Patch 1.5 ETA ? (Full Version)

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



Message

Wolfe1759 -> Patch 1.5 ETA ? (3/19/2014 11:07:55 PM)

Patch 1.4.2 has added quite a bit to the game BUT also has new stuff that isn't really working yet as intended, Small Garrisons and the slow AI turn times seem to be the main ones.

So I've sort of stopped playing whilst waiting for the next patch. Thus the question in regard to ETA on 1.5




Lord Zimoa -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (3/20/2014 7:58:20 AM)

It is still a few weeks off I`me afraid, especially re-writing the AI and integrating this into the hardcoded base game is the last pesky task to finish. But without no iPad release... so we are on full throttle. I tty and keep you updated as best as I can.



Wolfe1759 -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (3/20/2014 11:09:10 PM)

Thanks for the reply, a few weeks is not so long to wait, appreciate the continuing effort on supporting the game.



Tomokatu -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (3/24/2014 6:43:15 PM)

Hear hear - willing to wait for a Patch in Progress. haven't stopped playing but I DID edit the small garrisons to have no movement - a massive improvement.



operating -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (3/30/2014 3:52:01 PM)


Many thanks for feedback!

Small garrisons,I'm looking to remove their ability to transport by sea,also to get the AI to use them as intended,as defensive units behind your front lines for City defense.I have also changed the fact that they cost nothing to repair and upkeep,this is for patch 1.50 !


< Message edited by kirk23 -- 3/23/2014 9:14:45 PM >
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's to become of half supplied (Or full supplied) SGs that cannot transport in 1.50? Will they be eliminated from islands and such from OOB? Trying now to simulate play in MP to anticipate change to SG in 1.50.



[image]local://upfiles/43885/CF24AB892EBB42D1930DB1504FD6475D.jpg[/image]



Numdydar -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (3/30/2014 6:13:05 PM)

What would be ideal would be to 'flag' certain SGs so for some cost in PP they could be upgraded to Garrisions (like for Malta, etc.). Versus disbanding them to make room for a better unit.

Or if that is too hard. Just make certain SGs regular Garrisions and deduct the addition cost from the initial starting pools of PP/manpower. While not historical, it would simplify coding, gameplay, etc.



operating -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (3/30/2014 6:31:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

What would be ideal would be to 'flag' certain SGs so for some cost in PP they could be upgraded to Garrisions (like for Malta, etc.). Versus disbanding them to make room for a better unit.

Or if that is too hard. Just make certain SGs regular Garrisions and deduct the addition cost from the initial starting pools of PP/manpower. While not historical, it would simplify coding, gameplay, etc.


Numdydar, that's very interesting proposal![:)]



operating -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (3/30/2014 7:53:07 PM)

The more I think about it the more I like it[:)]. I'd like to hear from the tech guys about this, for it could lead to all kinds of potential, perhaps garrisons upgrading to Infantry, let's say: when a garrison reaches a level IV (highest attainable), would be considered trained and experienced enough to be a candidate to step up to be infantry. Just adjust MP and upkeep automatically upon conversion.



amtrick -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (4/9/2014 1:40:45 PM)

Not sure I like the idea of SG's going to regular Infantry. The concept of the SG was local defense forces .... old men and boys. No matter what tech upgrades you gave these folks, they never would come up to the level of regular Infantry. Plus the whole idea was to make them so all they can do is stay home and protect their city. Making them regular Infantry means they can move off for the front again, leaving the city undefended. Better to have the isolated garrisons be Garrison units , which is more like what they really were in Gibraltar, etc.



amtrick -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (4/9/2014 2:04:19 PM)

Since we are talking about 1.5, I'd like to make a couple of suggestions. I finished a scenario as the Entente last week. I won in the summer of 1916, but only after I had practically annihilated both the Germans and AH. It seems like a nation down to its last city and a couple of garrisons would have surrendered sooner, especially in the early 20th century and given the actual internal politics of those two countries. So maybe loosen up the surrender requirements a bit. Have to say that after everybody else gave up, the Turks called it quits pretty quickly.

Secondly, how about adding a 1914 Eastern Front scenario? In this one the Germans would have decided to not invade Belgium at the start of the war, hold back the French in Alsace/Lorraine and concentrate on knocking Russia out of the war before turning west. So when Germany enters the war, the OB shows a preponderance of force on the Russian Front and Belgium neutral. Might still have to wait for Russia to enter the war as it did historically, or allow Germany/AH to declare war with some political penalty.

And finally, how about giving us a peek at how the other side is doing? I’m particularly thinking of the opposition National Morale. Knowing that somebody is teetering on the edge might make you change your strategy during the game. If you think giving the actual value would be too generous, maybe display a range it falls into, for example 0-20, 21-40, etc.

