RE: Public Beta 1.02 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa



Message

Random23 -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/4/2016 3:09:43 PM)

Hi,

Awesome game. There seems to be a display issue with fuel use: when using group movement the fuel cost of just one of the units in the group is displayed instead of the cost of moving the whole group.

And I can confirm the issue Franciscus is showing, both with an old 1.02 savegame in the 1.02e game and with a new 1.02e game.



Vic -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/4/2016 5:50:03 PM)

Thanks for reporting that continued tooltip bugginess. Fixing it right now.



Vic -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/4/2016 5:53:08 PM)

Uploaded version 1.02 F which should fix the last issues caused by the tooltip repairs.

best wishes,
Vic



Vic -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/4/2016 5:53:48 PM)

@random,
Noted the limited oil prognosis issue for 1.03. Thanks for reporting.

best wishes,
Vic



Speedysteve -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/4/2016 6:13:35 PM)

A tiny one but Goebbels has a new name in this decision[;)]

[image]local://upfiles/4211/13997623A2274DE28D9CB149A1217E34.jpg[/image]



Franciscus -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/4/2016 10:01:16 PM)

Tooltips look Ok in 1.02F [:)]

Regards



lancer -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/4/2016 10:31:13 PM)

Hi Speedy,

Got it!

Thanks,
Cameron



Falke -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/5/2016 8:27:44 PM)

There is a bug with Forts. I have reported it under Tech Support since i can not upload the save file here due to size restrictions.


I guess 1.02G will be out tomorrow [:D]



lancer -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/6/2016 8:34:36 AM)

Hi Falke,

That's the forts not being their for a turn in order for your to recapture them?

As mentioned elsewhere it's probably working as designed but keep an eye on it.

Cheers,
Cameron



Falke -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/6/2016 4:49:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi Falke,

That's the forts not being their for a turn in order for your to recapture them?

As mentioned elsewhere it's probably working as designed but keep an eye on it.

Cheers,
Cameron


It is them being destroyed when retaking.
Updated the other Thread with more Details from the savegame. It is probably not WAD



Speedysteve -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/6/2016 5:47:49 PM)

Daugavpils is still referred to as Dunaburg in Decisions......

[image]local://upfiles/4211/19242FE4D73A44938CDB1E01A6F55EA5.jpg[/image]



kosmoface -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/7/2016 11:22:08 AM)

quote:

Highlighted items like Kommandante = Oberbefehlshaber have been omitted as non-german speakers would struggle here.


Okay, but why Kommandante then?

e.g. Commander means in
German: Kommandant
Italian: comandante

Is it that much more understandable for english speakers when you say "KommandantE"? Or is it just a cunning mixture between italian and german to represent the Axis more truly? ;)



Speedysteve -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/7/2016 11:34:08 AM)

Baffled on this one.

The 7 PP decision has a 35% chance of a GOOD outcome but the cheaper 3 PP decision has a 35% chance of a BAD outcome?

[image]local://upfiles/4211/5DF11C1F46234CB29E8703430236AA82.jpg[/image]



Falke -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/7/2016 4:20:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Baffled on this one.

The 7 PP decision has a 35% chance of a GOOD outcome but the cheaper 3 PP decision has a 35% chance of a BAD outcome?



I would guess 7 PP 35% - Get some Benefit (Possibly same as 11pp)
65% - No Change

3 PP 35% - Things get worse
65% - No change



Tweedledumb -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 updated to subversion F (1/7/2016 9:43:36 PM)

Play Balance via Reinforcement Scheduling - Some Ideas

Vic and Cameron, thank you for your ongoing support of this brilliant paradigm-breaking design.

My PBEM buddy and I bought this along with DC1 and 2 during the holiday sales. We decided to play DC1 first as it appeared the most approachable game in the series. What we discovered in Poland was that a reasonable human player could make a VERY challenging defense of Warsaw. My point is that a human player can defend much more competently than any AI (even Vic's excellent one). Nothing new there.

