RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (Full Version)

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



Message

operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (4/23/2015 3:33:24 AM)

Kirk, Johnny Bravo,

I don't think it is fair that Bulgaria should be kept out of the war much beyond when it "Historically" entered, no matter how bad AH and Germany is getting beat. Actually I am in a MP match (as the Entente) where neither AH nor Germany have lost a native city, they did lose dreadnaught fleets, regardless Bulgaria should not be in the "RED". CP also has/had Brussels, Liege and Warsaw. Could Bulgaria's entrée into the war be adjusted? I remember this was a thorny issue with other members also.

Thanks, Bob



kirk23 -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (4/23/2015 8:58:29 AM)

Hi Bob, I'm working on getting Bulgaria to join the war,within a month off when she did in history no matter what other events trigger.[;)]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (4/23/2015 1:28:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Hi Bob, I'm working on getting Bulgaria to join the war,within a month off when she did in history no matter what other events trigger.[;)]


Mister Kirk, Thank you![:)]



euroaron -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (4/23/2015 2:35:55 PM)

just a thought about bulgaria.
the country joined the CP because for, say so, short term profit. what did they see in 1915? the impotence of entente in the region: gorlice, isonzo, gallipoli and the twilight of serbia. it is normal that they wanted some bites from the prey, in 1915 the CP had a very strong position, so to join the club seemed to be a good decision!
what the game is counting now the total power of the alliances, which shows an obvious entente superiority.
but if there is bulgaria then the other thing is romania. what did they see in 1916? the AHM was about to collapse, the brusilov offensive was in progress, and they had a good, almost blank offer from the entente to enlarge the country towards east. even if the army is good for a weak performance in the ballet, it seemed good to enter the war.
what happens in the game? pretend vinnytsia, chisnau, and odessa have been conquered by the CP, bulgaria is neutral, serbia is out of the game - but romania wants to join, just because the total number of the power says so? no way, please...



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (4/23/2015 4:29:02 PM)

To tell the truth: I'm only going by what I see diplomatically in the low to mid 20's turns in 1.62. I'm also seeing where players are getting totally frustrated with Bulgaria entering the war, due to some relatively unexplained reasons. I might add the use of poison gas by the Entente at turns prior to Bulgaria (and others) may effect an earlier enter to war and by others a later enter to war, those mechanics seem to be somewhat OK, the reverse of using poison gas could also ring true too. As far as Romania goes: I'll have to give that some more thought and will also say that situation also get's "wishie-washie" in the diplomatic circle of the game too. The results of the Balkan Wars have left these countries with a little bad blood for one reason or another, Bulgaria taking the worst of it territory wise (a mixed bag of territory loses and gains) as a result of those wars. I'll have to freshen up on the subject to be accurate.



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (4/27/2015 5:40:23 PM)

Kirk,

Where CP had captured Warsaw, then Russia recaptures Warsaw, then CP captures Warsaw again: Does Russia suffer a NM loss again for minus 10 NM a second time?

Curious, Bob[&:]



kirk23 -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (4/28/2015 1:57:24 AM)

I think its a one off event, if not it should be, or a player could simply use it to their advantage, by capturing, then abandon, and then recapturing repeatedly, to cause a Nation to surrender, due to the National morale penalty.[:-]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (4/28/2015 2:55:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I think its a one off event, if not it should be, or a player could simply use it to their advantage, by capturing, then abandon, and then recapturing repeatedly, to cause a Nation to surrender, due to the National morale penalty.[:-]

As stated in my prior post #36, Warsaw has been a contested city that has changed hands 3 times through normal combat. The question needing an answer is: Does either side incur NM losses from losing the city, where it is a Russian owned city does Russia take a NM hit only or does both CP and Russia take NM losses? By-the-way, Nobody has abandoned any city in this case![:-]



kirk23 -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (4/28/2015 3:37:28 AM)

I'm fairly sure that its just the initial Capture that incurs the National Morale loss, contested Cities that change hands more than once, don't suffer repeated National Morale penalty.



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/1/2015 10:25:01 PM)

Did not notice till today that the Ruhr has now been named Dortmund!



[image]local://upfiles/43885/BBD27D21A2C74643949108CEA91B63F1.jpg[/image]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/13/2015 10:27:07 AM)

Kirk,

When the "Pride for scrap" event is used or rather when a side scraps it's Dreadnaughts, Do both sides receive the Event memo? Or just the side doing the scraping?

