Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (Full Version)

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



Message

operating -> Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/19/2014 10:47:59 PM)

Many things happening here, a lot of changes, too many to try to get into one post. My first impression: Is the game is superior than anything before this patch. Now that it's beta, there are some issues. The game played great until the 16th turn (SP), then the AI slowed down to a crawl, roughly an hour, turn 17 was no better. Never experienced that before with my Dell set up for gaming, 12 giga ram. Other than that, do not have any complaints, will post more, been playing all day, pretty wore out from all the action, Hands down beats anything to date..!.[;)]

PS: Want to clear something up: The slow down during turn 16 & 17 may have been a background bug in my machine. For when I shut down, then started back up a couple of hours later, the game ran at normal speed.



kirk23 -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/19/2014 11:00:48 PM)

You are right there are a lot of changes to the game play,I'm sure you will have noticed,that Turkey gets some new toys to play with![:D]



CB60 -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/20/2014 2:48:17 AM)

Worriesome..since I'm playing this on a laptop. But so far this game rocks: 'Blood and Iron" meets 'beer and pretzels'!



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/20/2014 3:56:44 AM)

Hi Kirk!

3 issues: One, Turk Research tech icons don't show, you need at least one more row for tech icons. Two, German Research tech icons for armor don't show either. Three, Game will not let CP refuse Serbia Surrender.

Don't know why?[&:] Turn 19 the AI ran at normal speed, no long wait.

Chao, Bob

[image]local://upfiles/43885/B2DEDA867F3B4C578175B28BFDCD71C2.jpg[/image]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/20/2014 3:58:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Hi Kirk!

3 issues: One, Turk Research tech icons don't show, you need at least one more row for tech icons. Two, German Research tech icons for armor don't show either. Three, Game will not let CP refuse Serbia Surrender.

Don't know why?[&:] Turn 19 the AI ran at normal speed, no long wait.

Chao, Bob

[image]local://upfiles/43885/B2DEDA867F3B4C578175B28BFDCD71C2.jpg[/image]



[image]local://upfiles/43885/6BBBFEE2BF9E47CB97137F82F3079A09.jpg[/image]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/23/2014 10:29:18 PM)

Hi Kirk!

Ever since CC1 has questioned entrenchment (in 1.52) had got me to pay closer attention to it (1.60 beta). Below are a couple of SS, one has the Turk Research Window, notice they have completed "concrete bunkers tech" (third in a series of entrenchments), yet the front line of Turk infantry (who have been located on the indicated hex(s) for about a year) only have an entrenchment level of "2", plus the desert terrain entrenchment level of 2 for a total of 4. Actually it should be at least an entrenchment level of 3 (or more), plus the terrain 2 for a total of "5" entrenchment points. The only time this varies is depending on the terrain. Noticed during the course of a SP game that some units start with an entrenchment level of "2", this never changes for the remainder of the game despite the accumulation of all entrenchment techs to the fullest. As a note; [these entrenchment point levels are far lower than previous patch versions, especially 1.20]. If you or others could explain why entrenchment is at a 2 instead of a 3 I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, Bob



[image]local://upfiles/43885/FF9E7F5D987F45438C1041F72CE47960.jpg[/image]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/23/2014 10:32:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Hi Kirk!

Ever since CC1 has questioned entrenchment (in 1.52) had got me to pay closer attention to it (1.60 beta). Below are a couple of SS, one has the Turk Research Window, notice they have completed "concrete bunkers tech" (third in a series of entrenchments), yet the front line of Turk infantry (who have been located on the indicated hex(s) for about a year) only have an entrenchment level of "2", plus the desert terrain entrenchment level of 2 for a total of 4. Actually it should be at least an entrenchment level of 3 (or more), plus the terrain 2 for a total of "5" entrenchment points. The only time this varies is depending on the terrain. Noticed during the course of a SP game that some units start with an entrenchment level of "2", this never changes for the remainder of the game despite the accumulation of all entrenchment techs to the fullest. As a note; [these entrenchment point levels are far lower than previous patch versions, especially 1.20]. If you or others could explain why entrenchment is at a 2 instead of a 3 I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, Bob



