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: Public Beta 1.02

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa >> RE: Public Beta 1.02 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/4/2016 3:09:43 PM   
Random23

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 1/4/2016
Status: offline 		Hi,

Awesome game. There seems to be a display issue with fuel use: when using group movement the fuel cost of just one of the units in the group is displayed instead of the cost of moving the whole group.

And I can confirm the issue Franciscus is showing, both with an old 1.02 savegame in the 1.02e game and with a new 1.02e game.

(in reply to Franciscus)
Post #: 61
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/4/2016 5:50:03 PM   
Vic


Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks for reporting that continued tooltip bugginess. Fixing it right now.

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to Random23)
Post #: 62
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/4/2016 5:53:08 PM   
Vic


Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline 		Uploaded version 1.02 F which should fix the last issues caused by the tooltip repairs.

best wishes,
Vic

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 63
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/4/2016 5:53:48 PM   
Vic


Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline 		@random,
Noted the limited oil prognosis issue for 1.03. Thanks for reporting.

best wishes,
Vic

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 64
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/4/2016 6:13:35 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		A tiny one but Goebbels has a new name in this decision




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 65
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/4/2016 10:01:16 PM   
Franciscus


Posts: 809
Joined: 12/22/2010
From: Portugal
Status: offline 		Tooltips look Ok in 1.02F

Regards

_____________________________

Former AJE team member

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 66
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/4/2016 10:31:13 PM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline 		Hi Speedy,

Got it!

Thanks,
Cameron

(in reply to Franciscus)
Post #: 67
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/5/2016 8:27:44 PM   
Falke

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline 		There is a bug with Forts. I have reported it under Tech Support since i can not upload the save file here due to size restrictions.


I guess 1.02G will be out tomorrow

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 68
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/6/2016 8:34:36 AM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline 		Hi Falke,

That's the forts not being their for a turn in order for your to recapture them?

As mentioned elsewhere it's probably working as designed but keep an eye on it.

Cheers,
Cameron

(in reply to Falke)
Post #: 69
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/6/2016 4:49:17 PM   
Falke

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi Falke,

That's the forts not being their for a turn in order for your to recapture them?

As mentioned elsewhere it's probably working as designed but keep an eye on it.

Cheers,
Cameron


It is them being destroyed when retaking.
Updated the other Thread with more Details from the savegame. It is probably not WAD

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 70
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/6/2016 5:47:49 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Daugavpils is still referred to as Dunaburg in Decisions......




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Falke)
Post #: 71
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/7/2016 11:22:08 AM   
kosmoface

 

Posts: 111
Joined: 8/10/2010
Status: offline
quote:

Highlighted items like Kommandante = Oberbefehlshaber have been omitted as non-german speakers would struggle here.


Okay, but why Kommandante then?

e.g. Commander means in
German: Kommandant
Italian: comandante

Is it that much more understandable for english speakers when you say "KommandantE"? Or is it just a cunning mixture between italian and german to represent the Axis more truly? ;)

(in reply to mannerheim4)
Post #: 72
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/7/2016 11:34:08 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Baffled on this one.

The 7 PP decision has a 35% chance of a GOOD outcome but the cheaper 3 PP decision has a 35% chance of a BAD outcome?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to kosmoface)
Post #: 73
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/7/2016 4:20:03 PM   
Falke

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Baffled on this one.

The 7 PP decision has a 35% chance of a GOOD outcome but the cheaper 3 PP decision has a 35% chance of a BAD outcome?



I would guess 7 PP 35% - Get some Benefit (Possibly same as 11pp)
65% - No Change

3 PP 35% - Things get worse
65% - No change

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 74
RE: Public Beta 1.02 updated to subversion F - 1/7/2016 9:43:36 PM   
Tweedledumb

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 12/29/2015
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		Play Balance via Reinforcement Scheduling - Some Ideas

Vic and Cameron, thank you for your ongoing support of this brilliant paradigm-breaking design.

My PBEM buddy and I bought this along with DC1 and 2 during the holiday sales. We decided to play DC1 first as it appeared the most approachable game in the series. What we discovered in Poland was that a reasonable human player could make a VERY challenging defense of Warsaw. My point is that a human player can defend much more competently than any AI (even Vic's excellent one). Nothing new there.

