RE: 1.4.2 PATCH

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: 1.4.2 PATCH

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] >> Commander - The Great War >> RE: 1.4.2 PATCH

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/14/2014 4:43:55 PM

suprass81

Posts: 234
Joined: 4/23/2013
Status: offline

Sorry for my English :) I don't have time to look into dictionary each time and I didn't have an English lessons for a long time :P I can only hope you are understandung what I want to write :D

(in reply to operating)

Post #: 181

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/14/2014 4:54:45 PM

operating

Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: suprass81

Sorry for my English :) I don't have time to look into dictionary each time and I didn't have an English lessons for a long time :P I can only hope you are understandung what I want to write :D

Suprass,

If I did not use a dictionary everyday in conjunction with every post, my English would look Polish.

Really,, what you write is beautiful!

Bob

(in reply to suprass81)

Post #: 182

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/14/2014 5:22:25 PM

suprass81

Posts: 234
Joined: 4/23/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: suprass81

Sorry for my English :) I don't have time to look into dictionary each time and I didn't have an English lessons for a long time :P I can only hope you are understandung what I want to write :D

Suprass,

If I did not use a dictionary everyday in conjunction with every post, my English would look Polish. Really,, what you write is beautiful!

Bob

If you want I can write in Polish

Może teraz łatwiej Ci będzie mnie zrozumieć :D
Pozdrowienia z Gliwic :)

< Message edited by suprass81 -- 5/14/2014 6:44:14 PM >

(in reply to operating)

Post #: 183

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/14/2014 6:40:52 PM

Connfire

Posts: 872
Joined: 7/18/2008
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

Nie m�wię po polsku, ale wielu starszych ludzi po to, gdzie mieszkam. Witaj z Connecticut, USA. Jestem ćwierć Polski, r�wnież

< Message edited by Connfire -- 5/14/2014 7:52:06 PM >

(in reply to suprass81)

Post #: 184

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/14/2014 8:18:13 PM

operating

Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

Go ahead and just blab away, I don't understand rapp music either....

(in reply to Connfire)

Post #: 185

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/15/2014 10:57:09 AM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

Hi suprass81, I have altered the Cavalry stats a little,I'm playtesting them with increased movement + they now have an assault value,I have also tweaked their Cost,MP,Upkeep & Turns.What do all you guys think about these changes?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 5/15/2014 11:59:22 AM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to suprass81)

Post #: 186

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/15/2014 2:17:04 PM

operating

Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Hi suprass81, I have altered the Cavalry stats a little,I'm playtesting them with increased movement + they now have an assault value,I have also tweaked their Cost,MP,Upkeep & Turns.What do all you guys think about these changes?

Looking more like a ground game.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 187

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/15/2014 3:17:28 PM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

I have also vastly reduced the cost off Ammunition,it cost's only +3 to upgrade per level.Also changed are Countries starting manpower to historical levels,in the photo for turn 1, you can see Austria/Hungary at 1800 which translates to 1.8 million in 1914.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 5/15/2014 4:19:25 PM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to operating)

Post #: 188

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/15/2014 4:05:52 PM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

Another bone of contention that has been fixed,is the use off the Small Garrison.It will now, not stray more than one hex from the City it starts from.Meaning that it can't be transported by Sea or Rail,and neither will you see it creep slowly into the front lines,they will now do, what they were originally intended to do,and that is defend your Cities behind the front lines.

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 5/15/2014 8:01:36 PM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 189

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/15/2014 8:30:37 PM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

German Air Ace Boelke enters the war turn 9.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 190

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/15/2014 8:34:30 PM

suprass81

Posts: 234
Joined: 4/23/2013
Status: offline

Very nice about Small Garrison. They looks as they should :D
About cavalry- I think that it should be as poverfull in attack/ defence as infantry. They can have assault (as an element of surprise attack). They should be a little more expensive than Infantry (becouse you have to maintain horses). After your changes they are to fast in my oppinion. They could stay at the former speed.
Why?
becouse in my oppinion cavalry was something like motorised infantry from WW II. They useing horses to move with high speed and fight on foot like infantry. Speed is their adventage. When war become static in trench their cost (little higher than infantry to build and to upkeep -but small differeces with infantry) will make them usless (like in history) but at the eastern front they will have chance to use their adventage in open fields eaven in 1917 when CP or Entente find a way to punch through lines.
What do you think about this?