[image]local://upfiles/43885/FF9E7F5D987F45438C1041F72CE47960.jpg[/image]




[image]local://upfiles/43885/90AE6D782DA74F5A946886CCF88EC08E.jpg[/image]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/23/2014 10:58:16 PM)

Kirk,

While I am at it: Also, noticed that when an enemy entrenched hex has been captured, the previous entrenchment levels "totally evaporate" all too often. With the entrenchment levels (points) being set so low this should not be the case, typically on the Western front. I could be wrong, for I think in some cases the "entrenchment graffito" is displayed, however, there is no value to them, much like CC1 pointed out in the case of sand dune type hexes in the Sinai, that also had this graffito of no value.

Just an observation, Bob



pacwar -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/24/2014 3:01:23 AM)

A couple quick impressions...I am playing as the Central powers and it is June 1915 and I am pushing on the western front, having taken Brussels and Antwerp. The revised naval sequence is different...the dreadnought's are tough, and the revised British troop availability is making itself felt, causing the French problems keeping the front stabilized. In the east the Russians are a mess...I have taken Warsaw and am about to break through....I expect Russia will be out of the war by the end of the year. The Austrians defeated the Serbs by January, 1915 and have redeployed to resist the Italians, who just declared war and reinforce their forces in southern Russia. The Mideast is stable and I can cause the British to divert resources to defend Egypt. The Germans and Austrians have plenty of production points despite raising lots of units, something they didn't enjoy in the previous versions of the game. One possible glitch, even now in June, 1915 the Germans are at 100% population, despite being down to 98% in late 1914. Does the population number now reflect the maturing and recruitment of younger cohorts?




operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/24/2014 4:18:15 AM)

pacwar,

In this version as well as other later versions, Russian surrender does not happen quickly, a great # of Russian cities and multiple Capitals need to be captured before the Russians sue for peace. After several Russian surrender offers, I was able to completely subjugate the entire Russian countryside (check out SS below). Doing so offered up a huge cache of PP to finance needed CP Management upgrade costs, plus goodies, whereas, in prior versions captured Russian cities did not yield PP.

Bob


[image]local://upfiles/43885/00043CF28E25425EA9BD907EB568BDDB.jpg[/image]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/24/2014 7:19:42 PM)

Hello Kirk!,

The Commanders' issue has greatly improved, however this one has slipped through the cracks. Italian Flight Commander Agriri in a SP game failed to deploy on first turn available (turn 32), but finally was deployable 15 turns later on turn 47. Could you please look into this.....

Thanks, Bob


[image]local://upfiles/43885/100EBF9A1F4D409BA3004B52E8D0A98E.jpg[/image]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/24/2014 7:21:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Hello Kirk!,

The Commanders' issue has greatly improved, however this one has slipped through the cracks. Italian Flight Commander Agriri in a SP game failed to deploy on first turn available (turn 32), but finally was deployable 15 turns later on turn 47. Could you please look into this.....

Thanks, Bob


[image]local://upfiles/43885/100EBF9A1F4D409BA3004B52E8D0A98E.jpg[/image]



[image]local://upfiles/43885/982EF882522E41B2A1BE799764A59739.jpg[/image]



pacwar -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/25/2014 1:09:12 AM)

Impressive...by August 1916 I hope to be at the same place...another oddity is the French deployment...they have now abandoned the Channel coast and for some unknown reason have deployed four of their last regular units on the Swiss border...the Italians are being rather uncharacteristically aggressive so maybe this is some new AI strategy...of course once I take Paris it won't matter.



Tomokatu -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/25/2014 5:40:06 AM)


Operating noted:
quote:

Also, noticed that when an enemy entrenched hex has been captured, the previous entrenchment levels "totally evaporate" all too often.


On the Western Front particularly, the defensive effect of captured trenches WAS negated because the orientation was wrong. Trenches which defended against the East had little effect against attacks from the West. In the worst cases, captured German trenches with tunnels leading (westward) down to underground installations actually had the problem that shells from the new German positions further East dropped down the tunnel entrances, to the detriment of troops sheltering below.

Captured pillboxes had the entrances facing the wrong way, too and were vulnerable to fire.

