Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 9/30/2007 6:33:20 PM

Alex Gilbert

Posts: 140
Joined: 9/20/2002
From: New York City
Status: offline

Hi. I was taking the weekend to explore the 1.2 update. Having played through a game, I really like the changes to trench construction. I think this makes them a much more important part of the game, as it is now possible to generate high density trenches in a few months. I also think that the damage statistics on the naval display help tremendously. Overall, I think this is an excellent improvement to an already enjoyable game.

A couple of questions I had though:

1. After conquering Italy, I could not move several German and Austrian corps out. This was definitely not present in the earlier release. I am not sure if this was meant to reflect the need to garrison Italy, or reflects the bug of being unable to move corps out of conquered territory that was noted earlier in relation to the surrender of A-H.

2. Related to this, there are no longer any corps removed for garrison duties after France or Italy surrenders. In the former version, there were, I believe, 6 corps removed for garrison after France surrendered, not sure about Italy. I did not conquer Russia, so I do not know if corps are removed for Russian garrison. Again, was this a designed change?

3. I have noted in some cases that for artillery to use gas, they must load it one turn, and then wait until next turn to use it. I have checked the supply of the hex, which was 100%, so I do not think that was a problem. Is this as designed? If so, I actually like this a lot, as it reflects the time needed to organize stocks of the gas and send it to the proper units.

Again, a very nice improvement to a very good game.

Thanks.
Alex

Post #: 1

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 9/30/2007 6:47:22 PM

Venator

Posts: 96
Joined: 1/22/2007
Status: offline

Having conquered the Ottomans, I do not appear to have had to leave a garrison force. Is this intended?

I second the trench construction comment above - trenches are now very useful. The naval tweaks have helped too.

On AI strategies: if the AI is the central powers, more often than not in my experience, they do not declare war on Belgium/Luxembourg. This is a suicide strategy for them as their main thrust is still into France and they are easily contained allowing spare British and French troops to launch amphibious assaults willy-nilly. I think this CP strategy would be better either dropped or heavily modified so that they go against Russia heavily and just hold on the western front.

(in reply to Alex Gilbert)

Post #: 2

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 9/30/2007 9:02:54 PM

GJK

Posts: 554
Joined: 7/17/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert

3. I have noted in some cases that for artillery to use gas, they must load it one turn, and then wait until next turn to use it. I have checked the supply of the hex, which was 100%, so I do not think that was a problem. Is this as designed? If so, I actually like this a lot, as it reflects the time needed to organize stocks of the gas and send it to the proper units.

Perhaps the first time that a side uses gas it should take 2 months (a turn) to get it loaded, but I would think that once they start, the supplies for it should be readily available (and it may be in the game, I haven't checked).

(in reply to Alex Gilbert)

Post #: 3

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 9/30/2007 9:09:15 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

I haven't checked this in 1.2 but in previous versions you could load and fire in same impulse so you have to report this as a bug.

(in reply to GJK)

Post #: 4

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 9/30/2007 9:27:00 PM

bis9170

Posts: 12
Joined: 9/9/2007
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco

I haven't checked this in 1.2 but in previous versions you could load and fire in same impulse so you have to report this as a bug.

I would assume so too. After all, we're talking about each turn equating to two months. I know getting the gas shells from The Factory to The Front takes some time, but come on now...!

Cheers,
//TB

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 5

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 9/30/2007 11:34:25 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

I haven't had that problem with gas - I used up to "Y" vs the AI over the weekend and was able to loa and fire in 1 impulse in all cases.

It might seem a bit strange....but did you actually have a hex to shoot at? You can load gas away from the front just like other ammo so the unit is ready to fire but has nothing to fire at.

(in reply to bis9170)

Post #: 6

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/1/2007 8:22:36 PM

FrankHunter

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

1. After conquering Italy, I could not move several German and Austrian corps out. This was definitely not present in the earlier release. I am not sure if this was meant to reflect the need to garrison Italy, or reflects the bug of being unable to move corps out of conquered territory that was noted earlier in relation to the surrender of A-H.

This is a bug in the beta, but I got a saved game for it and have now fixed it.

quote:

2. Related to this, there are no longer any corps removed for garrison duties after France or Italy surrenders. In the former version, there were, I believe, 6 corps removed for garrison after France surrendered, not sure about Italy. I did not conquer Russia, so I do not know if corps are removed for Russian garrison. Again, was this a designed change?

The garrisons for countries other than Russia was missing from the beta. Its been changed so that you lose the garrison troops just for one year and then they enter as regular reinforcements.

quote:

3. I have noted in some cases that for artillery to use gas, they must load it one turn, and then wait until next turn to use it. I have checked the supply of the hex, which was 100%, so I do not think that was a problem. Is this as designed? If so, I actually like this a lot, as it reflects the time needed to organize stocks of the gas and send it to the proper units.