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 191

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/15/2014 8:44:02 PM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

I will take your comments on board,and act on them,maybe Cavalry should be the same attack strength as Infantry,but I think they should be weaker in defense,as for their movement keeping it a 8 you could be right there.

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to suprass81)

Post #: 192

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/15/2014 8:45:38 PM

amtrick

Posts: 82
Joined: 12/30/2013
From: United States
Status: offline

Cavalry that can actually exploit a break through and raise havoc? Shell production that makes it worthwhile to build artillery units? Small Garrisons that don't stagger zombie-like to the sound of the guns? It's a whole new game! Any news on the ETA of the 1.50 release? As you say "Make it so"!

Now if you can just give me control of friendly convoy movement, and add the "Undo last unit's move" button ..........

PS. Just finished an "East Front" scenario. Got a few comments/observations which I will put into another post.

PPS. Thanks for all your good work.

_____________________________

RickD

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 193

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/15/2014 8:50:42 PM

Cataphract88

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/5/2012
From: Britannia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Another bone of contention that has been fixed,is the use off the Small Garrison.It will now, not stray more than one hex from the City it starts from.Meaning that it can't be transported by Sea or Rail,and neither will you see it creep slowly into the front lines,they will now do, what they were originally intended to do,and that is defend your Cities behind the front lines.

That's an effective way of dealing with the problem, Kirk.

_____________________________

Richard

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 194

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/15/2014 9:05:16 PM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

Yip I agree!

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to Cataphract88)

Post #: 195

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/15/2014 9:27:59 PM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: suprass81

Very nice about Small Garrison. They looks as they should :D
About cavalry- I think that it should be as poverfull in attack/ defence as infantry. They can have assault (as an element of surprise attack). They should be a little more expensive than Infantry (becouse you have to maintain horses). After your changes they are to fast in my oppinion. They could stay at the former speed.
Why?
becouse in my oppinion cavalry was something like motorised infantry from WW II. They useing horses to move with high speed and fight on foot like infantry. Speed is their adventage. When war become static in trench their cost (little higher than infantry to build and to upkeep -but small differeces with infantry) will make them usless (like in history) but at the eastern front they will have chance to use their adventage in open fields eaven in 1917 when CP or Entente find a way to punch through lines.
What do you think about this?

Ok I have revised the Cavalry stats,what do you think about these settings?

They now have the same attack as Infantry,and they cost slightly more to purchase & upkeep.

They still have their new assault value.

Their movement has been returned to their previous allowance = 8.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 5/15/2014 10:37:46 PM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to suprass81)

Post #: 196

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/15/2014 11:48:17 PM

operating

Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: suprass81

Very nice about Small Garrison. They looks as they should :D
About cavalry- I think that it should be as poverfull in attack/ defence as infantry. They can have assault (as an element of surprise attack). They should be a little more expensive than Infantry (becouse you have to maintain horses). After your changes they are to fast in my oppinion. They could stay at the former speed.
Why?
becouse in my oppinion cavalry was something like motorised infantry from WW II. They useing horses to move with high speed and fight on foot like infantry. Speed is their adventage. When war become static in trench their cost (little higher than infantry to build and to upkeep -but small differeces with infantry) will make them usless (like in history) but at the eastern front they will have chance to use their adventage in open fields eaven in 1917 when CP or Entente find a way to punch through lines.
What do you think about this?

Ok I have revised the Cavalry stats,what do you think about these settings?

They now have the same attack as Infantry,and they cost slightly more to purchase & upkeep.

They still have their new assault value.

Their movement has been returned to their previous allowance = 8.

Kirk,

Why is cavalry LOS a 3, should it be the same as an armored car LOS 4?

Bob

Attachment (1)

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 197

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/16/2014 6:03:26 AM

suprass81

Posts: 234
Joined: 4/23/2013
Status: offline

If Cavalry LOS will be the same as armoured cars than why should you built armour cars? this unit will became usless. I think that cavalry unit should have LOS as infantry- they are frontline unit not scout.
Also I think I found new problem. I've got the feeling that first anti air upgrade for infantry does change nothing. Enemy air units still suffer no losses when attacking me.
Maybe resolveing a problam with air war will be makeing air units more vulnerable during attack (or make upgrade better for infantry)?
(Kirk- do not upply lot of changes to air units becouse they will became to weak. I think upkeep shall resove problem).

