centres of industry. If these are spread around in accurate positions it may make more sense to capture the Ruhr than Berlin. The loss of each centre could see a % drop in supplies available for that nation, you could still have a morale % loss for your Capital falling. (And a plus for % the captor.) As for an "Amphib" landing, a "base" with a very restricted supply range would represent the beachhead and allow a port to be captured which should then allow a supply link back to home ports. (Dont tell me the game makes the Brits/Yanks trace supply to a French supply point as implied by the previous posts!!)

FOARP -> RE: Next Patch (2/8/2013 11:00:21 AM)
It would be way more realistic for supply to come from ports - so long as you still have a connection to a port, you should receive full supply.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.34375