Thanks, Bob


[image]local://upfiles/43885/5A2990882CA04B6495763B82304FEAE0.jpg[/image]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/15/2015 4:45:54 PM)

I'm having a problem with surrender offers...[&:] As illustrated in the below SS: There are 2 buttons to select from, either "Refuse" or "Accept", however in Serbia's case I cannot refuse the surrender offer (refuse button will not activate), the only option left is to accept surrender, that completes the end of my turn. There are 2 Serb units on the map, one occupies Centinje fort, which I would like on the CP side of the ledger and eliminate any chance that Entente could DOW on Serbia only to capture Centinje later in a MP match (that would be a huge problem). On my next turn I feel a sense of crossing ethical boundaries by DOW on (now neutral) Serbia to capture Centinje. there is nothing in the manual that says I cannot declare war on a neutral, however I have a feeling it is gamey.

Often countries offer to surrender, but also allows you to "refuse" the surrender, then the game continues on as is normal, end of turn. However, I think it is gamey if a player "accepts" a surrender knowing that there is a possibility of a active "refuse" button, then on the next turn or later, DOW on the same country that just surrendered then there is a ethical question (it's gamey). But, as I stated before: If I am not allowed to refuse a surrender then later DOW, is it unethical? Does anybody have any thoughts about this?


[image]local://upfiles/43885/7FE4CA8C69C446FCB9A1B1CDB4BE1A08.jpg[/image]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/16/2015 6:48:24 PM)

Kirk,

How about creating or increasing some kind of diplomatic penalties to attackers of surrendered countries that have gone neutral? Usually a country surrenders because it has reached "0" NM and, or has "0" PP, or both. I believe a surrender refusal usually means a 20 to 30 NM boost to the country attempting to surrender. How about adding 20 PP to that same country also? Even if that country has surrendered. To try to make it less enticing to attack certain surrendered countries (especially if they are minor countries).

In a MP match where I had France, my French NM went to "0". I had a fairly potent French army, supported by an equally potent English army, also a few Italian units holding a decent line to the south and west of Paris-Orleans region, fought the Huns to a standstill, they were running out of gas, end of turn. Sure enough during the turn change CP had "accepted" a French surrender proposal, which resulted in all my English and Italian units immediately being vacated from France, due to France now being a neutral. On the following turn, CP DOW on France, now CP had a fairly large army still in place after the initial French surrender, then mopped up the rest of France before English and Italian units could re-enter France to join the fight. I always felt it was wrong for CP to have played it that way, however there was nothing built into the game to discourage it, or to strengthen the hand of the French from a back-stabbing Surrender Treaty...

What I just thought of is: How about a preventive measure in the game, that when a country surrenders, that it cannot be attacked or DOW on for "X' number of turns?

<EDIT>
When I say "accepted" surrender, CP had purposely did not use the "refuse" button (For the French still had Capitals-Bourdeax and Africa).



DanielHerr -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/17/2015 5:14:01 AM)

I don't think that there should be a penalty for immediately attacking a surrendered nation. It would be better if allied units simply would not be evicted, and continue to hold their currently occupied territory of their surrendered ally.



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/17/2015 3:02:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DanielHerr

I don't think that there should be a penalty for immediately attacking a surrendered nation. It would be better if allied units simply would not be evicted, and continue to hold their currently occupied territory of their surrendered ally.


There's a problem with leaving allies in place after surrender: That means they are trapped there, they can't move through the former ally's friendly hexes which are now neutral, plus they don't own the hexes they occupy, they would be out of supply immediately, even worse than being repatriated.



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/18/2015 12:13:24 AM)

Kirk

Still finding "NO SHOW" commanders. Not too often does this happen, none-the-less it can be annoying.

Bob


[image]local://upfiles/43885/A7579F75C25F4A7F919203046D750DB5.jpg[/image]



DanielHerr -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/18/2015 2:27:57 AM)

Well, they should be able to move into their old ally's territory.



AEWHistory -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/18/2015 7:33:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

To tell the truth: I'm only going by what I see diplomatically in the low to mid 20's turns in 1.62. I'm also seeing where players are getting totally frustrated with Bulgaria entering the war, due to some relatively unexplained reasons. I might add the use of poison gas by the Entente at turns prior to Bulgaria (and others) may effect an earlier enter to war and by others a later enter to war, those mechanics seem to be somewhat OK, the reverse of using poison gas could also ring true too. As far as Romania goes: I'll have to give that some more thought and will also say that situation also get's "wishie-washie" in the diplomatic circle of the game too. The results of the Balkan Wars have left these countries with a little bad blood for one reason or another, Bulgaria taking the worst of it territory wise (a mixed bag of territory loses and gains) as a result of those wars. I'll have to freshen up on the subject to be accurate.