We've played portions of about 8 PBEM++ games using 1.01 over the last two weeks. In all the games we have discovered that the German side, as the manual warns, is more challenging as many things can go off the rails (pun intended). Also, the Soviet Central Front reinforcements lead to a veritable wall of divisions from Gomel to Polotsk and shut down AGC's advance to a crawl. AGN and AGS have "possibilities" for German strategic success and the Soviets are definitely stressed (particularly in the South). In the one set of two games (we always play German/Soviet at the same time to compare and contrast experiences) which went into September, the forests and swamps south of Leningrad were also wall-to-wall Soviets.

I'm not claiming that in two weeks we are expert German players, but a quick review of the forums here seems to confirm some of this experience. I applaud the experts like Michael T for testing out some of the best German possibilities! I think my buddy and I are more "average" players.

We have just started up a set of 1.02f games today and note that this version adjusts the Soviet Central Front reinforcements. This is great! We'll see how the games progress with this and the other changes (the adjusted AGN start and the Soviet "randomized" starting positions are great additions).

The other thing I noted in the forums, particularly Vic's posts, is that 95% of the people are playing against the AI only, and most of those are playing the German side. This makes sense to me. Then the light bulb popped on...

Why not provide the players with several Soviet reinforcement options?

Here's my logic for this:

Human (PBEM) players will be able to defend MUCH more competently and use the Soviet decsions far more effectively than any AI - agree? To "balance" the game and make it challenging for the majority of players (playing Germans against the AI) will not necessarily produced a "balanced" game between two expert human players - agree? So why not provide a series of reinforcement options for the Soviets as a "balancing" feature?

I throw out for discussion five possible reinforcement schedules:

1. Rapid Soviet mobilization (the hardest - for players who can beat the 1.01 AI easily)
2. Improved Soviet mobilization (harder - a challenge for players who have beat the 1.01 AI))
3. Standard Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.01)
4. Slower Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.02f - to avoid the wall syndrome above)
5. Poor Soviet mobilization (the ultimate challenge for the expert human Soviet player!)

Of course there could be a million variants on this and I would love to see more than 5, but you get the idea, I hope. The amount of programming to make these variants I presume would be minimal.

My suggestion, basically, is that rather than trying to "lock in" a one-size-fits-all Soviet reinforcement schedule, that you investigate using this mechanic as a play balance tool. My assertion is that a Soviet reinforcement schedule which works to balance an AI game will NOT be the same as one which balances a PBEM game.

I'll certainly report on how our 1.02f PBEM games progress as compared to our 1.01 experience. I think throwing out these reinforcement options to the public would give you A LOT of feedback on play balance both PBEM and against the AI.

Thanks again for this design, which I posted elsewhere that I thought was the BEST computer wargame of all time, and for considering this feedback.


(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 75
RE: Public Beta 1.02 updated to subversion F - 1/7/2016 10:59:34 PM   
Tweedledumb

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 12/29/2015
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		Under the hood design question:

In the starting (June 22nd) setup, is the entrenchment level of AI Soviet infantry HIGHER than in a human-human game?

In a quick test, I saw most Soviet infantry divisions at 100 ENT in an AI match and in my new PBEM++ most of them were around 50. Or is it just random?

Keep up the good work!

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 76
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/7/2016 11:27:41 PM   
etsadler

 

Posts: 148
Joined: 4/27/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Baffled on this one.

The 7 PP decision has a 35% chance of a GOOD outcome but the cheaper 3 PP decision has a 35% chance of a BAD outcome?





Probably should be changed to have a "Quiet" word, rather than a "Quite" word.

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 77
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/8/2016 8:47:11 AM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline 		Hi,

Thanks for the typo. Quite a mistake.

The decision options give you four different ways of handling the situation.

The top two have varying chances of achieving a good outcome with a default neutral result if this doesn't occur.

The bottom two give you varying chances of things getting worse with a similar default neutral result.

Opting for the default 0 PP outcome, or delegating (same option chosen, always the last in the list), probably isn't the best way to go here.

Cheers,
Cameron

(in reply to etsadler)
Post #: 78
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/8/2016 9:52:19 AM   
Vic


Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline 		Version 1.02 G has been uploaded.

