quote:

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

Guys,

Could you post your ctgw logs and save games here please, this will be of great help finding the bug:

Maybe easier at Slitherine as they allow attachments:

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=214


How to get the ctgw.log file:

If you ever get an error or crash, please attach the ctgw.log file to your report, this will help us identify the problem. The logs are in your Documents, so the default is "My Documents\My Games\Commander The Great War"

IMPORTANT: This log is overwritten every time you start the game. Please make a copy of the log after any crash/bug you want to report before reloading the game.


NOTE: Please put your attachments in a .zip or .rar format, before you upload it on the Slitherine forum, if not, it will not upload at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I played as the Entente today, single player "balanced" AI. A whole number of things to consider . . .

i) managed to get game to go in to 1916 so the "1915 crash" may only affect the Central Powers side.

ii) I was able to take artillery unit through the Pripet Marshes and up the Alps in the winter! This seems ridiculous. These terrain features should be completely impassable to vehicles and artillery in both summer and winter.

iii) in 1915 the map stayed all snowy even after winter had ended

iv) thinking about the "small garrison" unit - might it not be better to have them as a unit you have to build and thereby start to develop a "home front" aspect to the game?

v) I didn't realise until today that you actually re-name each unit. It opens up the possibility of dividing battleships into dreadnoughts and pre-dreadnoughts in SP games if you want to. It needs some thought but maybe pre-dreadnoughts cannot benefit from research advances (a voluntary house rule).

vi) considering naval combat between battleships, might it be better to have more 2-2, 3-3, 3-2 results rather than 0-0 or 1-0? Naval encounters were short and brutal, not attritional. In my game I boxed in a German battleship and it took about 6 weeks to destroy it! This is just daft really. Also, with higher losses from combat there will be more opportunity for cruisers to join in to try to finish off battleships.

vii) Should ships be able to move into a port and be repaired on the same turn?

viii) Should ships be able to move into an allied port and be repaired (or be repaired as quickly)?

ix) Naval bombardment seems to be far more effective than artillery bombardment. Should it be?

x) there are a number of invisible Italian units when Italy joins the war - garrison at Naples; garrison at Messina; submarine at Palermo; and cruiser at Cagliari.

xi) an AI unit cut off in one of my cities then committed suicide by moving out of that city (got the dreaded pink dot next turn).

xii) Serbia contained Austria very comfortably in the game; manpower quality on 8 but over 70PP's in the bank. It seemed a bit too strong to me.

xiii) I lost Warsaw and the Special Event came up saying Russia had lost morale - but I recaptured the city two turns later. No Special Event, of course, but what is the overall effect of losing a key city temporarily?

xiv) By mid-1915 the Entente was in a winning position in my game. I had massive surpluses of PP's for France and Britain (I was just building more labs and munitions factories). Looking at the mini-map it was a sea of yellow units with just a few bands of red on the Western, Eastern, Palestine, Caucasus and Serbian fronts. The game does seem very unbalanced at the moment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xenocide

Lost three successive games as the Central Powers and then played as the Entente. I think this needs balancing. When playing as the Entente once I set up my trenches I had more income then I knew what to do with. After the initial battles I pulled the BEF out of France as there was no need for it. Both Britain and France ended up with 3 research factories in every category and I still had a pretty big surplus.

I was wondering why the lines in France were three units deep on the Western Front when I was playing the Central Powers. Too much production.

I disbanded every Garrison I had and had a solid line of infantry on both main fronts and in the Middle East and Caucasus. I think it may be excessive.

Also backing the "slow to surrender issue. I attacked the Ottomans on three fronts and they did not surrender until I had taken every city in the nation. Germany surrendered when it had one city left and so did Austria-Hungary. Both fought on for a few turns without a capital between them.

I do like the improvements in sub warfare. If the Central Powers weren't so poor compared to the Allies I think it would work well. As it stands the British and French don't really need the convoy income.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I asked these two questions in an earlier post . . .

vii) Should ships be able to move into a port and be repaired on the same turn?

viii) Should ships be able to move into an allied port and be repaired (or be repaired as quickly)?

Just a few more thoughts. Again from Wikipedia about Jutland 1916 . . .

"Warspite was holed 150 times during the battle and had 14 killed and 16 wounded; among the latter warrant officer Walter Yeo, who became one of the first men to receive facial reconstruction via plastic surgery. Although she had been extensively damaged, Warspite could still raise steam and was ordered back to Rosyth during the evening of 31 May by Rear-Admiral Hugh Evan-Thomas, commander of the 5th Battle Squadron. Whilst travelling across the North Sea the ship came under attack from a German U-boat. The U-boat fired three torpedoes, all of which missed their target. Warspite later attempted to ram a surfaced U-boat. She signalled ahead for escorts and a squadron of torpedo boats came out to meet her. They were too slow to screen her effectively, but there were no more encounters with German vessels and she reached Rosyth safely on the morning of 1 June, where it took two months to repair the damage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warspite_(03)

So this is a ship that has taken a fair bit of damage, but its main functions seem to be working OK still, yet it takes two months to repair at a home port. The difficulty here is that when you have a battleship, cruiser or submarine unit at 10 strength points in the game, how many vessels are actually represented by each unit? And, if a unit is damaged down to 4 or 5 strength points, what does that actually mean in terms of damage sustained? If a battleship unit at 10 strength points = 5 capital ships, does a battleship unit at 4 strength points mean that only 2 ships remain and three have been sunk? Or does it mean that all 5 battleships have been heavily damaged but none have been sunk? Or does it mean something in-between?

