Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 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 >> RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/8/2007 9:35:22 PM   
Sardonic

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/1/2005
Status: offline 		The problem is that dispersment allows infiltration.
The key to rendering arty ineffective is dispersement. This is hardly a revelation.

The game IS flawed in that.... the training involved in holding ground, as vs TAKING ground, is very different.

The Brits didnt hold back on shells at Passendale, and yet, it didnt help them much.

If you provide a target rich enviorment, then arty becomes a killer.

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 31
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/8/2007 10:58:27 PM   
Lascar


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline 		I am currently playing two PBEM games with the 1.2 beta. One game as the CP and the other as the TE. If the intent of the artillery rules is to design for effect than it seems that an ahistorical effect has resulted from the current level of artillery casualties.

It is realistic to expect the eastern front to be fluid but I am seeing a lot of breakthroughs in the west after 1914 even when the Germans are sitting in level four trenches. It doesn't feel like WWI in the west. The earlier 1.1 version seemed to give a more historical effect. After 1914 there were no appreciable advances even after the expenditures of millions of shells. Hundreds of thousands of casualties but no big breakthroughs. Not until the advent of tanks at Cambrai in 1917 and strosstruppen in 1918 were there big gains in territory. The German entrenchments were simply too tough to crack wide open.

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 32
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/8/2007 11:49:46 PM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		If the opponent is actually breaking through then you are not designing for defence.

there WERE substantial advances post 1914 - even on the Somme.  Perhaps not exactly as far as 1 hex, but certainly enough so that a 1 hex advance is not an unreasonable simulation.

Saying 1.1 was better has to be a joke  Fewer entrenchments, less artillery per hex (artillery is now 2 stacking points per unit) and more vulnerable artillery (only 1 pt required to go to D, another to kill) means there is less artillery effect...or the same amount of artillery has to be more vulnerable due to having fewer defensive troops.

IIRC artillery barrages increase in number when you increase your artillery tech - not by date.

Historically you might well say that hte allies simply did not increase their artillery tech as much as you can in teh game - hence historically they were unable to crack the trenchlines with it.  however when used properly artillery WAS decisive - the advent of rolling and box barrages made allied artillery a very effective weapon.

What often happened was that the high command stopped opting for limited gains that the artillery could support....and kept trying for the grand breakthroughs that it could not - so effective attacks on day 1 of a battle would often turn into disasters the longer the assault was kept up.  Commanders who tried to only take limited objectives would do well - the "bite and hold".

In fact this is exactly what happened at Passchendale.....it is normally forgotten that attacks early in the 3 phases of the battle all went well behind massive barrages and German counterattacks were comprehensively beaten.......but later attacks delayed due to the (unseasonal!!) rain were disasters. 

IMO the lesson of Passchendale is not that artillery is ineffective....it is that continuing to attack in the face of difficult conditinos creates a tragedy!

(in reply to Lascar)
Post #: 33
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 12:50:43 AM   
Walloc

 

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

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Saying 1.1 was better has to be a joke  Fewer entrenchments, less artillery per hex (artillery is now 2 stacking points per unit) and more vulnerable artillery (only 1 pt required to go to D, another to kill) means there is less artillery effect...or the same amount of artillery has to be more vulnerable due to having fewer defensive troops.


I can only speak for my self. Just to clarify im not saying 1.1 was better than 1.2
Im saying i like the dynamics and casulties art wise better in 1.2 beta 1 than 1.2 beta 2.

quote:


IIRC artillery barrages increase in number when you increase your artillery tech - not by date.


Ok thx for that. I just figured since i always upgrade art and therefor saw it at same time. That it was periode related.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



< Message edited by Walloc -- 10/9/2007 12:54:11 AM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 34
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 1:06:23 AM   
Lascar


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline 		I fail to understand how having a level 4 trench is not considered to be adequate defense against massed artillery attacks. In 1916, at the Somme, the British use extensive artillery bombardments to soften up the Germans and yet their infantry suffered enormous loses going over the top. How many square kilometers did the British gain from all that? Was it equivalent to even one hex in GoA?

I am not commenting on specific mechanics i.e. cost of trench points, artillery stacking, etc. but at the overall effects of those mechanics. There is simply too much fluidity in the west so that there is no point in investing in tanks or strosstruppen to achieve large territorial gains.