Maybe reduction of entrenchment effects back to basic level 1 is the right choice.



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/25/2014 4:20:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomokatu


Operating noted:
quote:

Also, noticed that when an enemy entrenched hex has been captured, the previous entrenchment levels "totally evaporate" all too often.


On the Western Front particularly, the defensive effect of captured trenches WAS negated because the orientation was wrong. Trenches which defended against the East had little effect against attacks from the West. In the worst cases, captured German trenches with tunnels leading (westward) down to underground installations actually had the problem that shells from the new German positions further East dropped down the tunnel entrances, to the detriment of troops sheltering below.

Captured pillboxes had the entrances facing the wrong way, too and were vulnerable to fire.

Maybe reduction of entrenchment effects back to basic level 1 is the right choice.


I see your point about practicality (never mentioned in manual). In game in the past: When an entrenched position was captured by whatever means, that entrenched hex drops 1 level of entrenchment to the captors. So far from what I have seen is a mountain hex only allows a 1 level of entrenchment, which to me does not seem to be right.



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/25/2014 4:59:21 PM)

HI Kirk!,

Question: At what point do green dot hexes go white?

In the below SS shows that CP has captured Antwerp. Should be said that now CP and Entente have negating control of mutual sea (water) hexes? When playing in SP or MP there is no way to judge from the map that is so, the map always shows that your opponent's sea hexes as always "white dots". The AI always knows what are green dot hexes, but the player does not. This information should be shared by both sides, regardless of it is SP or MP play. Certainly where there are not overlapping ownership sea hexes, there is no problem, Take Malta for instance. I fully understand when capturing an enemy port that once green dot hexes turn to white dots (actually they should stay green dot regardless of ownership, to the victor goes the spoils). Trying to get a consensus from the powers to be about this, especially concerning the English Channel.

Just thinking, Bob


[image]local://upfiles/43885/1A4AA57CF782488785E1CBF392650BDE.jpg[/image]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/26/2014 3:59:53 PM)

Hi Kirk!

Have some reservations about Serbia's PP, beginning in 1914. The first move by AH in SP is to bombard Cetinje with a dreadnaught (Serbs' loses 2 PP as a result), often that is the case in MP also. Next; AH infantry assaults a Serb garrison, many in MP do the same. After this the sum total of Serbia PP is "7", when Serbia starts it's turn 1. It's inevitable that Belgrade is assaulted, for each assault it loses PPs (Granted that in a few turns Serbia's PP goes from 85% to 100% upping it's PP by let's say 5 (+ or -) PP, however by then Serbia's PP is close to "0" or negative. A competent MP player knows continued assaults on Belgrade will knock it's original 13 PP score to "0" in no time, and perhaps capture while doing so. The only way for Serbia to repair or build new units is by selling it's one lab and or, disbanding it's only artillery unit, which would have to done immediately in order to survive past Oct.! Some report that they have defeated Serbia by Jan. 1915 and earlier, allowing them up to 5 months to prepare for Italy's entering. Personally I accept the challenge to keep Serbia relevant in SP, but in MP it is a rout, Serbia does not stand a chance of holding out for long. Please give some thought about increasing Serbia's PP by just a few points.
quote:

Serbian Campaign of World War I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date
28 July 1914 – 3 November 1918

Serbian campaign

The Serbian Campaign of World War I was fought from late July 1914, when Austria-Hungary invaded the Kingdom of Serbia at the outset of World War I, until the war's conclusion in November 1918. The front ranged from the Danube to southern Macedonia and back north again, involving forces from almost all of the combatants of the war.

The Serbian Army declined severely towards the end of the war, falling from about 420,000[2] at its peak to about 100,000 at the moment of liberation. The Kingdom of Serbia lost more than 1,100,000 inhabitants during the war (both army and civilian losses), which represented over 27% of its overall population and 60% of its male population.[5][6] According to estimates by the Yugoslav government (1924) Serbia had lost 265,164 soldiers, or 25% of all mobilized people. By comparison, France lost 16.8%, Germany 15.4%, Russia 11.5%, and Italy 10.3%.