I have looked for this but couldn't find it. I had no problems firing gas on the same impulse I loaded.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 7

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/1/2007 9:03:12 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

2. Related to this, there are no longer any corps removed for garrison duties after France or Italy surrenders. In the former version, there were, I believe, 6 corps removed for garrison after France surrendered, not sure about Italy. I did not conquer Russia, so I do not know if corps are removed for Russian garrison. Again, was this a designed change?

The garrisons for countries other than Russia was missing from the beta. Its been changed so that you lose the garrison troops just for one year and then they enter as regular reinforcements.

I am confused to what rules currently are supposed to be in effect regarding garrisons ? Is the only change supposed to be a cut down in time before releasing any garrison (i.e. 6 turns) ?

Well you are the designer and this is obviously your choice but may I ask what got you to change this ?

Personally I think it highly improbable that German would have removed their more than one million man garrison from the occupied territories in the east within one year after termination of hostilities with Russia. After all lebensraum for their Empire was what they went to war for.

(in reply to FrankHunter)

Post #: 8

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/1/2007 9:13:51 PM

FrankHunter

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I am confused to what rules currently are supposed to be in effect regarding garrisons ? Is the only change supposed to be a cut down in time before releasing any garrison (i.e. 6 turns) ?

That is the only change, yes.

Because of the ensuing chaos in Russia even a year after Russia surrendered I can see why you'd think that those troops should be there longer.

What about the other surrenders, such as northern France, northern Italy, Romania etc?

Perhaps it should depend on whether there's a civil war involved? After all, if the Kerensky gov't had surrendered and there was no civil war would the Germans have required a million troops to stay on the eastern front for more than a year?

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 9

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/1/2007 10:10:37 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

Secure transport of food was a prime concern for the occupation forces especially so in the Ukraine at that time in the war. Even then some German food transports going through AH was plundered or "requisitioned" by AH.

That desperation will not necessarily be the case in most GOA games but I think the premise is still valid. The vast expanse of occupied territory would have demanded forces to uphold law an order etc.

Not so in the west where culture and infrastructure would have made it much easier for Germany to integrate.

In essence I think a garrison would be needed in the east in any case where as in any other situation a year of garrison could seem sufficient and regarding minors the territory to control would be of limited size.

(in reply to FrankHunter)

Post #: 10

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/1/2007 10:17:14 PM

James Ward

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

I think the garrision should never come back.
Since you can't liberate a country once it's conquered you lose all of their corps counters forever. Permenantly removing some for garrision is a good balancer.
I think getting the garrisions back will give the CP a big advantage in a long game.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 11

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/2/2007 12:15:50 AM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

One thing came to my mind.

What about linking garrison units to occupied cities i.e. instead of arbitrary removing them from the map let them be in the occupied cities with one each with the requirement of leaving at least one corps behind in each city for the necessary time duration.

As it is now there is an awkward maneuvering about to get enough lower class Corps in place before conquest.

Another consideration. Apparently a 1 SP German Corps is just as good for gaming purposes as a 24 SP German Corps ?

(in reply to James Ward)

Post #: 12

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/2/2007 2:03:35 AM

Alex Gilbert

Posts: 140
Joined: 9/20/2002
From: New York City
Status: offline

Thanks for the reply, Frank.

Regarding the delay in using gas, I can not reproduce it myself, so perhaps I was just missing something (like a target) at that point.

Alex

(in reply to FrankHunter)

Post #: 13

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/2/2007 11:30:24 PM

StkNRdr

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/7/2007
Status: offline

Frank,

Just an FYI on graphics. It is nice to have the larger map but on a 4:3 aspect monitor all resolutions other than 1024 X 768 cut off either a portion or the entire bottom text box, therefore seeing the makeup of units or battle results are affected. I have turned on the Hide Taskbar feature but it still does not show the whole text box. Am I the only one with this problem? My monitor will do up to 2048 X 1536.

(in reply to Alex Gilbert)

Post #: 14

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/2/2007 11:34:39 PM

FrankHunter

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline

I don't see that problem myself on other resolutions. I'd be interested to know if others do.

(in reply to StkNRdr)

Post #: 15

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/2/2007 11:41:42 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

I have same problem as StkNRdr too.
In any resolution if i keep the task bar on, i have too move the GoA window up so i can see buttom of window.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to FrankHunter)

Post #: 16

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/3/2007 12:01:27 AM

TheHellPatrol

Posts: 1588
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

Same here at 1024x768 on widescreen...i have to remove the taskbar and a little is still cutoff...been that way since release.

_____________________________

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 17

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/3/2007 12:25:02 AM

TheBlackhorse

Posts: 291
Joined: 6/21/2004
Status: offline

If you have large fonts selected then the bottom of the text will be cut off at the bottom of the game screen window.

(in reply to TheHellPatrol)

Post #: 18

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/3/2007 6:50:25 AM

StkNRdr

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/7/2007
Status: offline

I checked and large fonts was turned on.� To further test, I switched back to Normal (96dpi), including a reboot and the 1600 X 1200 still has none of the�text box showing.� The 1280 X 1024 will show all but part of the final line of the text box�IF I hide the taskbar and move the window up as far as I can.