Just a couple of thoughts. Would be interested in others' views.



kirk23 -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (4/9/2014 6:06:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: amtrick

Since we are talking about 1.5, I'd like to make a couple of suggestions. I finished a scenario as the Entente last week. I won in the summer of 1916, but only after I had practically annihilated both the Germans and AH. It seems like a nation down to its last city and a couple of garrisons would have surrendered sooner, especially in the early 20th century and given the actual internal politics of those two countries. So maybe loosen up the surrender requirements a bit. Have to say that after everybody else gave up, the Turks called it quits pretty quickly.

Secondly, how about adding a 1914 Eastern Front scenario? In this one the Germans would have decided to not invade Belgium at the start of the war, hold back the French in Alsace/Lorraine and concentrate on knocking Russia out of the war before turning west. So when Germany enters the war, the OB shows a preponderance of force on the Russian Front and Belgium neutral. Might still have to wait for Russia to enter the war as it did historically, or allow Germany/AH to declare war with some political penalty.

And finally, how about giving us a peek at how the other side is doing? I’m particularly thinking of the opposition National Morale. Knowing that somebody is teetering on the edge might make you change your strategy during the game. If you think giving the actual value would be too generous, maybe display a range it falls into, for example 0-20, 21-40, etc.

Just a couple of thoughts. Would be interested in others' views.



Hi, your first suggestion regarding a Nation should surrender quicker,in reality it should,but I think it goes a lot further than that,you won in 1916,which makes me think that either you are one of the best Commanders ever born,or the game is still to easy!Without hurting your feelings here,I think the game needs to be made more difficult,and that is what I will work on doing for the 1.50 patch.[:D]

Your second point,I like a lot,creating an Eastern Front Scenario yip I'm all for that![:)]


Your third point,about getting info on enemy national morale,I think maybe if the game could enhance the diplomatic element more,then maybe you could have diplomats or some kind off spy network in place,that could influence the game.[;)]



kirk23 -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (4/9/2014 6:17:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: amtrick

Not sure I like the idea of SG's going to regular Infantry. The concept of the SG was local defense forces .... old men and boys. No matter what tech upgrades you gave these folks, they never would come up to the level of regular Infantry. Plus the whole idea was to make them so all they can do is stay home and protect their city. Making them regular Infantry means they can move off for the front again, leaving the city undefended. Better to have the isolated garrisons be Garrison units , which is more like what they really were in Gibraltar, etc.


Your right about the Small Garrison,its not going to be built up to represent Infantry,nope don't like that.As you say the Small Garrison's role is to protect Cities and nothing more,they should not be going any where near your front lines.[8D]



Tomokatu -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (4/9/2014 7:06:39 PM)

I DO! like the suggestion about having some inkling of the enemy's National Morale level. After all, in WWI each side read the other's daily newspapers and magazines. That was the major source (and still is) of basic intelligence.

I'm also very fond of the concept of having a way to affect diplomacy. I read "Riddle of the Sands", "Greenmantle", Neville Duke's "The Story of ST25" and even allowing for exaggeration there should be a component to the game which recognises covert ops. Even Cdr Samson's RNAS Armoured Car detachment on Russian front(s) had a diplomatic effect, however small their military effect may have been.

While I agree that there can be no active role for Small Garrisons, there has to be some mechanism so that they do not block and occupy deployment of other, active units.
Can they be stacked with ONE (only) other unit without adding to defence?
Can they be disbanded as necessary? If you/we want to constrain those conditions, can they only be disbanded if adjacent to a friendly infantry or artillery unit?
Something please!



Connfire -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (4/10/2014 3:45:22 AM)

I think it would be neat to have a "sandbox" scenario which allows for more customizable Alliance options. What if certain countries stayed neutral, or even switched sides? For example, what if Germany did not march through Belgium? What if the Triple Alliance held and Italy remained with the Central Powers? Or if the League of Three Emperors (Germany, Austria, Russia) lasted into the 20th century? What if Turkey had gone with the Allies? It would be completely ahistorical, and some combinations may be unbalanced, but it could also be fun playing the "what-if" game.



kirk23 -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (4/10/2014 11:07:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Connfire

I think it would be neat to have a "sandbox" scenario which allows for more customizable Alliance options. What if certain countries stayed neutral, or even switched sides? For example, what if Germany did not march through Belgium? What if the Triple Alliance held and Italy remained with the Central Powers? Or if the League of Three Emperors (Germany, Austria, Russia) lasted into the 20th century? What if Turkey had gone with the Allies? It would be completely ahistorical, and some combinations may be unbalanced, but it could also be fun playing the "what-if" game.