[image]local://upfiles/43885/086ADBA18E314E27B4BCB8664AFD01AB.jpg[/image]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/26/2014 4:02:52 PM)

AI assaults and later assaults that chew up Serbian PP.


[image]local://upfiles/43885/1B6CFED327FE4E5C915ED9DD6C29386C.jpg[/image]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/26/2014 4:09:14 PM)

And just what does the 21 mean for next turn?


[image]local://upfiles/43885/8803DF500E164C1AA26C9BED39A58D54.jpg[/image]



Tomokatu -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/27/2014 5:13:59 AM)

Operating worried:
quote:

So far from what I have seen is a mountain hex only allows a 1 level of entrenchment, which to me does not seem to be right.


The terrain (apart from having permanent snow) was precipitous.
Not only was it hard to dig entrenchments in THIS but as you can see, getting supplies of timber, wire and concrete to improve entrenchment was also a bit awkward.

I can understand Level 1 entrenchment maximum.



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/27/2014 10:08:04 AM)

NO, I was not expecting to have concrete bunkers on mountain hexes, pillboxes is another story, yes, they commonly thought of as being concrete, however they are very often timber, or composed of native rocks (in abundance on mountains), or a combination of both. Many mountains on the map are in arid regions, that may or may not ever have snow (lower elevations), in (some/many) cases seasonally. With these thoughts in mind, is why I would consider it likely to have a level 2 entrenchment on mountain hexes, than unlikely. Hmmm! Maybe there is a history of pillboxes through pictures or articles can be produced to back this up, will have to look into this.



kirk23 -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/27/2014 10:48:01 AM)

I have increased Serbia's PPs + Shell capacity,I have also given them another 2 Garrison units positioned near Skopje,the Entrenchment level as per different terrain has been increased slightly.

Mountain Entrenchment increased from 1 too 3

[image]local://upfiles/36378/64F79E5EAF634DE8881F576F4A408DF0.jpg[/image]



suprass81 -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/28/2014 9:33:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I have increased Serbia's PPs + Shell capacity,I have also given them another 2 Garrison units positioned near Skopje,the Entrenchment level as per different terrain has been increased slightly.

Mountain Entrenchment increased from 1 too 3




Instead increaseing Serbia's PPs maybe you should just "move" some prodaction from Belgrade to Skopie. Let's say about 7 PP. This will prevent quick downing of the Serbia's prodaction. Increaseing Serbia's prodaction can make them to hard to kill. Just make sure tht after destroying Belgrade and Krlajevo Serbs can have at last 5 PP income and army that can build a one row defensive line. What do you think guys?



Reanimator -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/28/2014 3:03:33 PM)

Hi I've played two games with the beta patch and I have experienced slow downs as well in both them. Somewhere around turn 17.



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/28/2014 3:36:03 PM)

Hi Kirk!

Thanks for responding.. Your suggestion does not seem radical, if anything more towards appropriate. If we could get a look at your proposed production window would be nice. The 2 new garrisons is OK from what I can see for "now", however they suck up 4 PP per turn (option would be: to disband to gain PP and also to lower upkeep costs), which would soon turn Serbia's PP to the negative. The uptick of 24 PP at the start is a positive, is that the true # after initial assaults? Your SS does not reveal any changes to individual city produced PP. Suprass's idea of transferring PP from Belgrade to Skopje has merit, could it be done without upsetting the balance of the game? I have a tendency to think not... Most players RR East Front German artillery and fighters to the Serbian Front ASAP and if I am not mistaken: The AI directs German units to that sector also, not necessarily the same units. Making the Serb artillery more relevant is a plus

Personally I'm more for building of level 2 entrenching on mountain hexes instead of increasing the natural terrain entrenching feature to 3, or what "might be" of greater appeal, a combination of both. The only reason I would justify a level 2 entrenching by units, is in the case of the hex being captured after a long stay by the previous occupants (providing they had the proper entrenching tech level). So that the new occupants (captors) would at least have level 1 entrenching plus natural terrain. So in other words: even if a side has all 3 entrenching techs, the most a unit would be able to entrench on a mountain hex, would be a level 2. So that no hex on the map would have a "total" no greater than the entrenching capacity of 5, combined from unit entrenching plus natural terrain.

