Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Any chance that Serbia and other nations will get commanders in 1.5.0?

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Finally turn 45 March 1916 this MFer Kemal Pasha is deployed, there is still 2 other CP generals that are still being held captive in the commander queue, that would have been "priceless" to have been deployed sooner!

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Finally turn 45 March 1916 this MFer Kemal Pasha is deployed, there is still 2 other CP generals that are still being held captive in the commander queue, that would have been "priceless" to have been deployed sooner!

Hi operating, I really want to fix the games problem with commander activation once and for all,at the present time this is not down to me,I need the go ahead from the powers that be.As you know, I have added a great many new commanders to my huge mod,and they activate without any problems all of them,why they do this is because I removed all the stupid red tape & tech restrictions,in short I made it straight forward and simple,I would love to do this for the official game as well,but I await the official nod to proceed with the in game commanders script overhaul!

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Finally turn 45 March 1916 this MFer Kemal Pasha is deployed, there is still 2 other CP generals that are still being held captive in the commander queue, that would have been "priceless" to have been deployed sooner!

Hi operating, I really want to fix the games problem with commander activation once and for all,at the present time this is not down to me,I need the go ahead from the powers that be.As you know, I have added a great many new commanders to my huge mod,and they activate without any problems all of them,why they do this is because I removed all the stupid red tape & tech restrictions,in short I made it straight forward and simple,I would love to do this for the official game as well,but I await the official nod to proceed with the in game commanders script overhaul!

Hello Kirk, You know I'm just keeping a red button on the issue. Also, with the time you spend dealing with tech stuff (assuming): You might not be 45 turns (and counting) into a MP test match to see some of the shortcomings of play.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Finally turn 45 March 1916 this MFer Kemal Pasha is deployed, there is still 2 other CP generals that are still being held captive in the commander queue, that would have been "priceless" to have been deployed sooner!

Hi operating, I really want to fix the games problem with commander activation once and for all,at the present time this is not down to me,I need the go ahead from the powers that be.As you know, I have added a great many new commanders to my huge mod,and they activate without any problems all of them,why they do this is because I removed all the stupid red tape & tech restrictions,in short I made it straight forward and simple,I would love to do this for the official game as well,but I await the official nod to proceed with the in game commanders script overhaul!

Hello Kirk, You know I'm just keeping a red button on the issue. Also, with the time you spend dealing with tech stuff (assuming): You might not be 45 turns (and counting) into a MP test match to see some of the shortcomings of play.

No you keep reporting any problems, and I will try and fix them,one bit of news I have been given the green light to sort out all the commander activation stuff,I'm working on that now!

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Finally turn 45 March 1916 this MFer Kemal Pasha is deployed, there is still 2 other CP generals that are still being held captive in the commander queue, that would have been "priceless" to have been deployed sooner!

Hi operating, I really want to fix the games problem with commander activation once and for all,at the present time this is not down to me,I need the go ahead from the powers that be.As you know, I have added a great many new commanders to my huge mod,and they activate without any problems all of them,why they do this is because I removed all the stupid red tape & tech restrictions,in short I made it straight forward and simple,I would love to do this for the official game as well,but I await the official nod to proceed with the in game commanders script overhaul!

Hello Kirk, You know I'm just keeping a red button on the issue. Also, with the time you spend dealing with tech stuff (assuming): You might not be 45 turns (and counting) into a MP test match to see some of the shortcomings of play.

No you keep reporting any problems, and I will try and fix them,one bit of news I have been given the green light to sort out all the commander activation stuff,I'm working on that now!

Yippie-Kiiyooo-Kiiyaaa! Miracles never cease! Unbelievable! Justice will be done! An Act of Congress! Praise be the Lord! THANK GOD!!!!!!

quote:

Kirk,

What is NM% loss to owner for losing city?

Curious, Bob

<edit>

Is the NM% loss the same for losing a capital city vs city or fort?

< Message edited by operating -- 4/9/2014 2:30:38 PM >

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

Kirk,

What is NM% loss to owner for losing city?

Curious, Bob

<edit>

Is the NM% loss the same for losing a capital city vs city or fort?

