RE: Fatal Years for 1.03

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: Fatal Years for 1.03

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] >> Revolution Under Siege Gold >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Fatal Years for 1.03

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/5/2011 5:46:50 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

new version uploaded on my blog fixing WH4 partisan bug mentioned by Krot.

_____________________________

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 631

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 4:05:44 AM

SirGarnet

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/10/2010
Status: offline

I wsa relieved to hear that the NM not responding to losses was a bug since the Reds have been pounding the Southern Whites who nonetheless remained above 90 - I was worried that the Red casualty ratio must have been too high.

Your well-explained PDF FY Manual is a model of how this would be done. As just a suggestion and not a request (you already do so much), including the last revised date on each subsection would help flag for players what is new since the last time they reviewed the manual.

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 632

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 7:12:04 AM

Gnaeus

Posts: 22
Joined: 4/15/2011
Status: offline

Tried Fatal Years for the first time. Very impressive. I noticed that when WWI ended, the allied intervention number dropped from 10 to 6. WAD? I have the files if necessary.

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 633

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 7:38:33 AM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gnaeus

Tried Fatal Years for the first time.� Very impressive.� I noticed that when WWI ended, the allied intervention number dropped from 10 to 6.� WAD?� I have the files if necessary.

Hi,

Thanks.

NM variation depends on options played or not, random events, etc. So yes I need the files to look at.

_____________________________

(in reply to Gnaeus)

Post #: 634

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 7:39:27 AM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MikeKO

I wsa relieved to hear that the NM not responding to losses was a bug since the Reds have been pounding the Southern Whites who nonetheless remained above 90 - I was worried that the Red casualty ratio must have been too high.

Your well-explained PDF FY Manual is a model of how this would be done. As just a suggestion and not a request (you already do so much), including the last revised date on each subsection would help flag for players what is new since the last time they reviewed the manual.

Nice suggestion

I will try to include this in the future.

_____________________________

(in reply to SirGarnet)

Post #: 635

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 1:05:02 PM

Nikel

Posts: 355
Joined: 3/24/2009
Status: offline

Hi Clovis

I know you said that you were not interested in south whites unification with siberian, but just in case you change your mind, in this Wargames Illustrated article regarding the Battle of Tsaritsyn in 1919 it is said that Wrangel believed in linking with Kolchak as the key to victory, the contrary of Denikin who wanted a frontal attack in the direction of Moscow, as he did.

So a wild idea could be to give the option to the south player of a Wrangel's Coup

Wrangel would be then the commander in Chief of the South Whites, Denikin retired in disgrace of course, and could allow of a linking with the Siberian if certain conditions where met...

http://www.wargamesillustrated.net/hobby.aspx?art_id=2726

Well, just some food for the brain

< Message edited by Nikel -- 9/6/2011 1:08:10 PM >

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 636

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 1:24:27 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikel

Hi Clovis

I know you said that you were not interested in south whites unification with siberian, but just in case you change your mind, in this Wargames Illustrated article regarding the Battle of Tsaritsyn in 1919 it is said that Wrangel believed in linking with Kolchak as the key to victory, the contrary of Denikin who wanted a frontal attack in the direction of Moscow, as he did.

So a wild idea could be to give the option to the south player of a Wrangel's Coup

Wrangel would be then the commander in Chief of the South Whites, Denikin retired in disgrace of course, and could allow of a linking with the Siberian if certain conditions where met...

http://www.wargamesillustrated.net/hobby.aspx?art_id=2726

Well, just some food for the brain

Interesting idea. I will think about, as it must be avoided to transform this option in a no brainer path to victory for Southern Whites

But, thanks to Sodei's remarks, I've done these last days an interesting discovery about the number of Armies by faction which should transform Absorbfaction command in something more handy to realize

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikel)

Post #: 637

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 2:40:55 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

Just to confirm it is working. The battle below raised NM by 4 points.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 638

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 4:26:20 PM

Gnaeus

Posts: 22
Joined: 4/15/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

NM variation depends on options played or not, random events, etc. So yes I need the files to look at.

Do you need anything besides the text files in the log folder and the backup1 folder? Should I upload them here or on your blog? Thanks.

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 639

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 4:46:18 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gnaeus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

NM variation depends on options played or not, random events, etc. So yes I need the files to look at.

Do you need anything besides the text files in the log folder and the backup1 folder? Should I upload them here or on your blog? Thanks.