The kind of advances that you are citing are more of a tactical or perhaps operational nature. Were rolling barrages and box barrages used late in the war in conjunction with tank supported attacks.?

Perhaps the retreat rules should be modified making it less likely that the defender in entrenchments can be forced to retreat. Short of a decisive breakthrough it should be difficult to actually force a defender out of their positions. If due to attrition a defender decides to withdrawal, as the Germans sometimes did in the west prior to late 1918, to less exposed positions that would give a more historical effect.

< Message edited by Lascar -- 10/9/2007 1:10:49 AM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 35
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 1:52:06 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		entrenchment already makes retreat less likely due to the lessening of casualties suffered by the defender and increasing those of the attacker. Also in hte West the winner has to inflict 150% of his own casualties to force a retreat rathe than the 100% elsewhere.......so it's altready quite heavily weighted in favour of the defender IMO.

the only way the Western front is too fluid is if there is insufficient troop density IMO - 4 corps and 1 arty per hex entrenched to level 4 pretty much stops everything dead....short of assault troops, tanks and the extraordinary arty bombardments being reported in this thread.

the 4+1 formulae requires the allies to survive the initial onslaught of course, and then build up, and hte Germans have to allocate sufficient troops too....which can mean lesssening the effort in the East.....

Many German players will not do this - they will go all out in the East and wonder why they can't hold hte allies in the west. And of course that's the gamble....can you KO Russia fast enough to justify weakening the Western Front?

alternatively we used to see the occasional complaint about Russian troops ending up next to Berlin because the CP player paid too much attention to the west and not enough to the East....the CP player has a tough balancing act to pull off...and it only takes a small error for it to all go horribly wrong.

Allied gains on the Somme - http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView/worldwari_maps_map13_largerview.htm


< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 10/9/2007 2:03:09 AM >

(in reply to Lascar)
Post #: 36
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 2:59:41 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		I've jsut realised I've screwed up big time........I've been using 1.2b1, not b2!!

So my apoligies to all especially Walloc

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 37
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 3:03:47 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Np at all, ur forgiven if u needed to be. Read u dont need to be forgiven IMO.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 10/9/2007 3:25:01 AM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 38
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 4:38:57 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		I do think that there is still a bias against entrenchment. I'm kinda holding out to play a game and see how it goes before really arguing my corner on this one, but - if you don't need tanks, because they are superfluous, because any attack against a trenchline no matter how fortified will work (as Frank said) then something is wrong, IMO.

Surely static warfare came about because both sides dug in, not because they ran out of HQ points... If you attack and get slaughtered then you won't attack. In my experience you don't 'attack and get slaughtered' though, you are bled white almost instantly by artillery to the point that you have no one left to attack with, no matter what your entrenchment level.

I can understand this sort of max slaughter at some phases of the war (France and Germany each lost 1 million men in 1914 for example) but not really in others. Compare at contrast - in the First Marne, in 1914, 500,000 men became casualties in a week of fighting. At Verdun, about 750,000 men became casualties, but over a period of almost a whole year. Clearly, the conditions at Verdun were not the same as the conditions at the Marne. The difference is surely the fact that in 1916 there were trench lines and in 1914 there was nowhere to hide.


< Message edited by EUBanana -- 10/9/2007 4:44:52 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 39
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 5:07:22 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		 I agree that if tanks and assault troops are not needed then something is wrong.

but the casualty thing is dependant on circumstances.....Gallipoli saw about 8000 New Zealand casualties in 9 months 9IIRC about 1800 killed)....the Somme saw the same number occur in 3 weeks of mostly successful offensive action!!  (actually a few more - both killed and wounded)  Passcehndale saw a mere 2700 or so casualties (640 killed) in about 2 weeks of fighting (not counting breaks between various actions) including both attack and defence.

The Marne was also a much more extensive battle than Verdun - it covered a front of 40-50 miles and included 3 armies on each side.  The "front" at Verdun was about 5 miles wide and had a max of 3 corps per side - often less as individual forts were attacked, and there weer fewer troops involved at any one time - the initial German attack pitted 3 corps against 3 divisions. 