(in reply to operating)

Post #: 198

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/16/2014 6:13:19 AM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: suprass81

Very nice about Small Garrison. They looks as they should :D
About cavalry- I think that it should be as poverfull in attack/ defence as infantry. They can have assault (as an element of surprise attack). They should be a little more expensive than Infantry (becouse you have to maintain horses). After your changes they are to fast in my oppinion. They could stay at the former speed.
Why?
becouse in my oppinion cavalry was something like motorised infantry from WW II. They useing horses to move with high speed and fight on foot like infantry. Speed is their adventage. When war become static in trench their cost (little higher than infantry to build and to upkeep -but small differeces with infantry) will make them usless (like in history) but at the eastern front they will have chance to use their adventage in open fields eaven in 1917 when CP or Entente find a way to punch through lines.
What do you think about this?

Ok I have revised the Cavalry stats,what do you think about these settings?

They now have the same attack as Infantry,and they cost slightly more to purchase & upkeep.

They still have their new assault value.

Their movement has been returned to their previous allowance = 8.

Kirk,

Why is cavalry LOS a 3, should it be the same as an armored car LOS 4?

Bob

Simple answer is Armoured cars are motorized,they have movement of 10 meaning that they can cover much more ground,hence the los of 4.

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 5/16/2014 7:14:03 AM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to operating)

Post #: 199

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/16/2014 10:17:49 AM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

At the present time Cavalry do not benefit from anti-air upgrades,would you like to see them included in this upgrade?

Cavalry settings with Anti-Air capability?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 5/16/2014 11:39:13 AM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 200

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/16/2014 10:40:24 AM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

Cavalry included in Anti-Air research upgrade?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 201

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/16/2014 2:58:31 PM

operating

Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Cavalry included in Anti-Air research upgrade?

Absolutely include them, I'm pretty sure cavalry had anti air machine guns, perhaps pom-poms and anti-air artillery when behind the front lines historically, I'm sure they were not just brushing their horses for prolonged periods of time.

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 202

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/16/2014 3:41:52 PM

Connfire

Posts: 872
Joined: 7/18/2008
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

I'm not sure cavalry should have too many AA upgrades. The key to cavalry's success was mobility and the ability to "live off the land". They tended to travel light. While this was all well and good up to the 19th century, it was disastrous when cavalry met machine guns and aircraft in WWI. Any AA other then light weapons hand-held by the riders would severely decrease the cavalry's mobility.

Armoured Cars, on the other hand, I think could benefit from increased AA upgrades, as you can mount AA on the cars themselves, as opposed to the horses.

BUT, playing devil's advocate here, are the armoured car and cavalry units represented in CTGW of the same numerical strength as the infantry units? Would either be physically capable of fielding as much AA firepower as the infantry units?

To me, increasing the AA in the armoured cars, but not the cavalry, is another step toward the historical replacement of cavalry in favor of mechanized weapons.

Just some random thoughts.

EDIT: I also see Operating's point about cavalry having AA support when they were behind the lines. I was more referring to mounted cavalry serving in their traditional roles as either raiders or forward scouts. I don't know if it is possible to do this in the game, but could cavalry's AA increase in turns where they remain stationary?

< Message edited by Connfire -- 5/16/2014 4:47:03 PM >

(in reply to operating)

Post #: 203

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/16/2014 7:39:40 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: suprass81

Very nice about Small Garrison. They looks as they should :D
About cavalry- I think that it should be as poverfull in attack/ defence as infantry. They can have assault (as an element of surprise attack). They should be a little more expensive than Infantry (becouse you have to maintain horses). After your changes they are to fast in my oppinion. They could stay at the former speed.
Why?
becouse in my oppinion cavalry was something like motorised infantry from WW II. They useing horses to move with high speed and fight on foot like infantry. Speed is their adventage. When war become static in trench their cost (little higher than infantry to build and to upkeep -but small differeces with infantry) will make them usless (like in history) but at the eastern front they will have chance to use their adventage in open fields eaven in 1917 when CP or Entente find a way to punch through lines.
What do you think about this?

Ok I have revised the Cavalry stats,what do you think about these settings?

They now have the same attack as Infantry,and they cost slightly more to purchase & upkeep.

They still have their new assault value.

Their movement has been returned to their previous allowance = 8.

I am not fond of the improved cavalry. Why would they have a improved assault value when they keep their shock value? Does not that make them stronger in attack than they deserve?

Cavalry also suffered more than infantry by artillery fire, barbed wire and machine guns.

And, as I understand it, most of the cavalry units continued to fight mounted during the entire war and making cavalry charges.