Here, please. Nothing more is needed. Thanks

_____________________________

(in reply to Gnaeus)

Post #: 640

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 7:25:04 PM

Gnaeus

Posts: 22
Joined: 4/15/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Here, please. Nothing more is needed. Thanks

Files attached. Thanks.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 641

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 8:23:15 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

Gnaeus,

The sudden fall of AIL is WAD, and I would say, excellent news.

The Southern White AI has chosen to play the option about German help, causing the loss of 4 points for AIl ( could have been 2 or 3).... So the AI may play this option and the consequences are working as intended.

To be fair, I'm not sure first Southern AI needed absolutely to get German help , then if it will be able to play several times the option to raise AIL by one. That's for further improvements.

All in all, Southern Whites have taken Ekaterinodar and Novosomething, that isn't so evident for an AI.

Thanks for the file, one of my pleasure is inspecting FY game played by others and seeing situations not so unbelievable in historical sense.

_____________________________

(in reply to Gnaeus)

Post #: 642

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 8:45:12 PM

Sodei

Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

In this savegame, I will discuss of the high value of my NM with SibW. AS much as I was scratching my head to find a solution without the battle bonus, now it's simply to hard for the Reds to cope my 60-70 NM points. I will end this game, trying to go for a VP win (like you recommended). Anyway, right now, the AI is loosing defensive battles with a 1:1 strengh/ equal leaders quality on a systematic basis and I believe the NM to be at fault. The problem is that with such a high NM, I can easily retreat from the front if the REds launch an attack, still be unscanthed and build up reinforcement trough RGD.

If I may develop an idea that I have already exposed. I would suggest simply putting harsher lock/unlock condition on the military leaders of the SibW. My idea is to lock SibW's leaders each turn ( maybe not Czechs/Komuch?) from the rise of Koltchak until he get official Allied reconnaissance or an AIL of 13. To have the possibility to move is units, the SibW would have to activate an event costing only NM that would balance gameplay and represent, yet again, the complicated nature of is position. I ignore if such a proposition is possible or even if it would work in the game. I am just throwing ideas because it's fun. Oh, and this would not affect the already present dissent and in-fighting events locking some leaders ( ohh they tricked me a couple of time). I do think that we need feedbacks from other players before making any change as I only played one game with such result.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 643

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 9:11:23 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sodei

In this savegame, I will discuss of the high value of my NM with SibW. AS much as I was scratching my head to find a solution without the battle bonus, now it's simply to hard for the Reds to cope my 60-70 NM points. I will end this game, trying to go for a VP win (like you recommended). Anyway, right now, the AI is loosing defensive battles with a 1:1 strengh/ equal leaders quality on a systematic basis and I believe the NM to be at fault. The problem is that with such a high NM, I can easily retreat from the front if the REds launch an attack, still be unscanthed and build up reinforcement trough RGD.

If I may develop an idea that I have already exposed. I would suggest simply putting harsher lock/unlock condition on the military leaders of the SibW. My idea is to lock SibW's leaders each turn ( maybe not Czechs/Komuch?) from the rise of Koltchak until he get official Allied reconnaissance or an AIL of 13. To have the possibility to move is units, the SibW would have to activate an event costing only NM that would balance gameplay and represent, yet again, the complicated nature of is position. I ignore if such a proposition is possible or even if it would work in the game. I am just throwing ideas because it's fun. Oh, and this would not affect the already present dissent and in-fighting events locking some leaders ( ohh they tricked me a couple of time). I do think that we need feedbacks from other players before making any change as I only played one game with such result.

Going to look at your save.

What bother me in your idea is the side effects about gameplay: having to play option would limit movement to the next turn, whit all possible curious situations that could occur, and for Siberian AI the necessity to play with other rules as AI can't link playing an option and unit movements, so it would force me to just force AI to lose NM each turn.

Now the NM variation after battles is back, we can indeed think about balance. The events I've created may be harsher yet for Siberian in NM losses, or cohesion. I could add too some temporrary locking events for some leaders .

WAht I've learnt in the last months by modding FY is the best way besides in step by step changes for balancing. Any idea, even not implemented may seed another one, much better suited to care the unbalance.

Thanks for the feedback anyway

_____________________________

(in reply to Sodei)

Post #: 644

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 9:26:36 PM

Sodei

Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

I see what you mean. I did not think of the situation in the AI point-of-view, that would obviously bring problems in the equation as the AI don't naturally get to such high NM as early as a human player would. For the proposition, I simply find the locking effect, in general, to be the most effective way to force adaptability to the player. Yet I would assume others may not find it as fun as I do.