Hi Rob, very interesting idea I like.[;)]



Lord Zimoa -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (4/20/2014 12:18:33 PM)

After the CTGW iPad release, we have got the 1.50 patch high on our agenda and will include the Russian translation as well.



operating -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (4/23/2014 6:01:51 PM)

Kirk,

I can beat the game in SP as CP easy enough, but have devil of a time as CP in MP to come up with a win. Been searching for a resolution that could be workable, that could come into play after the CP "Good Times" of early 1914. What I perceive here is: It will become more difficult to find a willing MP CP opponent who wants to fight a losing battle. Not to say that all is hopeless with CP (again, said before: There are some very capable players out there who can turn my perception inside out), but, most like myself are average combatants in MP. The parameters of the game are set up for SP, might there be a different set of parameters set up for MP?

Connfire's idea has some merit worth exploring, but can it be implemented into the stock game package?

His idea also exposes the political aspect of the war that could be tweaked one way or another in the stock scenarios, which might not be "A Historical" (however could have become Historical), but could add to the playability of the game. Certainly a difficult situation to weigh in on with the game as it is..

Just thinking, Bob[8|]




Tomokatu -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (4/23/2014 10:00:58 PM)

I found much the same in MP for WWII:RtV and ToW.
I played Allied and just didn't enjoy being so thoroughly beaten in France.
Most opponents didn't want to hang around as Axis until 1943 as the tide turned.

It might have been different with a LARGE MP game with each neutral being played separately - i.e. about eight human players, but that sort of game is just too large to co-ordinate and there were too many CTDs and file transfer errors to make it feasible (except perhaps in a tournament environment with a dedicated fix-it team from Lordz/Slitheine/Matrix on hand to debug errors.) That might work



kirk23 -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (5/30/2014 12:08:55 PM)

1.50 patch coming within 2 weeks all going well, watch this space.[:)]



Wolfe1759 -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (5/30/2014 9:14:13 PM)

[:)]



amtrick -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (5/31/2014 2:51:41 PM)

I await with baited breath. Thank you! [&o]

I know this is asking a lot, but will 1.50 include any improvements to the East Front scenario? Will the East Front scenario be integrated into the "standard" game? (I really like East Front ... it has serious potential)



Connfire -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (6/1/2014 4:45:28 AM)

If is it not too late, may I suggest some minor map change? In North America, northwest of Boston, the "city" of Killington is included. This is a bit strange, because Killington, Vermont, was named Sherburne until 1999. It is just a little village, the population in the 2010 US Census was only 811. Since 1954 the well-known Killington ski resort has been on a mountain peak of the same name there, and it is the largest ski resort in the Eastern United States.

I'm thinking that "Killington" was intended to be Burlington, Vermont, which would be in the same hex. This was (and still is) the largest city in that region, and was a major port of entry and railroad hub due to its location on Lake Champlain. The Lake connected with the Erie Canal, Champlain Canal, and Chambly Canal, which respectively connected with Lake Erie, the Hudson River, and the St. Lawrence River in Quebec.

A minor quibble, I admit. But I would recommend "Killington" be switched to "Burlington".



kirk23 -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (6/1/2014 8:48:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Connfire

If is it not too late, may I suggest some minor map change? In North America, northwest of Boston, the "city" of Killington is included. This is a bit strange, because Killington, Vermont, was named Sherburne until 1999. It is just a little village, the population in the 2010 US Census was only 811. Since 1954 the well-known Killington ski resort has been on a mountain peak of the same name there, and it is the largest ski resort in the Eastern United States.

I'm thinking that "Killington" was intended to be Burlington, Vermont, which would be in the same hex. This was (and still is) the largest city in that region, and was a major port of entry and railroad hub due to its location on Lake Champlain. The Lake connected with the Erie Canal, Champlain Canal, and Chambly Canal, which respectively connected with Lake Erie, the Hudson River, and the St. Lawrence River in Quebec.

A minor quibble, I admit. But I would recommend "Killington" be switched to "Burlington".