We've played portions of about 8 PBEM++ games using 1.01 over the last two weeks. In all the games we have discovered that the German side, as the manual warns, is more challenging as many things can go off the rails (pun intended). Also, the Soviet Central Front reinforcements lead to a veritable wall of divisions from Gomel to Polotsk and shut down AGC's advance to a crawl. AGN and AGS have "possibilities" for German strategic success and the Soviets are definitely stressed (particularly in the South). In the one set of two games (we always play German/Soviet at the same time to compare and contrast experiences) which went into September, the forests and swamps south of Leningrad were also wall-to-wall Soviets.

I'm not claiming that in two weeks we are expert German players, but a quick review of the forums here seems to confirm some of this experience. I applaud the experts like Michael T for testing out some of the best German possibilities! I think my buddy and I are more "average" players.

We have just started up a set of 1.02f games today and note that this version adjusts the Soviet Central Front reinforcements. This is great! We'll see how the games progress with this and the other changes (the adjusted AGN start and the Soviet "randomized" starting positions are great additions).

The other thing I noted in the forums, particularly Vic's posts, is that 95% of the people are playing against the AI only, and most of those are playing the German side. This makes sense to me. Then the light bulb popped on...

Why not provide the players with several Soviet reinforcement options?

Here's my logic for this:

Human (PBEM) players will be able to defend MUCH more competently and use the Soviet decsions far more effectively than any AI - agree? To "balance" the game and make it challenging for the majority of players (playing Germans against the AI) will not necessarily produced a "balanced" game between two expert human players - agree? So why not provide a series of reinforcement options for the Soviets as a "balancing" feature?

I throw out for discussion five possible reinforcement schedules:

1. Rapid Soviet mobilization (the hardest - for players who can beat the 1.01 AI easily)
2. Improved Soviet mobilization (harder - a challenge for players who have beat the 1.01 AI))
3. Standard Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.01)
4. Slower Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.02f - to avoid the wall syndrome above)
5. Poor Soviet mobilization (the ultimate challenge for the expert human Soviet player!)

Of course there could be a million variants on this and I would love to see more than 5, but you get the idea, I hope. The amount of programming to make these variants I presume would be minimal.

My suggestion, basically, is that rather than trying to "lock in" a one-size-fits-all Soviet reinforcement schedule, that you investigate using this mechanic as a play balance tool. My assertion is that a Soviet reinforcement schedule which works to balance an AI game will NOT be the same as one which balances a PBEM game.

I'll certainly report on how our 1.02f PBEM games progress as compared to our 1.01 experience. I think throwing out these reinforcement options to the public would give you A LOT of feedback on play balance both PBEM and against the AI.

Thanks again for this design, which I posted elsewhere that I thought was the BEST computer wargame of all time, and for considering this feedback.




Tweedledumb -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 updated to subversion F (1/7/2016 10:59:34 PM)

Under the hood design question:

In the starting (June 22nd) setup, is the entrenchment level of AI Soviet infantry HIGHER than in a human-human game?

In a quick test, I saw most Soviet infantry divisions at 100 ENT in an AI match and in my new PBEM++ most of them were around 50. Or is it just random?

Keep up the good work!



etsadler -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/7/2016 11:27:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Baffled on this one.

The 7 PP decision has a 35% chance of a GOOD outcome but the cheaper 3 PP decision has a 35% chance of a BAD outcome?

[image]local://upfiles/4211/5DF11C1F46234CB29E8703430236AA82.jpg[/image]


Probably should be changed to have a "Quiet" word, rather than a "Quite" word.



lancer -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/8/2016 8:47:11 AM)

Hi,

Thanks for the typo. Quite a mistake.

The decision options give you four different ways of handling the situation.

The top two have varying chances of achieving a good outcome with a default neutral result if this doesn't occur.

The bottom two give you varying chances of things getting worse with a similar default neutral result.