Again, I concur with you that an idea may very well be bad or unwanted, it may bring to a discussion that would show an improvement. As such, I am not trying to hijack the mod trying to force my idea into it. If I really want to change something I would do so, I would just learn how to and that's that on my part. For now, I am just giving a view of things I appreciate in the mod and offering my gameplay savegames to permit balancing. I also understand that you have a limit to the number of changes you add without risking instability, and frequent CTD is worst then any benefit IMO.

Still, I am sure the Reds will have the proper answer in 1919. I will not rush Moscou, at least not without an official recognition of Koltchak as I would consider that this would not end, technicaly, the Civil War. I would gamble that without proper recognition, Denikin and the other groups would still fight for power. So no rushing victory is possible

, I need to properly advance my forces and try to play this mod the way it was intended to be played, as per your recommendation.

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 645

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 9:44:47 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sodei

I see what you mean. I did not think of the situation in the AI point-of-view, that would obviously bring problems in the equation as the AI don't naturally get to such high NM as early as a human player would. For the proposition, I simply find the locking effect, in general, to be the most effective way to force adaptability to the player. Yet I would assume others may not find it as fun as I do.

Again, I concur with you that an idea may very well be bad or unwanted, it may bring to a discussion that would show an improvement. As such, I am not trying to hijack the mod trying to force my idea into it. If I really want to change something I would do so, I would just learn how to and that's that on my part. For now, I am just giving a view of things I appreciate in the mod and offering my gameplay savegames to permit balancing. I also understand that you have a limit to the number of changes you add without risking instability, and frequent CTD is worst then any benefit IMO.

Still, I am sure the Reds will have the proper answer in 1919. I will not rush Moscou, at least not without an official recognition of Koltchak as I would consider that this would not end, technicaly, the Civil War. I would gamble that without proper recognition, Denikin and the other groups would still fight for power. So no rushing victory is possible , I need to properly advance my forces and try to play this mod the way it was intended to be played, as per your recommendation.

Don't worry, I'm not considering you're trying to hijack FY

There's obviously work to be done for balancing Siberians. When i will have taken my decision, I will explain why and voila, it's my mod I build for myself first

. You know, if I wasn't considering your proposals, I would just say no then keep silent about your messages

However, so much in FY is coming from players feedback and proposals I known I may be wrong on certain points.

You have a real quality I appreciate above anything: you play the game before doing remarks and proposals. You would be astonished by the number of guys writing long messages about their pet idea without having actually played a game...The best wat=y to convince me is first to send me a backup of a current game, for this reason. Even when disagreeing, I will always respect those trying before talking. They know their stuff

< Message edited by Chliperic -- 9/6/2011 9:45:09 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Sodei)

Post #: 646

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 10:00:04 PM

Sodei

Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

It's funny since the only reason I participate here, with my reports and comments, is that I play alot and truly appreciate the mod. You often say you may be wrong but rather then implamting any idea right away or inputing a little gameplay balancing detail out of cheer recommendation, you actually think that point through. You care enough for your mod, to me, with that simple fact. Each decision, as simple as it may seem, is always explained to justify it. I would say that you are honest in your modding. You won't move on something simply because people don't like X or Y. After all you do build this mod for your own pleasure... Selfish man

. We are simply poor test subject to a many-named mad scientist

. Just joking, much love and respect!

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 647

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 10:05:52 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sodei

It's funny since the only reason I participate here, with my reports and comments, is that I play alot and truly appreciate the mod. You often say you may be wrong but rather then implamting any idea right away or inputing a little gameplay balancing detail out of cheer recommendation, you actually think that point through. You care enough for your mod, to me, with that simple fact. Each decision, as simple as it may seem, is always explained to justify it. I would say that you are honest in your modding. You won't move on something simply because people don't like X or Y. After all you do build this mod for your own pleasure... Selfish man. We are simply poor test subject to a many-named mad scientist. Just joking, much love and respect!

At least, I don't force you to eat my pancakes

_____________________________

(in reply to Sodei)

Post #: 648

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/6/2011 10:49:47 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

Uploaded on my blog a new version of FY, yet in RC state ( even if there's no risk of huge bugs considering the games currently played).

Available on my blog ( see my sig). Compatible with ongoing games.

What's new?

- Siberian Whites should lose more NM by events both in the historical path and the unite faction option ( balance inclined, but the events themselves exist for long and have been created to represent the fragility of this faction due to internal dissensions, lack of clear political program which undermined this side, and can't be accurately represented by loyalty mechanism of the engine.)

