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: Thoughts on 1.60 beta 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: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 1/18/2015 2:33:49 PM   
operating


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

ORIGINAL: amtrick

Quick note. Playing as Entente, SP. Used a small garrison sitting outside its city hex to finish off a German garrison unit. It then did the advance after combat, and ended up two hexes from the city hex. Is now immobile. Not a big deal since this is pretty much of a special case, but I wanted to point it out. Need to reiterate, though, that small garrisons still don't consume manpower points to repair. Means your "real" units have to whack them hard to actually hurt, since they get a 3 point repair each turn for free. You also might come off on the losing end of the deal if your "real" unit takes a loss in the attack and requires actual resources to repair.

If I understand you correctly; When the SG polished off the CP unit it had 2 choices from what you want it to do (For it does not advance into the vacated hex automatically). (one) You don't move SG after attack, or (2) You advance SG into vacated hex as a spoil of war/combat, but leaving it 2 hexes from a city hex.

To bring that SG back adjacent to a city hex on a follow up turn, you have to have a unit between the SG and the nearby city hex or one of it's surrounding hexes, once in position you are eligible to do a unit swap the following turn: garrison<SG as an example. After that is done the SG should move freely.

When SGs lose strength points they are counted towards that side's overall combat losses, which I believe will show in the Management window in Kills/loses, over time the tally effects NM or MP. I'll have to pay closer attention to be confident about the results..

(in reply to amtrick)
Post #: 151
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 1/18/2015 9:44:17 PM   
amtrick

 

Posts: 82
Joined: 12/30/2013
From: United States
Status: offline 		To be clear, I did do the advance after combat, mostly out of curiosity to see if the SG would actually move to a "forbidden" hex.

_____________________________

RickD

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 152
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 1/20/2015 4:23:18 PM   
MarechalJoffre


Posts: 84
Joined: 12/18/2014
Status: offline 		Any news on when will the official release come out? Been waiting for it about a month now. I'm not being angry of any sorts, just being curious.

< Message edited by MarechalJoffre -- 1/20/2015 5:23:56 PM >

(in reply to amtrick)
Post #: 153
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 1/22/2015 11:22:38 PM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		AdmiralSarek and myself (as CP) are in our 32nd turn of an MP match. He asks me what my NM is for Germany? I'm not obliged to release any information, regardless, I wrote 100 NM during an in game chat (we are having a very open game, his first in CTGW MP). He was then surprised that my NM should be so high after he had sunk both my Dreadnaught fleets very early in the game. When he sank those fleets my NM did go down to 100, I'm pretty sure, actually my NM should have gone down further than that (2 major fleets worth 30 NM each, times 2 should have been a 60 NM point loss). I believe the NM max is 144, no matter how many combat victories won and, or cities captured, so at the very least "my NM should have been 84 or lower". Can anybody from CTGW explain to myself and AdmiralSarek (plus others) why my score should not be lower?

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 154
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 1/23/2015 9:48:14 AM   
operating


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

Noticed that a Fort entrenchment level 13 never changes in spite ever increasing entrenchment techs. Is this intended or not? While I'm at it: Could a numbered system for entrenching be included to show each level of entrenching, instead of a "3" signifying the highest level. For when attacking enemy hexes, there is no indication that the hex has "pillbox" or higher level "concrete bunker" entrenchments, especially after reconnaissance which most everybody uses prior to an attack and, or to see what state/level of entrenchment rear trenches have. Also. what is confusing to me: When the enemy vacates a level 3 entrenched hex on his turn, then when it's my turn there is no entrenchment value left in the vacated hex, That strikes as being wrong.

Bob

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 155
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 1/25/2015 8:33:36 PM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		60 turns in MP without game killing CTD, have 5 other matches going at the same time, no CTD on my side has stopped games. Although I have reports from the other side about crashes, but none fatal. It seems as though when a country losses NM, it is unable to increase it's NM, even after capturing several cities. The NM scale does not accurately reflect the game's NM wins and loses.

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 156
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 1/27/2015 9:36:56 AM   
operating


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

When Russia Surrenders, Finland forms an Independent country, yet it des not have a flag in the Diplomat window. Because it has no flag I can not "Declare War" on it to free trapped units in that new country, nor can I pass through it's hexes if able to make Finland an ally of CP.