< Message edited by StkNRdr -- 10/3/2007 6:56:13 AM >

(in reply to TheBlackhorse)

Post #: 19

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/3/2007 7:10:12 AM

alaric318

Posts: 366
Joined: 10/7/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

quote:

1. After conquering Italy, I could not move several German and Austrian corps out. This was definitely not present in the earlier release. I am not sure if this was meant to reflect the need to garrison Italy, or reflects the bug of being unable to move corps out of conquered territory that was noted earlier in relation to the surrender of A-H.

This is a bug in the beta, but I got a saved game for it and have now fixed it.

greetings, it is fixed at 1.02 or will be fixed at 1.03, it seems that 1.02 have not go official, thinking about buy the game, not sure when and want to know if troops comited to conquer nations will be bug on conquered of a surrendered enemy,
thanks for any and all advice,

best regards,

murat30.

_____________________________

There is no plan of battle that survives the contact with the enemy.

(in reply to FrankHunter)

Post #: 20

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/3/2007 5:37:02 PM

Joel Rauber

Posts: 195
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Brookings, SD, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco

One thing came to my mind.

What about linking garrison units to occupied cities i.e. instead of arbitrary removing them from the map let them be in the occupied cities with one each with the requirement of leaving at least one corps behind in each city for the necessary time duration.

As it is now there is an awkward maneuvering about to get enough lower class Corps in place before conquest.

Another consideration. Apparently a 1 SP German Corps is just as good for gaming purposes as a 24 SP German Corps ?

Interesting suggestion. I don't know if I'd require garrisoning every city, there are a lot [1] cities in Russia for example. Maybe garrisoning every city above [5] level or something like that.

_____________________________

Any relationship between what I say and reality is purely coincidental.

Joel Rauber

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 21

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/3/2007 5:37:44 PM

Joel Rauber

Posts: 195
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Brookings, SD, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat30

greetings, it is fixed at 1.02 or will be fixed at 1.03, it seems that 1.02 have not go official, thinking about buy the game, not sure when and want to know if troops comited to conquer nations will be bug on conquered of a surrendered enemy,
thanks for any and all advice,

best regards,

murat30.

I assume you mean V1.2 ???

_____________________________

Any relationship between what I say and reality is purely coincidental.

Joel Rauber

(in reply to alaric318)

Post #: 22

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/3/2007 6:05:38 PM

HannoMeier

Posts: 155
Joined: 8/5/2001
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline

Naval Transport:

Is it just me, or does Naval Transport also now requires an activation with 1.2beta? This really is wrong in my opinion and cripples the brits. E.G. I had to activate the british expedition corps before they could cross the channel to france.

For naval invasions this is fine.

Is there a way for naval transport without activation in 1.2 beta?

(in reply to Joel Rauber)

Post #: 23

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/3/2007 7:01:33 PM

boogada

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

I am halfway through my second 1.2. game against the AI and for the first time it really ended up in a heavily entrenched frontline across France and Italy (and even Galicia). Beating the AI became a lot harder IMHO. I like this, it's more historically acurate.

(in reply to HannoMeier)

Post #: 24

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/3/2007 7:48:43 PM

TheHellPatrol

Posts: 1588
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: StkNRdr

I checked and large fonts was turned on.� To further test, I switched back to Normal (96dpi), including a reboot and the 1600 X 1200 still has none of the�text box showing.� The 1280 X 1024 will show all but part of the final line of the text box�IF I hide the taskbar and move the window up as far as I can.

Mine was already 96 dpi just to clarify so it's not large fonts.

_____________________________

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau

(in reply to StkNRdr)

Post #: 25

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/3/2007 9:47:52 PM

FrankHunter

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline

Hopefully I'll have the PBEM and naval transport bugs cleaned up today and a new version up tomorrow.

How did you guys find the artillery versus trenches now?

(in reply to TheHellPatrol)

Post #: 26

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/3/2007 11:34:15 PM

FrankHunter

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline

Hanno, I didn't have any problem with moving British units to France without activating them. Do you have a save where you can't do that?

(in reply to FrankHunter)

Post #: 27

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/3/2007 11:38:57 PM

kcole4080

Posts: 31
Joined: 9/22/2007
Status: offline

Things seem to be as intended: siege pieces are effective, but only at reducung fortifications, field arty is toned down vs entrenched units, & units in the open are chewed up fairly rapidly.
Buying trenches is VERY important now, even if you're on an offensive.
You have to be able to keep that ground the PBI paid for!

(in reply to FrankHunter)

Post #: 28

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/4/2007 12:58:24 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

One thing I did notice is the British buying several siege arttillery units which they probably don't need - the German & Austrian ones dont' do much after 1914, & the allies might need 1-2 total to have a crack at the German border forts, but that's about all.

(in reply to kcole4080)

Post #: 29

RE: Quesstions/Comments on v 1.2 - 10/4/2007 1:10:26 AM

FrankHunter

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline

The AI bought them? For what its worth I've spent the last few days closely following the AI (only 4 turns in the last 3 days) and am fixing little issues such as bad buying decisions, inefficient naval deployments and whatever else.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 30