Opting for the default 0 PP outcome, or delegating (same option chosen, always the last in the list), probably isn't the best way to go here.

Cheers,
Cameron



Vic -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/8/2016 9:52:19 AM)

Version 1.02 G has been uploaded.

This should be the last subversion before we go GOLD with 1.02.

You'll still have the weekend to give it a spin.

Update the top post of this thread with link and to-do list.

Best wishes,
Vic




Flaviusx -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/8/2016 12:03:47 PM)

Folks, there is a solution to the iron wall problem and it works just fine even in 1.01.

When more people than Michael T figure it out, 1.02 is going to look pretty lopsidedly against the Sovs. I can only shake my head here that this is going gold.

Here is the short version: PG3 can flip over control of Vitebsk and Polotsk around turn 3-4, and also lock down Orsha. This makes it impossible to feed in reinforcements in these places. And that pretty much takes care of the iron wall, since the Soviet can only feed in reinforcements via Smolensk. By the time they get up into the action, AGC is past the river and the Center theater is fighting it out in the open.

Everybody but Micheal T is pushing PG2 as hard as possible towards Minsk and burning up their fuel, whereas he goes slowly with Guderian and makes sure Hoth gets fuel priority to push through the gap east of Vilnius.



warspite1 -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/8/2016 12:17:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Folks, there is a solution to the iron wall problem and it works just fine even in 1.01.

When more people than Michael T figure it out, 1.02 is going to look pretty lopsidedly against the Sovs. I can only shake my head here that this is going gold.

Here is the short version: PG3 can flip over control of Vitebsk and Polotsk around turn 3-4, and also lock down Orsha. This makes it impossible to feed in reinforcements in these places. And that pretty much takes care of the iron wall, since the Soviet can only feed in reinforcements via Smolensk. By the time they get up into the action, AGC is past the river and the Center theater is fighting it out in the open.

Everybody but Micheal T is pushing PG2 as hard as possible towards Minsk and burning up their fuel, whereas he goes slowly with Guderian and makes sure Hoth gets fuel priority to push through the gap east of Vilnius.
warspite1

+1

Please Vic, make whatever aesthetic changes and similar are required BUT please please please do not make changes to game balance this early.

There is no need to rush into anything - the game is highly playable as is. Lets get more feedback please before changing balance. My impression is that currently, against a German player who knows what he's doing, the Soviet has no chance - and others will soon work out what to do.

Making life easier for the German makes no sense at this stage.



Falke -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 updated to subversion G (1/8/2016 2:56:05 PM)

quote:

Captured fortification bug causing fortifications to disappear once taken fixed


Does this fix require a complete restart?

In a save created in 1.02F , after upgrading to 1.02g it still occurs (Structural Points set to Nil)



Franciscus -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 updated to subversion G (1/8/2016 3:29:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Falke

quote:

Captured fortification bug causing fortifications to disappear once taken fixed


Does this fix require a complete restart?

In a save created in 1.02F , after upgrading to 1.02g it still occurs (Structural Points set to Nil)


yes, fixed only in new games...

regards



Tweedledumb -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/8/2016 6:42:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Folks, there is a solution to the iron wall problem and it works just fine even in 1.01.

When more people than Michael T figure it out, 1.02 is going to look pretty lopsidedly against the Sovs. I can only shake my head here that this is going gold.

Here is the short version: PG3 can flip over control of Vitebsk and Polotsk around turn 3-4, and also lock down Orsha. This makes it impossible to feed in reinforcements in these places. And that pretty much takes care of the iron wall, since the Soviet can only feed in reinforcements via Smolensk. By the time they get up into the action, AGC is past the river and the Center theater is fighting it out in the open.

Everybody but Micheal T is pushing PG2 as hard as possible towards Minsk and burning up their fuel, whereas he goes slowly with Guderian and makes sure Hoth gets fuel priority to push through the gap east of Vilnius.


Just making sure, but you're talking about games against humans, i.e. PBEM?