Also Marne represents much more continual action than Verdun - the later was a series of relatively short battles - often only a few days long - with limited objectives - to take one or other fort or village, seperated by weeks of relative inactivity...so saying it was a 9-month-long battle doesn't really do it jsutice - the first and last battles were 9 months apart....but there was not continual action for all the intervening time.


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 40
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 5:32:34 AM   
Joel Rauber

 

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

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Rauber
At the scale of the game, wouldn't all this be happening within a single hex?


Yes....but there's nothing in the way the game is built that shows it, except the artillery units getting left behind in an attack.

Certainly this happened at a "lower" level, but IMO the way Frank has achieved it gives the effect despite being ostensibly at eth wrong scale.

I'm not sure whether it is deliberate or not, but this design for effect works well IMO.


Good points; I am a proponent of the design for effect philosophy (witness the Wilhelmshaven discussion), so I can appreciate the argument.

Another approach would to simply have it all occur in the CRT. I.e. A high casualty failed attack into a hex could likely be representing taking the trenches and then the counter-attack that retakes them. I.e. the CRT has the effect designed in. This would be truer to scale. OTOH, it might not be as much fun as this "out of scale" method as you point out in the sense of "seeing" it in the game. And the over all effect is probably the same over the course of several turns.

So I'm more than willing to take a wait and see before forming opinions about this.

_____________________________

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

Joel Rauber

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 41
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 5:48:40 AM   
FrankHunter

 

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline 		Okay, I'm going to upload a 1.2 b3.  I've made some changes to artillery again plus fixed the cavalry-stacked-with-assault-troops bug.

I haven't reduced basic artillery effectiveness, what I have done is reduce the "piling on" effect when you have multiple units firing at stacks of units.  So a single artillery unit should still be able to cause some casualties but you shouldn't see 25 casualties when firing 5 artillery units at a stack of 4 corps.

One other thing, if anyone has a save of a strategic movement that should have worked (in your opinion) but didn't, please send it to me.  I thought that was fixed but if anyone is still seeing a problem here I'd like to know about it.


(in reply to Joel Rauber)
Post #: 42
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 5:56:02 AM   
Szilard

 

Posts: 386
Joined: 1/3/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Okay, I'm going to upload a 1.2 b3.  I've made some changes to artillery again plus fixed the cavalry-stacked-with-assault-troops bug.

I haven't reduced basic artillery effectiveness, what I have done is reduce the "piling on" effect when you have multiple units firing at stacks of units.  So a single artillery unit should still be able to cause some casualties but you shouldn't see 25 casualties when firing 5 artillery units at a stack of 4 corps.

One other thing, if anyone has a save of a strategic movement that should have worked (in your opinion) but didn't, please send it to me.  I thought that was fixed but if anyone is still seeing a problem here I'd like to know about it.




I think the probs I'm having with strat movement start happening with Russian surrender. But as I said before, this is using a 1914 scenario file which I've tinkered with, so I don't want to burn any of yr time looking at it, unless people are having the same probs with the vanilla scenario.

Can anybody confirm either way: CP strat move probs after Russian surrender, with v1.2 - yes or no?

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 43
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 7:22:51 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		I've noticed the strat thing too a few times but dismissed it. ill be sure to see if i cant get a save of it if i see it again in 1.2b3.

My personal gut feeling is that it might have to do with cross nation strat move limits. It seems but its just a feeling, that i've seen this when i've being doing alot of cross country strat moves or german moves in side for example AH where it seem u use AH strat limit not german. Countering that feeling is that i've seen it for british troops in North africa too where i think that was the only british strat moves i did.

Any how ill be on the look out for it too,

Rasmus

(in reply to Szilard)
Post #: 44
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 7:24:14 AM   
Walloc

 

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

ORIGINAL: Szilard

Can anybody confirm either way: CP strat move probs after Russian surrender, with v1.2 - yes or no?