- increased chance of firing events locking for one turn some Sib units until october 18 in the historical path game ( without playing Unite Siberians option). This rule applies both to player and AI. The AI could suffer, but as I've been soemtimes surprised to see AGE AI able to cope with some harsh events, I ust hope it could be the case. Here too, the event exists since long and represents the lack of cooperation between Komuch and rightist leaders during these crucial months. Czechs shouldn't be affected by this event.

Notes: the Sibe events are mostly based on nM level. Current unbalance is due to the easiness Siberian player has to maintain NM to very high levels. A divided faction has obviously NM troubles unaccurately figured in FY. I 've yet to find the perfect events set to allow player to reach very hgh level, but with difficulty, without hampering Siberian AI too much... I'm not sure to have gotten yet this result.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 649

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/7/2011 1:23:22 AM

Gnaeus

Posts: 22
Joined: 4/15/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Gnaeus,

The sudden fall of AIL is WAD, and I would say, excellent news.

The Southern White AI has chosen to play the option about German help, causing the loss of 4 points for AIl ( could have been 2 or 3).... So the AI may play this option and the consequences are working as intended.

Excellent news indeed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

Thanks for the file, one of my pleasure is inspecting FY game played by others and seeing situations not so unbelievable in historical sense.

Thank you for creating this great mod. I'll let you know if I notice anything else.

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 650

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/7/2011 12:46:31 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

Early March 1919. Czech attack at Nizhny Novgorod. There were more Reds than expected but the Czechs still prevail! NM raised by 6 points.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Gnaeus)

Post #: 651

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/7/2011 12:47:14 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

...and...

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 652

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/7/2011 12:52:03 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

I suppose you're on unhistorical path option, explaining why Czech are yet here

Your NM must be beyond 120. Are you playing with the very last FY version or the same you used when you have begun this game?

_____________________________

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 653

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/7/2011 12:55:48 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gnaeus

Thank you for creating this great mod. I'll let you know if I notice anything else.

You will notice something else

i'm just a modest craftman, working on what will not be the game of the Century, just an enjoyable one. Rather unfrequent, enjoyable games

BTW , Keke, I've seen your new Ageod avatar...

I was sure you would develop after a few Fatal Years game some respect for Uncle Joe.

_____________________________

(in reply to Gnaeus)

Post #: 654

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/7/2011 1:46:37 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic

I suppose you're on unhistorical path option, explaining why Czech are yet here Your NM must be beyond 120. Are you playing with the very last FY version or the same you used when you have begun this game?

Yes, it's a new game, latest version with unhistorical path. NM is over 120, but it slipped to 119 for one turn, which triggered Czech desertions (I guess). Desertions have been noticeable but not yet unmanageable. Red garrison at Nizhny is still holding, and Ordzhosomething came back reinforced!

Regarding the avatar, I was looking info on Triumph of Chaos, and found the picture of happy Joe. I just had to use it.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 655

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/7/2011 2:28:11 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

"American tanks" -event doesn't seem to work, not in this nor in my previous game. No EPs are spent and no tanks appear. Attached is the latest save and backup1.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 656

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/7/2011 2:32:32 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

"American tanks" -event doesn't seem to work, not in this nor in my previous game. No EPs are spent and no tanks appear. Attached is the latest save and backup1.

Bug indeed. solved. next version.

_____________________________

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 657

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/7/2011 4:01:08 PM

Sodei

Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

I am not sure if this is a bug or simply a coincidence but the Komuch Fluvial Destroyer cannot be build anywhere. Maybe it could be in Saratov but I don't have sufficient loaylty ( it starts at some low-level).

Also, since I love those Cossacks stats I would need to ask, how hard is the penalty for those troops if they fight outside of there theather? I would specialized them as more elite-like unit unless they receive something like a 30% hit or something.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Sodei -- 9/7/2011 4:04:42 PM >

(in reply to Chilperic)

Post #: 658

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/7/2011 5:06:26 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

Clovis, for the next version you may want to add this fine-tuned weather mod attached here. Adjustments were made according to my testing experience, especially for spring and autumn weather.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Sodei)

Post #: 659

RE: Fatal Years for 1.03 - 9/7/2011 8:06:33 PM

Chilperic

Posts: 964
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Clovis, for the next version you may want to add this fine-tuned weather mod attached here. Adjustments were made according to my testing experience, especially for spring and autumn weather.

Thanks. It will be in the next version

_____________________________

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 660