Flaviusx -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/8/2016 6:45:58 PM)

Yes, PBEM. Which is altogether a different animal than playing the AI. Although I personally already beat the Soviet AI on normal as the German even in 1.01, and am therefore kind of scratching my head a bit over all these Soviet nerfs even from a single player experience. This can already be done as is.




Franciscus -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/8/2016 6:59:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

(...)

There is no need to rush into anything - the game is highly playable as is. Lets get more feedback please before changing balance. My impression is that currently, against a German player who knows what he's doing, the Soviet has no chance

(...)



Why no-one thinks about the German players that don't know what they are doing, like me ?...[:D]

(PS: kidding of course. [:)])

Anyhow, one way or the other, it's too soon IMHO to make definite statements about play balance, specially vs AI, as most gamers play.
Personally, I am in an ongoing campaign started with 1.02. It's mid October. I captured Leningrad, Rostov and Kharkov, but stalled just east of Orsha, and now I'm knee-deep in mud everywhere and fearing for the worst...
And losses, both mine (c. 1200000 men) and soviets (c. 3000000) are appalling...Many of my panzer divisions are reduced to 5 or 10 tanks...3rd PG is a crawling skeleton...Trucks failing everywhere...[X(]

I am also somewhat interested in seeing some more feedback from game metrics from Vic

Regards



Tweedledumb -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/8/2016 7:12:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Folks, there is a solution to the iron wall problem and it works just fine even in 1.01.

When more people than Michael T figure it out, 1.02 is going to look pretty lopsidedly against the Sovs. I can only shake my head here that this is going gold.

Here is the short version: PG3 can flip over control of Vitebsk and Polotsk around turn 3-4, and also lock down Orsha. This makes it impossible to feed in reinforcements in these places. And that pretty much takes care of the iron wall, since the Soviet can only feed in reinforcements via Smolensk. By the time they get up into the action, AGC is past the river and the Center theater is fighting it out in the open.

Everybody but Micheal T is pushing PG2 as hard as possible towards Minsk and burning up their fuel, whereas he goes slowly with Guderian and makes sure Hoth gets fuel priority to push through the gap east of Vilnius.
warspite1

+1

Please Vic, make whatever aesthetic changes and similar are required BUT please please please do not make changes to game balance this early.

There is no need to rush into anything - the game is highly playable as is. Lets get more feedback please before changing balance. My impression is that currently, against a German player who knows what he's doing, the Soviet has no chance - and others will soon work out what to do.

Making life easier for the German makes no sense at this stage.


Are we talking about PBEM or versus AI here? "the Soviet has no chance"



WingedIncubus -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/8/2016 7:15:33 PM)

PBEM.



warspite1 -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/8/2016 7:26:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Franciscus

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

(...)

There is no need to rush into anything - the game is highly playable as is. Lets get more feedback please before changing balance. My impression is that currently, against a German player who knows what he's doing, the Soviet has no chance

(...)


Why no-one thinks about the German players that don't know what they are doing, like me ?...[:D]

Regards
warspite1

Have a look at my AAR's - I have no idea what I am doing either. But the experiences of one or two isn't the point.

Fact is, in my German vs Soviet game I have made at least two MASSIVE mistakes as the German, but am sill knocking on the gates of the three main cities near the end. In my Soviet vs German game I have simply been crushed (there are other words to describe it [:D]) by someone who is a very, very good wargamer and knows how to play these games.

I am really concerned such a fine game with soooo much promise will go the way of say, CTGW. That too was a fine game on release, but they completely mucked up the patches and play balance such that the game was effectively unplayable (no idea if they ever fixed it as I cannot even get the game to run anymore).

This game is too damn good for that.



WingedIncubus -> RE: Public Beta 1.02 (1/8/2016 7:36:37 PM)

I'd say at least revert the soviet reinforcement back to 1.01. The changes to Soviet cards' PP costs were fine, IMHO.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6132813