I think there are a number of possibilities for the game here. One way to depict one or two of the ships out of the 5 being sunk is to say that if a battleship unit is reduced to 4 strength points then it can only repair to 8 strength points, so one ship is permanently lost. If a battleship is damaged to 3 strength points then it can only repair to 6 strength points so two ships are lost - and so on. So battleship units could only fully repair if they had 5 or more strength points left i.e. the 5 ships had taken serious damage (like the Warspite above) but they could still function up to a point.

Then there is the question of repairs. What if major repairs could only be done in a home port? So a British battleship unit damaged down to 7 strength points would have to go into a British port to get fully repaired - if it went into a French or Italian port it could only get "patched up" and repaired by just 1 strength point. Also, repairs on a ship unit would start on the turn after the ship unit arrived in a port so the "move and repair" that happens now would be ended. Finally, research upgrades for ships can only be done in a home port, not an allied port.

I think these changes to the repair and upgrade rules would open up further tactical considerations as opposing players tried to damage units below 5 strength points (you could do the same thing for cruiser and submarine units too) and players would have to make crucial judgements about whether ships should stay at sea even when they are still on 7 or 8 strength points.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I agree with your observations, I think the repair option happens to quickly, but any changes won't be included by the time this beta goes, to official release.But rest assured the software wiz kid and I will see what changes can be made.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?

warspite1

Any chance of an answer on this please?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?

warspite1

Any chance of an answer on this please?

In one of my games I think I have done slightly better than historical but Bulgaria still remain neutral. With that said I see no chance of me winning the game.

CTGW is a game that I found was fairly balanced has now become so unbalanced that it hardly feels like it is worth the time playing. I find this saddening since this is, or rather was, one of my favourite games.

So, please, answer warspite1's question about Bulgaria.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?

Hot fix should be made available within the next couple off days, and Bulgaria will enter the war a few turns after Italy!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Now back to how sea battles functions. I have several concerns about this. Here is a picure that illustrates a few of them.

The picture is from a game I play against warspite1 and from a sea battle a while ago. It shows the situation after three turns of fighting where the Russian battleship has been unable to move.

My concern with this sea battle is the following:
1) I find it ridiculous that enemy ships can block other ship from passing. I do understand that passing (through) another fleet means a battle but if you seek battle then I do not see how that blockade can occur. The Russian ship was in fact a German prisoner for at least 6 turns before she was sunk.

2) This fight lasted for 6 or more turns before the Russian BB was lost. I do not like that ships fighting at sea seems to have unlimited supply of ammo. One solution that could be applied is that ships that fight at sea use up ammo as they do when they shore bombard. I think that even subs could use ammo.

3) The Russian battleship is in a home water hex. Yet she has not done even one point of damage to one the German ships although she has fired at them, defensively, 6 times.


[image]local://upfiles/29130/FEE10E2E24B649268C8DB8A33DA4E4A6.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I hear you folks, I have altered a lot off Naval stuff, which will solve most of the above issues, Home Port & Green Dot Area are now much more off a deterant to, aggressive enemy attack's, and believe me you ain't going to be attacking in the Green Dot Area from now on simply because you will loose big time! Once you play with the new scripts for naval combat, the Russian Battleship will more than hold its own against 3 or 4 attacking fleets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I really like the way the discussion is going on the naval aspects of the game. With ammunition, and maybe repairs being altered at a later stage, players are going to have to think really hard about how they use their navies. Rotation of ships will become a factor and this will encourage some nations to build extra ships for this purpose (e.g. Russia and Austro-Hungary. One class of ship that is not represented at the moment is the destroyer and I was wondering what the thinking is about these ships? At the moment I tend to assume that when I have a battleship unit at strength 10 then that might represent 4 capital ships and their destroyer escorts. Is that how you all see it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I am trying to understand the two main infantry units at the moment - "infantry" and "garrison".

Infantry costs 30PP, garrison costs 10PP = one third the cost (33%)
Infantry costs 10MP, garrison costs 6PP = three-fifths the cost (60%)
Infantry upkeep costs 3PP, garrison upkeep costs 2PP = two-thirds the cost (66%)
Infantry takes 3 turns to complete, garrison takes 1 turn - one third the time (33%)

I don't actually understand exactly what these two unit types are meant to represent or why there seems to be discrepancies between their costs and completion times on the one hand and their upkeep and costs on the other. Do "infantry" units represent a certain number of men and "garrison" units a lesser number of men? Is there any scale at work here? Maybe army corps and army division perhaps?

I was looking at another WW1 game yesterday and they have the following infantry units - HQ, Corps, Detachment, Garrison (also Marines, Engineers and Partisans). The Corps units represent 2+ divisions or somewhere between 50-100,000 men. The Detachments represent less than 50,000 men and the Garrisons are just a token force.

I would imagine that whatever you do it is very difficult to reproduce historical mobilisation rates in the game and maybe what we have is the best that can be done (apart from "garrison" being the wrong term for the smaller infantry unit).

Any thoughts on this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

The new Infantry v Garrison script settings, I'm play testing. Have the Infantry being twice the size and strength off the Garrison unit.

Infantry costs 20PP, garrison costs 10PP

Infantry costs 12MP, garrison costs 6MP

Infantry upkeep costs 4PP, garrison upkeep costs 2PP

Infantry takes 4 turns to complete, garrison takes 2 turns to complete.

Although very handy,having a new unit built and be available to use, as a fighting unit in 1 turn, or 2 weeks in game terms is ludicrous.Even 2 turns or a month, for a new Garrison unit to be made available, is a short period of time, to create a new fully functioning fighting unit. But having these slight changes makes the gamer plan ahead and think more about what they are doing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23
PLUS HOW ARE YOU GUYS MANAGING TO TAKE SCREEN SHOTS, MY PRINT SCREEN KEYBOARD BUTTON IS NOT WORKING FOR ME.