I've seen it before russian surrenders too, so i dont think its tied into that.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to Szilard)
Post #: 45
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 7:54:49 AM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		I still think that artillery is too powerful in this game.  When you see people going all out to max out their artillery and barrage production at the expense of everything else, then its too much.  There are too many documented cases of people literally blasting their way to victory--something that never happened historically, even when the armies were not deeply entrenched.  Arty in the game needs to reduce readiness some and cause some casualties, but whenever even a concentrated barrage kills 1/3 of the troops in a hex, that is grossly ahistorical and only encourages players to build artillery (and the aircraft to spot for it) to the exclusion of everything else.


(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 46
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 8:42:52 AM   
Szilard

 

Posts: 386
Joined: 1/3/2001
Status: offline 		I just read this, "Bloody April": http://www.amazon.com/BLOODY-APRIL-Slaughter-Skies-Arras/dp/0297846213/ref=sr_1_1/102-7103789-0561742?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191908103&sr=8-1

It's a really interesting & well researched narrative of the air war during "Bloody April" 1917. Focuses on the large value and importance of the artillery spotters, as the reason for caring about air power during WWI. Lots of first person accounts giving fascinating, small-scale detail.

Reading it made me think that Frank certainly did the right thing by making air spotting such a multiplier for artillery, in this game.

(in reply to esteban)
Post #: 47
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 3:12:56 PM   
oldspec4

 

Posts: 746
Joined: 11/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: esteban

I still think that artillery is too powerful in this game.  When you see people going all out to max out their artillery and barrage production at the expense of everything else, then its too much.  There are too many documented cases of people literally blasting their way to victory--something that never happened historically, even when the armies were not deeply entrenched.  Arty in the game needs to reduce readiness some and cause some casualties, but whenever even a concentrated barrage kills 1/3 of the troops in a hex, that is grossly ahistorical and only encourages players to build artillery (and the aircraft to spot for it) to the exclusion of everything else.


Totally agree. The high numbers of casualties in my games vs. the AI is taking the fun out of the game.

(in reply to esteban)
Post #: 48
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 3:46:37 PM   
oldspec4

 

Posts: 746
Joined: 11/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Okay, I'm going to upload a 1.2 b3.  I've made some changes to artillery again plus fixed the cavalry-stacked-with-assault-troops bug.

I haven't reduced basic artillery effectiveness, what I have done is reduce the "piling on" effect when you have multiple units firing at stacks of units.  So a single artillery unit should still be able to cause some casualties but you shouldn't see 25 casualties when firing 5 artillery units at a stack of 4 corps.

One other thing, if anyone has a save of a strategic movement that should have worked (in your opinion) but didn't, please send it to me.  I thought that was fixed but if anyone is still seeing a problem here I'd like to know about it.





The artillery tweak should be a good thing...I was gettin' the 25 casualty hit with numerous stacks per impulse.

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 49
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/9/2007 5:48:18 PM   
Lascar


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Okay, I'm going to upload a 1.2 b3. I've made some changes to artillery again plus fixed the cavalry-stacked-with-assault-troops bug.

I haven't reduced basic artillery effectiveness, what I have done is reduce the "piling on" effect when you have multiple units firing at stacks of units. So a single artillery unit should still be able to cause some casualties but you shouldn't see 25 casualties when firing 5 artillery units at a stack of 4 corps.

One other thing, if anyone has a save of a strategic movement that should have worked (in your opinion) but didn't, please send it to me. I thought that was fixed but if anyone is still seeing a problem here I'd like to know about it.




I hope that helps. I had a stack of French suffering 45 hits from a German barrage of 9 artillery factors (3 units).

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 50
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/10/2007 1:43:59 PM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		Artillery in b3 might have gone a bit too far the other way - 3 pt attacks regularly (normally even) do 0 even when spotted vs 0 entrenchments.  I hit a lvl 1 entrenchement with 15 pts (5 x 3), spotted,...and did 8 damage.....

(in reply to Lascar)
Post #: 51
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/10/2007 3:51:34 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		I spose you need a cutoff point for artillery - think of it in terms of the price of the barrages versus the price of the arms refits needed to cover the casualties caused by those barrages.

With trenches 2 or less it should favour artillery, with trenches 3 maybe about the same, at trenches 4 maybe the arms refits should be more cost effective.

Or something like that.


_____________________________


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 52
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/10/2007 6:57:40 PM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Artillery in b3 might have gone a bit too far the other way - 3 pt attacks regularly (normally even) do 0 even when spotted vs 0 entrenchments.  I hit a lvl 1 entrenchement with 15 pts (5 x 3), spotted,...and did 8 damage.....