Hence, the cavalry units, disappeared from the Western Front almost at once while they continued to be at use in the Middle East.

Those units that begun to fight dismounted were not large enough to do the same work as a infantry unit of the same size. They were also converted to regular infantry rather than fighting as dismounted cavalry. The horses were to expensive, and vulnerable to artillery, to be kept for a infantry unit. And why should a cavalry unit fighting as dismounted cavalry in a trench warfare setting have a higher LOS than regular infantry?

I think that the cavalry unit should be considered a unit fighting mounted and that their values should reflect this. If you want the cavalry to fight dismounted then you have to disband the cavalry unit and buy a infantry unit instead.

Here is a wiki page for easy information on cavalry use during WWI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_I

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 204

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/17/2014 12:40:41 AM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

That's what I like to see debate,and plenty of points of view,after all we are all trying to make the game better,I know mounted Cavalry,were being phased out, and the motorized scout Armoured Car used more,so maybe giving the Armoured car improved AA capability would be a good thing,instead of the mounted Cavalry.

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 205

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/17/2014 1:32:16 AM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

Ok what about this for the Cavalry?

Small Anti-Air defense,but Anti-Air can't be upgraded.

Shock increased from 1 to 2.

MP = 2 ( reduced from 6 )

Upkeep = 5 ( increased from 3 )

Build time = 3 ( reduced from 5 )

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 5/17/2014 2:48:22 AM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 206

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/17/2014 1:35:52 AM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

What about Armoured Cars can benefit from Anti-Air upgrade?

Highlighted in green, what about reducing Labs upkeep from 3 to 2 ?

Are you for or against any of these changes?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 5/17/2014 2:41:48 AM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 207

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/17/2014 2:27:17 AM

Connfire

Posts: 872
Joined: 7/18/2008
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

My personal opinion:

Cavalry:
- Agree to small AA defense that can't be upgraded.
- Agree to shock value increase. Cavalry served as shock troops for centuries.
- Agree to MP reduction
- Do not agree with increasing upkeep. Traditionally they lived off the land. Granted that would be hard to do in winter, but having their movement reduced compensates for that.
- Not sure if I agree with reducing build time. This places them between garrisons and infantry in terms of train times. Even though they are fewer in numbers, I'd think training troopers to move and fight while mounted in formation would give them a longer training period then infantry.

Armoured Car:
- Agree to allowing them to upgrade their AA

Not sure about reducing the lab upkeep costs. Probably need to think about it a little more.

< Message edited by Connfire -- 5/17/2014 3:29:25 AM >

(in reply to kirk23)

Post #: 208

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/17/2014 11:46:20 AM

kirk23

Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

Quick update regarding next patch,the patch I believe will be for,multi platform play compatability IPad for example,also for bug fixing,mainly dealing with Multiplayer crash issues,and the fix for the Small Garrison,in that it can't stray more than one hex from the City it begins the game,no Sea or Rail transport allowed,this patch I think will be numbered 1.48

The 1.50 patch will follow this release,with most if not all, of the recent changes being discussed here,within this forum,plus some other secret at this time changes

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 5/17/2014 1:06:43 PM >

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to Connfire)

Post #: 209

RE: 1.4.2 PATCH - 5/17/2014 3:29:10 PM

operating

Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

Yo Kirk,

quote:

Highlighted in green, what about reducing Labs upkeep from 3 to 2 ?

What the stinker is about the labs is: The addition of hood/gas mask and anti-tank categories to the infantry tech column. Which I have mixed feelings about. Currently in a MP match turn 100 (keeping fingers crossed it does not CTD), A couple of turns ago upped my infantry lab to 2 labs, still 6 or more turns (maybe more) to barrage balloon, anti-tank rifles are even father away, anti-tank rifle ammunition is still father away than that. Hanging on by a thread PP wise, cannot afford any more labs, plus I may have to cash-in the 2nd infantry lab for the PP soon. What kicks my butt: Is that some of these techs don't pan out till the last few turns of the 118 turn match, if at all for some. The same could be said for naval techs. Artillery tech seems OK, except for that lame RR gun tech, which is pure foolishness to develop, even in a SP game. It takes forever to develop, then it's another 7 turns in the queue, once placed cannot be fired or moved, when it is able to fire it has the effect of a fart in the wind, at or near the end of a game, Plus it has no anti-air defense, get's blown to pieces by counterbattery defense, and superior airpower at this point of the game, it's insane.