On your agenda to get stuff done: Could you "Please" add Finland's flag to the Diplomat's window, also Finland may need to get it's own production window.

Thanks, Bob

< Message edited by operating -- 1/27/2015 10:45:58 AM >

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 157
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 1/29/2015 7:52:43 AM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		If a country's "request for surrender" is accepted, then on a later turn that same country has "War Declared on it" by the side that accepted surrender, the penalty should be more than just giving 30 to 40 or so NM to defending country, it should also include a PP boost of let's say 30 or more PP, or perhaps a free tech upgrade to defending units. Mind you: if it was a country that had fleets, those fleets should be repatriated at full strength and upgraded at no cost, as deterrent to violating the "Surrender Treaty". I am as guilty as others of violating that Treaty, however there should be more consequences for doing so, perhaps including Diplomatic repercussions.

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 158
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 1/30/2015 3:45:14 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2885
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline 		Sorry I have not been about recently, but my PC somehow got infected with a really bad Trojan Virus, which in affect deactivated my windows operating system,and then systematically started to infect all the programmes on my system. To solved this problem I resorted too doing a complete new install off Windows.Fortunately I have a complete backup of all my stuff,so nothing was lost.

That said I come bearing a gift,MANUAL CONTROL OFF CONVOYS!






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 159
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 1/30/2015 5:45:26 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Sorry I have not been about recently, but my PC somehow got infected with a really bad Trojan Virus, which in affect deactivated my windows operating system,and then systematically started to infect all the programmes on my system. To solved this problem I resorted too doing a complete new install off Windows.Fortunately I have a complete backup of all my stuff,so nothing was lost.

That said I come bearing a gift,MANUAL CONTROL OFF CONVOYS!





warspite1

Sounds promising!


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 160
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 1/31/2015 3:48:34 AM   
AdmiralSarek

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 1/31/2015
Status: offline 		Cool manual convoys, I was going to ask for the ability to do that

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 161
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 1/31/2015 2:04:34 PM   
wolf14455


Posts: 1196
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		Nice, I like that alot.

_____________________________

SwedeWolf

I was called Lill Sputnik (Little sputnik) as a baby in 58-59

(in reply to AdmiralSarek)
Post #: 162
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 1/31/2015 5:31:21 PM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		Yes, convoys have been a bone of contention, it will be interesting to see how members manage them. Kirk: Will this manual convoy play be optional?

(in reply to wolf14455)
Post #: 163
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 1/31/2015 7:58:27 PM   
operating


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

What do you think about when a country surrenders "unconditionally" (they are totally wiped out, all cities lost); That their Management assets go to the Victor?

Just thinking, Bob

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 164
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/1/2015 5:58:38 PM   
operating


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

Any chance that England and Germany could get an additional 1 each transport capacity at the start of their respective turns? Or when these countries get Naval Research that they then get an additional troop transport included? Since it would be about the time that commercial ships were being commandeered for military use.

Just thinking, Bob

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 165
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/2/2015 3:31:26 AM   
operating


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

If I wanted to "demolish" my own city (destroy my own PP) before vacating it. Would that be possible to have as a tactic in the game? In other words: I cannot hold the city without sacrificing the unit that is presently there, yet the city is worth 7 PP, but I do not wish to just hand over that kind of PP value. So I am looking for a solution to deny the enemy those points.

Bob...

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 166
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/2/2015 9:48:43 AM   
operating


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

Is there a reason why airships do not have "Depth Charges" this version versus all the past versions?

Bob

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 167
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/6/2015 9:12:05 PM   
operating


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

Making a request that next turn PP and PPs that are in the bank be posted on the Management page, to make it easier to figure or guess when a player may have enough PP to buy: Ammo, RR or Transports. As it is, it's a PITA to jump from one window to another, especially if you are like me, who has short term loss of memory.

Thanks, Bob

EDIT: It would be easier to spot than the Finances Overview window...