Honestly I would say that this is about right, maybe just a tad weak. To inflict 8 points on the enemy (thats 1 to 1.5 industry points worth of arms refits depending on the country being bombarded if the targets are infantry--more if the targets include artillery) you spent 3 barrage points which amounts to 1 industry point. So you got a favorable attrition result.

The fact is that nowhere during WW1 or pretty much anywhere in modern history has massed artillery destroyed an army sized force in the space of 2 months, which pre-1.2 you can easily do in this game by lining up 3 or so arty units and firing them at a spotted hex containing 3-4 enemy corps every impulse over the course of a 3 impulse turn.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 53
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/10/2007 11:35:39 PM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		No I spent 5 barrage points - it was all 5 x 3pt german artillery units - the entire German heavy aartilley park ! At the time I was getting 2 barrage pts per production point, so that's 2.5 production.  The Target was Brest Litovsk, which had had its fortifications destroyed by Austrian siege artillery, but had been entrenched back to level 1.

It was a 2-impulse turn (March-April?), so conceivably I might have destroyed 1 corps worth of troops (16 pts) in 2 months of bombardment at this rate.

I shuold ahve notede the readiness loss too, but I forgot to sorry.

And remember this was with spotting.......

Pre-1.2 shortcomings have been recognised already so there's no point repeating them IMO - we're trying to get 1.2 right.

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 10/10/2007 11:40:23 PM >

(in reply to esteban)
Post #: 54
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/10/2007 11:54:40 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		This in beta 3? SMK-at-Work?
Off the bat something in between the results of beta 2 and 3 sounds right.
Any how thx for working on it.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 10/10/2007 11:59:32 PM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 55
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/11/2007 1:24:11 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		Yes using the beta-3.

IMO it doesn't neet to be much more lethal - possibly I got a bad set of dice rolls with that example - a sample of 1 combat is not proof of anything!! :)

However the there were many examples of low casualties for 3-point bombardments by the French against the German border troops in entrenchment levels 0 and 1 that tend to support it.  6-point bombardments (presumably 2 x 3 point units) were also almost completely ineffective when the Germans got to entrench 2, only inflicting 0-1 points damage)

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 56
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/11/2007 1:51:46 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		I'm playing beta 2 with Walloc atm and it seems pretty good to me.

Artillery casualties have been noticeably lower than 1.1, at the levels where I don't feel like I'm melting away - and theres only level 1 trenches involved.

Walloc tells me my arty is doing 45 hits though. 


_____________________________


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 57
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/11/2007 1:52:01 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Sounds very different from my beta 2 experience. I cant say i have the magic formular to what is exactly right. Just seemed to me that beta 2 was over the top, IMO ofc.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 10/11/2007 1:55:17 AM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 58
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/11/2007 2:19:36 AM   
oldspec4

 

Posts: 746
Joined: 11/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Sounds very different from my beta 2 experience. I cant say i have the magic formular to what is exactly right. Just seemed to me that beta 2 was over the top, IMO ofc.


Kind regards,

Rasmus


Agree...its become so frustrating for me to lose beacoup casualties that I have shelved game until the artillery is fixed. That being said, I also don't have any additional suggestions for a fix but there must be a balance somewhere between Beta 1 and 2.

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 59
RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 - 10/11/2007 2:30:13 AM   
Lascar


Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I'm playing beta 2 with Walloc atm and it seems pretty good to me.

Artillery casualties have been noticeably lower than 1.1, at the levels where I don't feel like I'm melting away - and theres only level 1 trenches involved.

Walloc tells me my arty is doing 45 hits though.


I am also suffering high hits in my game with you. Perhaps it is because you tend to concentrate your artillery more than I do. But 45 hits is excessive and distorts the overall effect of the game.

Right now this seems to be the major problem with GoA. A game, by the way, which is the among the best strategic level computer wargames I have seen in a long time. I preordered this game 5 years ago and it was well worth the wait.

< Message edited by Lascar -- 10/11/2007 2:37:15 AM >

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> RE: Artillery in 1.2 beta 2 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.906