< Message edited by operating -- 4/9/2014 2:30:38 PM >

Kirk,

Read page 26 about National Morale (NM) in the Manual: it does not explain the difference in NM percentages between Capital Cities and Cities, only that one is greater than the other. Forts are not covered in this section as to losing or capturing and it's effect on NM. Nor, is there any reference to cities with ports (which are of additional value) (supply fleet destination). Trying to weigh in on an MP end game strategy, where I am losing on one front, yet winning on another, need some hard numbers.

Thanks, Bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

Kirk,

What is NM% loss to owner for losing city?

Curious, Bob

<edit>

Is the NM% loss the same for losing a capital city vs city or fort?

< Message edited by operating -- 4/9/2014 2:30:38 PM >

Kirk,

Read page 26 about National Morale (NM) in the Manual: it does not explain the difference in NM percentages between Capital Cities and Cities, only that one is greater than the other. Forts are not covered in this section as to losing or capturing and it's effect on NM. Nor, is there any reference to cities with ports (which are of additional value) (supply fleet destination). Trying to weigh in on an MP end game strategy, where I am losing on one front, yet winning on another, need some hard numbers.

Thanks, Bob

Hi Bob,I tracked this down in the Game Morale script.

The heading states NO LONGER USED?

-- no longer used
--~ function CaptureMoraleEffect(captor, construction)
--~ if construction.type == Construction.TYPE_CITY or construction.type == Construction.TYPE_FORTRESS then
--~ -- morale loss for original owner
--~ local owner = construction.hex.originalFaction
--~ ChangeFactionMorale(owner, -100)

--~ -- morale boost for captor's factions
--~ for faction in captor.factions do
--~ ChangeFactionMorale(faction, 50)
--~ end
--~ elseif construction.type == Construction.TYPE_CAPITAL then
--~ -- morale loss for original owner
--~ local owner = construction.hex.originalFaction
--~ ChangeFactionMorale(owner, -200)

--~ -- morale boost for captor's factions
--~ for faction in captor.factions do
--~ ChangeFactionMorale(faction, 100)
--~ end
--~ end
--~ end

If you loose a City or Fortress = -10% Morale loss to your Nation.
If you loose a Capital City = -20% Morale loss to your Nation.

If you Capture a City or Fortress = +5 Morale boost.
If you Capture a Capital City = +10 Morale boost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

France just surrendered in my game versus the AI. I had captured every city and fort in mainland France and sunk their BB before France surrendered. It took me almost a year to subdue France after I had captured Paris. I had also sunk two of the French convoys. After the peace France only control three hexes, in mainland France, located next to Switzerland. Is this as intended?

quote:

Another event happened today: Where a match suddenly ended. It turns out, my opponent accidently hit the "surrender button" , fortunately, it was turn 12 and not later in a match, also he was beating me bad in Serbia, so I did not feel real bad about the result, but was puzzled when it happened. So he posted another MP match, now we are at each other throats again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

Another event happened today: Where a match suddenly ended. It turns out, my opponent accidently hit the "surrender button" , fortunately, it was turn 12 and not later in a match, also he was beating me bad in Serbia, so I did not feel real bad about the result, but was puzzled when it happened. So he posted another MP match, now we are at each other throats again.

Kirk,

Might there be consideration for a double click for the "Surrender Button" in MP, so that an accident is less likely of happening to end a match prematurely?

Thanks, Bob

<edit>
There is NO automatic save games or save games in MP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk,

MP match: Entente declared War on Switzerland.

Question: Should have Italy gone from Entente to Neutral, when Entente declares war on Switzerland? OR, Should/could have Italy switched from Entente to CP?

FYI: When CP declares war on Switzerland, Italy goes on the march to war against CP (X # of turns) (if not immediately).

There seems to be something missing with this Diplomatic/political picture, that just does not seem right to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk,

MP match: Entente declared War on Switzerland.

Question: Should have Italy gone from Entente to Neutral, when Entente declares war on Switzerland? OR, Should/could have Italy switched from Entente to CP?

FYI: When CP declares war on Switzerland, Italy goes on the march to war against CP (X # of turns) (if not immediately).

There seems to be something missing with this Diplomatic/political picture, that just does not seem right to me.

In the above information box says: "Swiss and Italians have a strong relationship", Where is the Diplomatic fallout from other nations from this statement?

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

France just surrendered in my game versus the AI. I had captured every city and fort in mainland France and sunk their BB before France surrendered. It took me almost a year to subdue France after I had captured Paris. I had also sunk two of the French convoys. After the peace France only control three hexes, in mainland France, located next to Switzerland. Is this as intended?