If anybody has an opinion about this, please jump in! The more ideas, the better...

Thanks, Bob



kirk23 -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/28/2014 4:12:44 PM)

In Suprass81 initial post,one of the first things he did was to disband his Artillery? I did not give Serbia Artillery in game, just to have players disband them.So if players feel that Serbia lacks PPs etc,then my only option is to increase City PPs and the Countries manpower as a whole,and at the same time,try not to make Serbia to powerful an opponent.The settings in the following 2 screen shots,give Serbia enough strength, without having to resort to disbanding her Artillery,So Serbia now has more PPs,Manpower & Shells at the start of the war.[;)]


Can I please ask gamers,to try and not disband Artillery,the Artillery unit in game plays a vital role,in defending your Country.

[image]local://upfiles/36378/E78DD17FF6CA48ECB664036285261D77.jpg[/image]



kirk23 -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/28/2014 4:15:05 PM)

Turn 1 Serbia management screen.

[image]local://upfiles/36378/91EDDDAA88B345708FD986C3A9D16B36.jpg[/image]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (11/29/2014 12:07:02 AM)

Kirk,

Not to sound like a broken record: Minor countries do not get Commanders. I'm all for getting Commanders (as it is) into the game ASAP, for they add dimension to the action. Yes, I am aware of some copyright issue, art issue that has gotten in the way of increasing the Commanders' pool, in the meantime, has there been any progress towards implementing a variety of new Commanders? Commanders, has a distinct advantage over minor nations that are not allowed such an asset. Maybe a compromise could be made that a given side's Commander also have it's quality rating, to have an effect on minor like sided country.. This would not affect copyrights (in my mind) that are already included in the game. If copyrighting is limiting the scope of the game, then just adjust/expand to what is legally permitted in the game now. What I am driving at is: Let's say that either a French or English ground unit (with commander) in Serbia (or like country), would have Command over all Entente units within it's sphere of command. Due to the lack of being able to produce native commanders. I really cannot give a historical argument against such a development, whereas, the game is hamstrung from doing otherwise.

Sincerely, Bob



Tomokatu -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (12/1/2014 6:08:56 AM)

quote:

Maybe there is a history of pillboxes through pictures or articles can be produced to back this up, will have to look into this.


Suggest also a search on "sangars" which is the name given (on the North West Frontier) to shelters assembled without mortar from local native rocks. (Lots of those up the Khyber Pass)Were these what you were thinking of on the Isonzo front?



suprass81 -> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch (12/1/2014 8:58:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

In Suprass81 initial post,one of the first things he did was to disband his Artillery? I did not give Serbia Artillery in game, just to have players disband them.So if players feel that Serbia lacks PPs etc,then my only option is to increase City PPs and the Countries manpower as a whole,and at the same time,try not to make Serbia to powerful an opponent.The settings in the following 2 screen shots,give Serbia enough strength, without having to resort to disbanding her Artillery,So Serbia now has more PPs,Manpower & Shells at the start of the war.[;)]


Can I please ask gamers,to try and not disband Artillery,the Artillery unit in game plays a vital role,in defending your Country.



Kirk- for me arty with ammo production 2 is still usless. I propose to increase ammo prod to 4 for Serbia and 2 for ammo stock at the begining of war. This mean that arty can fire first time in 3rd turn and from then it will be shooting 2 times in 5 turns. This is what will make arty a good unit to have. Please do not add new units- just remove at last 4 PP from Belgrade to Skopije. It will allow to keep 2 garrisons or one corps more after Belgrade is capture- this units with arty can hold some more (maybe enough for France and GB to come with aid). It is easy to make Serbia overpowered. For the first time I think that we are very close to make this game ballanced. In 1.60 you have some options to take at the begining of war- CP can attack Russia or France or finnish Serbia first. Don't make this one like other patches (in MP games) - "you must kill Serbia fast or Entente will kill you". For me CP should be able to kill Serbia even in 1914 but with the cost oif France and Russia campain.
This is my personal opinion- I hope to know yours.
Sorry for my bad english.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875