IMO, the CP using gas shouldn't delay Bulgarian entry. The Germans were the ones who introduced (by which I mean they were the first to violate the agreement not to use) gas as a weapon of war. Perhaps this did delay Bulgarian entry historically, but if it did then the
Bulgarian entry should be moved up for a CP player who have foregone the use of gas and/or when an entente player starts using gas. The latter seems to have some positive effect but the former doesn't to my knowledge.

Bob, you're correct about the Balkan situation. In fact, the Bulgarians had an alliance of sorts with the Ottomans by the time WWI started and had thoroughly distanced themselves from their former allies ( Eg- Romania, Serbia, Greece) for the reasons you've mentioned. Honestly, the Bulgarians had a very aggressive Tsar at the time and his foreign policy was clearly expansionist, so it would've taken little to get him into the war. Romania and Greece are really diffent matters entirely, but you're on the right track methinks.


As an aside, I have to say that playing the CP without Bulgaria is very frustrating. There is t a way to simulate this in the game, but the Bulgarians were a keystone in many ways due to the infrastructure contiguity that their entry gave to the CP. without Bulgaria the materials that AH and Germany needed on one hand and the Ottomans needed on the other, would've been damn near impossible to exchange. so even disregarding the Bulgarian military contribution to the war effort, they provided the corridor that allowed the CP to mitigate the effects of blockade by exchanging resources internally within the alliance. Like I said, this isn't really simulated in the game, but IRL had Bulgaria not entered the war then the material shortages that began to hurt the CP in 1917 and 1918 would have been made more acute and would've moved up in time, perhaps substantially. Anyway, it is for reasons like these that I view Bulgaria as far more important than its small size might otherwise indicate. It's sort of like Romania in WWII--what would Germany have done in WWII without the Romanian oil fields? I think the same thing applies to the CP in WWI with Bulgaria.



AEWHistory -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/18/2015 7:39:09 AM)

That is some gamey sh*t. As much as I've enjoyed MP, I really don't like it when peeps "game" the system like that. sorry, but I'd never do that. I'd prefer to give you a chance to move your units back to France than win like that.... I'm sure some will strongly disagree with me.


quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk,

How about creating or increasing some kind of diplomatic penalties to attackers of surrendered countries that have gone neutral? Usually a country surrenders because it has reached "0" NM and, or has "0" PP, or both. I believe a surrender refusal usually means a 20 to 30 NM boost to the country attempting to surrender. How about adding 20 PP to that same country also? Even if that country has surrendered. To try to make it less enticing to attack certain surrendered countries (especially if they are minor countries).

In a MP match where I had France, my French NM went to "0". I had a fairly potent French army, supported by an equally potent English army, also a few Italian units holding a decent line to the south and west of Paris-Orleans region, fought the Huns to a standstill, they were running out of gas, end of turn. Sure enough during the turn change CP had "accepted" a French surrender proposal, which resulted in all my English and Italian units immediately being vacated from France, due to France now being a neutral. On the following turn, CP DOW on France, now CP had a fairly large army still in place after the initial French surrender, then mopped up the rest of France before English and Italian units could re-enter France to join the fight. I always felt it was wrong for CP to have played it that way, however there was nothing built into the game to discourage it, or to strengthen the hand of the French from a back-stabbing Surrender Treaty...

What I just thought of is: How about a preventive measure in the game, that when a country surrenders, that it cannot be attacked or DOW on for "X' number of turns?

<EDIT>
When I say "accepted" surrender, CP had purposely did not use the "refuse" button (For the French still had Capitals-Bourdeax and Africa).




AEWHistory -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/18/2015 7:45:16 AM)

As I mention above, I'm right with you about this situation being super gamey. However, you have found a grey area. In this case I wouldn't have a problem DOWiing again, but I'd want to offer the opponent a chance to reset defense if reasonably possible (or some other accommodation). I agree that this is a bug and being forced the accept a surrender can hurt the CP, but accepting the surrender and Immediately turning around with a DOW can hurt the Entente, so this is the best suggestion I've been able to come up with. It is half-assed, but no matter what you do something will be off.