I believe because it was "not" a unconditional surrender, those 3 hexes stayed French, also to bolster that thought: if any French/freindly units occupied one or more of those hexes (of course they would be trapped there), Plus, if the Italians are still in the game they can not enter a neutral country, unless they declare war on them (France).. It's surprising how hard it is to conquer France, with the French Algerian capital. It must be a relief to have bagged France. Did read in the manual about surrenders recently concerning hexes, which had to do with freindlies occupying surrendered hexes. Where friendlies would be evacuated to the owning nations' production queue (as a result of neutrality), not whole lot of info about your situation, (which is a consistent theme throughout the manual). Good going! What's next?

quote:

France, as I stated above, surrendered late 1915 as did Italy. Italy was the easiest country of 'em all to get to surrender. Once their initial line was breached Italy didn't really offer any resistance. Just a few units were needed to knock Italy out of the war. Funnily enough there were several Italian units in France as I captured Rome and the rest of Italy.

In 1916 USA and Romania and Portugal entered the war. During 1916 I knocked out Romania and Russia. I also declared war on Spain in order to get to Portugal. For a while it was tough going in Spain.

Great Britain, Spain and Portugal surrendered in 1917 and I gained a port in Canada.

And during the summer on 1918 USA surrendered for a ultimate victory for the Central Powers.

Edit: All in all a lot of fun. But I still think that the game favour the Triple Entente a bit to much. Beating the Central Powers, controlled by the AIO, is much easier and faster.

Edit2: Several times I got the feeling that the AIO cheated. It seemed to have abilities and production not available to a human opponent.

< Message edited by Orm -- 4/27/2014 2:50:30 PM >

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

In this game against a "normal" AI Serbia surrendered just as Italy entered the war during 1915.

quote:

France, as I stated above, surrendered late 1915 as did Italy. Italy was the easiest country of 'em all to get to surrender. Once their initial line was breached Italy didn't really offer any resistance. Just a few units were needed to knock Italy out of the war. Funnily enough there were several Italian units in France as I captured Rome and the rest of Italy.

In 1916 USA and Romania and Portugal entered the war. During 1916 I knocked out Romania and Russia. I also declared war on Spain in order to get to Portugal. For a while it was tough going in Spain.

Great Britain, Spain and Portugal surrendered in 1917 and I gained a port in Canada.

And during the summer on 1918 USA surrendered for a ultimate victory for the Central Powers.

Edit: All in all a lot of fun. But I still think that the game favour the Triple Entente a bit to much. Beating the Central Powers, controlled by the AIO, is much easier and faster.

Edit2: Several times I got the feeling that the AIO cheated. It seemed to have abilities and production not available to a human opponent.

< Message edited by Orm -- 4/27/2014 2:50:30 PM >

Yes, Italy enters May 1915 with 20 PP in hand, but -8 in per turn production. Have to wonder how the AI deals with that? The AI definitely "cheats", if it didn't, the game would have been mush in SP. What the parameters are for the AI cheat is a closely guarded secret. If you have access to the game code, it might tell you how much there.

Never made sense to me why Italian units are active in France, then at the same time French units are active in Italy. I can understand where the French come to aid the Italians early on, till the Italians man-up, but if France is in trouble, it should be "France First", then go help save Rome, but not at Frances' peril. The efficiency loss by both nations using RR senselessly, is just plain stupid.

In 1.30, it was easier to take Portugal with transports, but now they are so expensive in 1.4.2, it almost leads a player to have to go through Spain, which is rather interesting to do and must of been time consuming (it's a big country). I don't know if I would attempt it in MP.

Why did America surrender? Were you able to send enough units there to subdue them, or were they just lonely and decided to give up?

Have been avocating /hoping that there might be different parameters for CP AI, for they are a push over in SP. Especially, as a game progresses, the Ententes' production % percentages go up with each turn to where it is a superpower.

Sorry to say: I am having too much fun with MP to go back to SP for now, maybe when 1.50 releases, will have to do a couple of practice runs in SP to get a feel for the patch.

Thanks for the summary AAR. What's NEXT? Bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Playing the CP against a human opponent and we are in early 1915. Just noticed the Bulgarians have stopped their march to war.... Could someone please explain what the rules are on this?