This should be the last subversion before we go GOLD with 1.02.

You'll still have the weekend to give it a spin.

Update the top post of this thread with link and to-do list.

Best wishes,
Vic



_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 79
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/8/2016 12:03:47 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Folks, there is a solution to the iron wall problem and it works just fine even in 1.01.

When more people than Michael T figure it out, 1.02 is going to look pretty lopsidedly against the Sovs. I can only shake my head here that this is going gold.

Here is the short version: PG3 can flip over control of Vitebsk and Polotsk around turn 3-4, and also lock down Orsha. This makes it impossible to feed in reinforcements in these places. And that pretty much takes care of the iron wall, since the Soviet can only feed in reinforcements via Smolensk. By the time they get up into the action, AGC is past the river and the Center theater is fighting it out in the open.

Everybody but Micheal T is pushing PG2 as hard as possible towards Minsk and burning up their fuel, whereas he goes slowly with Guderian and makes sure Hoth gets fuel priority to push through the gap east of Vilnius.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 80
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/8/2016 12:17:37 PM   
warspite1


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

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Folks, there is a solution to the iron wall problem and it works just fine even in 1.01.

When more people than Michael T figure it out, 1.02 is going to look pretty lopsidedly against the Sovs. I can only shake my head here that this is going gold.

Here is the short version: PG3 can flip over control of Vitebsk and Polotsk around turn 3-4, and also lock down Orsha. This makes it impossible to feed in reinforcements in these places. And that pretty much takes care of the iron wall, since the Soviet can only feed in reinforcements via Smolensk. By the time they get up into the action, AGC is past the river and the Center theater is fighting it out in the open.

Everybody but Micheal T is pushing PG2 as hard as possible towards Minsk and burning up their fuel, whereas he goes slowly with Guderian and makes sure Hoth gets fuel priority to push through the gap east of Vilnius.
warspite1

+1

Please Vic, make whatever aesthetic changes and similar are required BUT please please please do not make changes to game balance this early.

There is no need to rush into anything - the game is highly playable as is. Lets get more feedback please before changing balance. My impression is that currently, against a German player who knows what he's doing, the Soviet has no chance - and others will soon work out what to do.

Making life easier for the German makes no sense at this stage.

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 81
RE: Public Beta 1.02 updated to subversion G - 1/8/2016 2:56:05 PM   
Falke

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Captured fortification bug causing fortifications to disappear once taken fixed


Does this fix require a complete restart?

In a save created in 1.02F , after upgrading to 1.02g it still occurs (Structural Points set to Nil)

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 82
RE: Public Beta 1.02 updated to subversion G - 1/8/2016 3:29:38 PM   
Franciscus


Posts: 809
Joined: 12/22/2010
From: Portugal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Falke

quote:

Captured fortification bug causing fortifications to disappear once taken fixed


Does this fix require a complete restart?

In a save created in 1.02F , after upgrading to 1.02g it still occurs (Structural Points set to Nil)


yes, fixed only in new games...

regards

_____________________________

Former AJE team member

(in reply to Falke)
Post #: 83
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/8/2016 6:42:58 PM   
Tweedledumb

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 12/29/2015
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Folks, there is a solution to the iron wall problem and it works just fine even in 1.01.

When more people than Michael T figure it out, 1.02 is going to look pretty lopsidedly against the Sovs. I can only shake my head here that this is going gold.

Here is the short version: PG3 can flip over control of Vitebsk and Polotsk around turn 3-4, and also lock down Orsha. This makes it impossible to feed in reinforcements in these places. And that pretty much takes care of the iron wall, since the Soviet can only feed in reinforcements via Smolensk. By the time they get up into the action, AGC is past the river and the Center theater is fighting it out in the open.

Everybody but Micheal T is pushing PG2 as hard as possible towards Minsk and burning up their fuel, whereas he goes slowly with Guderian and makes sure Hoth gets fuel priority to push through the gap east of Vilnius.


Just making sure, but you're talking about games against humans, i.e. PBEM?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 84
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/8/2016 6:45:58 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Yes, PBEM. Which is altogether a different animal than playing the AI. Although I personally already beat the Soviet AI on normal as the German even in 1.01, and am therefore kind of scratching my head a bit over all these Soviet nerfs even from a single player experience. This can already be done as is.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Tweedledumb)
Post #: 85
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/8/2016 6:59:14 PM   
Franciscus


Posts: 809
Joined: 12/22/2010
From: Portugal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

(...)