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by operating -- 2/6/2015 10:18:07 PM >

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 168
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/7/2015 2:58:45 AM   
DanielHerr

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 2/7/2015
Status: offline 		Kirk, did you use the same method as me for removing convoy movement, and will this ship in 1.6? I deleted the following in ManageConvoys, game_convoys.lua: 

if not arrived then
  -- Move convoy automatically
  -- For player only! AI should do the same in AI scripts
  if alliance.id == playerAlliance.id then
    table.insert(gameplay.convoys, unit)
  end
end

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 169
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/7/2015 12:08:45 PM   
operating


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

Slight problem: Countries like Bulgaria that have an artillery tech tree have to develop Rail Road Super Guns, but upon completion of the RR Gun tech, the host country does not have the availability of the RR Gun in their Production Panel!!!!!

Bob




Attachment (1)

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 170
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/7/2015 12:10:38 PM   
operating


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

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk,

Slight problem: Countries like Bulgaria that have an artillery tech tree have to develop Rail Road Super Guns, but upon completion of the RR Gun tech, the host country does not have the availability of the RR Gun in their Production Panel!!!!!

Bob





Completed tech





Attachment (1)

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 171
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/8/2015 3:28:42 PM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		Noticed the Full supply rule of being within 30 hexes of a Capital is in effect during MP matches! Good job!

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 172
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/9/2015 7:35:21 AM   
kirk23


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

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk,

Slight problem: Countries like Bulgaria that have an artillery tech tree have to develop Rail Road Super Guns, but upon completion of the RR Gun tech, the host country does not have the availability of the RR Gun in their Production Panel!!!!!

Bob






This has been fixed for the 1.6 official release whenever that happens.

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 173
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/9/2015 7:38:06 AM   
kirk23


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

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk,

Is there a reason why airships do not have "Depth Charges" this version versus all the past versions?

Bob


Airships carried small bombs, they never ever carried Depth charges hence the reason they are not allowed to be carried in game.

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 174
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/9/2015 7:41:06 AM   
kirk23


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

ORIGINAL: DanielHerr

Kirk, did you use the same method as me for removing convoy movement, and will this ship in 1.6? I deleted the following in ManageConvoys, game_convoys.lua: 

if not arrived then
  -- Move convoy automatically
  -- For player only! AI should do the same in AI scripts
  if alliance.id == playerAlliance.id then
    table.insert(gameplay.convoys, unit)
  end
end



I have altered a great many scripts, and I really can't mind when I changed how Convoys are handled, but hopefully this will be in the official release when it does finally become available.

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to DanielHerr)
Post #: 175
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/9/2015 12:00:58 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23


quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk,

Is there a reason why airships do not have "Depth Charges" this version versus all the past versions?

Bob


Airships carried small bombs, they never ever carried Depth charges hence the reason they are not allowed to be carried in game.
warspite1

Good work kirk23, and that is really good to hear - another example of how the original game was too heavily weighted toward air power. This is 1914-1918 not 1939-1945 after all!!


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 176
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/11/2015 6:37:43 PM   
operating


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

Admiral Sarek and myself are in our 84th turn of a MP match and have been experiencing what may be a BUG from airship/zeppllin sub attacks that cause friendly fighters to lose strength points, it's absolutely maddening, and seems so unnecessary. Below are the before and after SS of one such attack as an example.

Bob






Attachment (1)

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 177
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/11/2015 6:39:04 PM   
operating


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

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk,

Admiral Sarek and myself are in our 84th turn of a MP match and have been experiencing what may be a BUG from airship/zeppllin sub attacks that cause friendly fighters to lose strength points, it's absolutely maddening, and seems so unnecessary. Below are the before and after SS of one such attack as an example.

Bob







Attack results







Attachment (1)

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 178
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/12/2015 1:33:18 PM   
operating


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

Question: Is there any value to adding labs to a "single" tech beyond the present 4 armor labs? For it seems a 5th lab has "no effect" on tech development...

Bob






Attachment (1)

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 179
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch - 2/12/2015 1:35:00 PM   
operating


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

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk,

Question: Is there any value to adding labs to a "single" tech beyond the present 4 armor labs? For it seems a 5th lab has "no effect" on tech development...

Bob







With 5 labs









Attachment (1)

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Commander - The Great War >> RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   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

4.984