Burlington now on the map.[;)]

[image]local://upfiles/36378/1924FB30E88147D2AB769E9F19BB885E.jpg[/image]



kirk23 -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (6/1/2014 8:57:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: amtrick

I await with baited breath. Thank you! [&o]

I know this is asking a lot, but will 1.50 include any improvements to the East Front scenario? Will the East Front scenario be integrated into the "standard" game? (I really like East Front ... it has serious potential)


Hi amtrick,the 1.50 patch will be dealing with making the game more compatible with the I Pad,the patch is for reported bug issues,mostly for mulitplayer,it also includes the Small Garrison movement restriction,which limits these units to 1 hex from the City or Fortress they start from,gone are the days when they actively joined the front line battles.[;)]

As for the Eastern Front Scenario,this is a mod I created,I plan to refine it some more,and then it might be included in the next big patch that I'm also working on,version 1.5.5 [:D]



amtrick -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (6/1/2014 12:10:42 PM)

No problem. Fixing the SG issue is going to change the dynamics of the game enough to "freshen it up". I look forward to seeing how all my "old" strategies don't work anymore, as well as how the AI is going to respond to not havng the SG crutch anymore



operating -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (6/1/2014 6:54:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: amtrick

I await with baited breath. Thank you! [&o]

I know this is asking a lot, but will 1.50 include any improvements to the East Front scenario? Will the East Front scenario be integrated into the "standard" game? (I really like East Front ... it has serious potential)


Hi amtrick,the 1.50 patch will be dealing with making the game more compatible with the I Pad,the patch is for reported bug issues,mostly for mulitplayer,it also includes the Small Garrison movement restriction,which limits these units to 1 hex from the City or Fortress they start from,gone are the days when they actively joined the front line battles.[;)]

As for the Eastern Front Scenario,this is a mod I created,I plan to refine it some more,and then it might be included in the next big patch that I'm also working on,version 1.5.5 [:D]

Included with 1.50, are there fixes for existing 1.4.2 CTD MP games? Some of them I already had Matrix delete, for they were not that many turns into a match, plus they were getting old and forgotten. Also, is 1.50 more of an open beta patch than an official patch? Debating weather to try and resurrect old CTD matches or just start anew. If any of my opponents have read this, pm or post what you think.



Lord Zimoa -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (6/1/2014 8:43:35 PM)

The MP crashes on 1.4.2 had nothing to do with the patch or MP bugs introduced by 1.4.2, but with specific software we introduced into the code to easier identify SP crashes.

A downside however in MP replay this could and would also be the cause of the MP crashes.

Without going to technical, we have this fixed in 1.50.



operating -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (6/1/2014 9:12:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

The MP crashes on 1.4.2 had nothing to do with the patch or MP bugs introduced by 1.4.2, but with specific software we introduced into the code to easier identify SP crashes.

A downside however in MP replay this could and would also be the cause of the MP crashes.

Without going to technical, we have this fixed in 1.50.

If by chance, there is a CTD after 1.50 get's released is there new way of reporting this. I have 8.1 OS when I go documents/games/CTGW I see no save game for MP or save game listed at all, what I do see is scripts rar, which requires an app to open (I do not know which app to get). When I first got the game there was a save game feature, but either through patches or updating my computer from 8,0 to 8.1 that feature has disappeared or replaced by scripts rar. Or, am I not doing something correctly to have access to save game MP or SP? I would love to get to the bottom of solving MP match CTDs. Seldom, if ever do SP games crash, when they did , I had developed my own system to go around the bug, however not always successful.



Connfire -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (6/2/2014 2:49:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23


quote:

ORIGINAL: Connfire

If is it not too late, may I suggest some minor map change? In North America, northwest of Boston, the "city" of Killington is included. This is a bit strange, because Killington, Vermont, was named Sherburne until 1999. It is just a little village, the population in the 2010 US Census was only 811. Since 1954 the well-known Killington ski resort has been on a mountain peak of the same name there, and it is the largest ski resort in the Eastern United States.

I'm thinking that "Killington" was intended to be Burlington, Vermont, which would be in the same hex. This was (and still is) the largest city in that region, and was a major port of entry and railroad hub due to its location on Lake Champlain. The Lake connected with the Erie Canal, Champlain Canal, and Chambly Canal, which respectively connected with Lake Erie, the Hudson River, and the St. Lawrence River in Quebec.

A minor quibble, I admit. But I would recommend "Killington" be switched to "Burlington".


Burlington now on the map.[;)]

[image]local://upfiles/36378/1924FB30E88147D2AB769E9F19BB885E.jpg[/image]


Thanks Kirk. Minor nitpick, but I spend a lot of time in that part of the world. I think the Germans would be much more interested in conquering the largest inland port and transportation hub in the region then a ski resort! [:)]



Lord Zimoa -> RE: Patch 1.5 ETA ? (6/2/2014 7:07:14 AM)

Commander: The Great War for iPad has been in submission since last week, eagerly awaiting Apple`s approval to release...

So the CTGW iPad release is imminent and will go hand in hand with the latest v1.50 patch release for PC.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625