There is no need to rush into anything - the game is highly playable as is. Lets get more feedback please before changing balance. My impression is that currently, against a German player who knows what he's doing, the Soviet has no chance

(...)



Why no-one thinks about the German players that don't know what they are doing, like me ?...

(PS: kidding of course. )

Anyhow, one way or the other, it's too soon IMHO to make definite statements about play balance, specially vs AI, as most gamers play.
Personally, I am in an ongoing campaign started with 1.02. It's mid October. I captured Leningrad, Rostov and Kharkov, but stalled just east of Orsha, and now I'm knee-deep in mud everywhere and fearing for the worst...
And losses, both mine (c. 1200000 men) and soviets (c. 3000000) are appalling...Many of my panzer divisions are reduced to 5 or 10 tanks...3rd PG is a crawling skeleton...Trucks failing everywhere...

I am also somewhat interested in seeing some more feedback from game metrics from Vic

Regards

< Message edited by Franciscus -- 1/8/2016 8:07:25 PM >

_____________________________

Former AJE team member

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 86
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/8/2016 7:12:47 PM   
Tweedledumb

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 12/29/2015
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Folks, there is a solution to the iron wall problem and it works just fine even in 1.01.

When more people than Michael T figure it out, 1.02 is going to look pretty lopsidedly against the Sovs. I can only shake my head here that this is going gold.

Here is the short version: PG3 can flip over control of Vitebsk and Polotsk around turn 3-4, and also lock down Orsha. This makes it impossible to feed in reinforcements in these places. And that pretty much takes care of the iron wall, since the Soviet can only feed in reinforcements via Smolensk. By the time they get up into the action, AGC is past the river and the Center theater is fighting it out in the open.

Everybody but Micheal T is pushing PG2 as hard as possible towards Minsk and burning up their fuel, whereas he goes slowly with Guderian and makes sure Hoth gets fuel priority to push through the gap east of Vilnius.
warspite1

+1

Please Vic, make whatever aesthetic changes and similar are required BUT please please please do not make changes to game balance this early.

There is no need to rush into anything - the game is highly playable as is. Lets get more feedback please before changing balance. My impression is that currently, against a German player who knows what he's doing, the Soviet has no chance - and others will soon work out what to do.

Making life easier for the German makes no sense at this stage.


Are we talking about PBEM or versus AI here? "the Soviet has no chance"

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 87
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/8/2016 7:15:33 PM   
WingedIncubus


Posts: 512
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline 		PBEM.

(in reply to Tweedledumb)
Post #: 88
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/8/2016 7:26:15 PM   
warspite1


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

ORIGINAL: Franciscus

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

(...)

There is no need to rush into anything - the game is highly playable as is. Lets get more feedback please before changing balance. My impression is that currently, against a German player who knows what he's doing, the Soviet has no chance

(...)


Why no-one thinks about the German players that don't know what they are doing, like me ?...

Regards
warspite1

Have a look at my AAR's - I have no idea what I am doing either. But the experiences of one or two isn't the point.

Fact is, in my German vs Soviet game I have made at least two MASSIVE mistakes as the German, but am sill knocking on the gates of the three main cities near the end. In my Soviet vs German game I have simply been crushed (there are other words to describe it ) by someone who is a very, very good wargamer and knows how to play these games.

I am really concerned such a fine game with soooo much promise will go the way of say, CTGW. That too was a fine game on release, but they completely mucked up the patches and play balance such that the game was effectively unplayable (no idea if they ever fixed it as I cannot even get the game to run anymore).

This game is too damn good for that.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Franciscus)
Post #: 89
RE: Public Beta 1.02 - 1/8/2016 7:36:37 PM   
WingedIncubus


Posts: 512
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline 		I'd say at least revert the soviet reinforcement back to 1.01. The changes to Soviet cards' PP costs were fine, IMHO.

< Message edited by Drakken -- 1/8/2016 8:37:26 PM >

(in reply to mannerheim4)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa >> RE: Public Beta 1.02 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   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

1.016