All that said, if there were no supporting allied units in Serbie, then I don't see why you can't just turn around and restart the war against Serbia. The Entente really hasn't lost anything and a new DOW would simply allow a nice way to work around the bug.

That's my $.02


quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

I'm having a problem with surrender offers...[&:] As illustrated in the below SS: There are 2 buttons to select from, either "Refuse" or "Accept", however in Serbia's case I cannot refuse the surrender offer (refuse button will not activate), the only option left is to accept surrender, that completes the end of my turn. There are 2 Serb units on the map, one occupies Centinje fort, which I would like on the CP side of the ledger and eliminate any chance that Entente could DOW on Serbia only to capture Centinje later in a MP match (that would be a huge problem). On my next turn I feel a sense of crossing ethical boundaries by DOW on (now neutral) Serbia to capture Centinje. there is nothing in the manual that says I cannot declare war on a neutral, however I have a feeling it is gamey.

Often countries offer to surrender, but also allows you to "refuse" the surrender, then the game continues on as is normal, end of turn. However, I think it is gamey if a player "accepts" a surrender knowing that there is a possibility of a active "refuse" button, then on the next turn or later, DOW on the same country that just surrendered then there is a ethical question (it's gamey). But, as I stated before: If I am not allowed to refuse a surrender then later DOW, is it unethical? Does anybody have any thoughts about this?


[image]local://upfiles/43885/7FE4CA8C69C446FCB9A1B1CDB4BE1A08.jpg[/image]




operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/18/2015 12:23:44 PM)


quote:

Aaron wrote
All that said, if there were no supporting allied units in Serbie, then I don't see why you can't just turn around and restart the war against Serbia. The Entente really hasn't lost anything and a new DOW would simply allow a nice way to work around the bug.

That's my $.02


That's what I have been rationalizing too![;)]



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/19/2015 9:51:19 PM)

Always look for deviations in fleet's movement range before moving your fleet:


[image]local://upfiles/43885/CC5353D9B86D41DDA3AD22D1D23B04E2.jpg[/image]



DanielHerr -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/20/2015 1:23:12 AM)

Wouldn't that be because the subs had to move around the enemy ships that were already visible? Were there any ships in those spots after you moved moved the subs there?



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (5/20/2015 2:40:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DanielHerr

Wouldn't that be because the subs had to move around the enemy ships that were already visible? Were there any ships in those spots after you moved moved the subs there?

It's not a perfect example in the SS, however the idea is: To pay attention to distortions in a fleet's movement range, no matter how suspect they (distortions) may be. There could be a juicy supply convoy hidden in either one of the distortions, you have 2 Class IV sub fleets (3 hex radius view range) , send one fleet to see if it's a ghost or not, if your lucky the fleet could end up next to a target, then zero in with the other fleet for attack.

The French cruiser is in a green dot sea hex, not the most favorable attack situation and likely in protection range of airships (turn 67), the English sub is out of the question (a no brainer). The question is: Why are all these fleets here/there? They can't see the German subs, those subs are there to sink convoys, if they can find them, they can sink them.



lookingformods -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (8/29/2015 1:52:20 AM)

Is there a download link for this sweet looking mod? if so i would love to have it.



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (8/29/2015 2:35:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lookingformods

Is there a download link for this sweet looking mod? if so i would love to have it.

Welcome!

Realize you are new here, 1.62 was an open beta patch, which does not exist anymore. Once beta patches have finished testing they are taken down so a new Official patch can be released. The latest version of this game is 1.64. To know if your game has the latest patch version: go to your game credits screen, in the upper right hand corner of the screen you should see 1.64, if not, you should look in the sub forum for the 1.64 patch download, that will bring your game up to date with everyone else. There are MODs out there, you might take a look in the above MOD thread here and I think a few are being worked on over at the Slitherine CTGW forum.

There is a serious MOD being worked on by Kirk that may be released here in a few months, however there are no guarantees when that will happen.

Good luck, Bob



operating -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (8/29/2015 1:22:41 PM)

Look here for update... Should say look here for what version you have now.....

[image]local://upfiles/43885/E5145D0DC5164211BFBFF6ED6CED2FF2.jpg[/image]



lookingformods -> RE: Thoughts on 1.62 beta patch (8/29/2015 10:19:40 PM)

Thank you for the update good sir. I'll check back every once and wile looking for the grand unveiling.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.952637