UPDATE ON NEW PATCH.

[Hellfirejet]

Hi and welcome to the game,you need to install the 1.40 beta patch first. The fix download option is further tweaks to the game that have been asked for by the gamers while playing the 1.40 open beta.[;)]

[Hotschi]

Thanks for the fast answer - am looking forward to playing this game!

[stockwellpete]

I just noticed that Belgium continues making technological advances even after Brussels has fallen - and presumably it will do after all its other cities are lost as well. The Belgians didn't actually surrender during WW1 and they managed to hold on to a small piece of sovereign territory near Ypres. If they had lost that territory as well then I imagine that they would still not have surrendered and would have carried on fighting alongside the British and French until the end of the war. It is a bit awkward to model this in the game, I think. Maybe the technological development should stop once all the Belgian cities are captured and the PP's should go to zero and stay there until Brussels is recaptured. If that happens then maybe PP production and technological development could resume at that point again?

Also, I see Belgium has artillery capability in 1914. Is that correct? They had few machine guns and no artillery in 1914, apart from the German guns they purchased for their forts.

[Hellfirejet]

I thought you guys might be interested to know, that I have just added a new event to the game,what is the event I hear you all ask?
Well I will tell you,on turn (13) Dec 1914 the ANZACS arrive in Cairo.The Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC)[:)]

[stockwellpete]

The more events the better, Kirk.[:)] They really add to the atmosphere of the game. If you look at this link there are quite a few events that might be added at some stage, particularly stuff from outside the main European theatre that shows it really was a "world war".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_World_War_I

I am having a look at the game from the Allies side and my map has gone all snowy in the winter, so it is just playing as the Central Powers that it doesn't. I don't know if anyone else is having that happen?

[bob.]

Hmm... I don't really think the movable small garrisons make for a very good (early) game.

Most importantly, while I already found it basically impossible to actually execute the Schlieffen Plan before the small garrisons were moveable - I am sure there is a way and I just don't play good enough - now, I just don't see it happening. Now there is almost a complete second line of troops equal to garrisons behind the already extremely hard to break Belgian/French defense.

In this case I think unmovable small garrisons are the "lesser evil" compared to small garrisons that actively help with the defense.

Here would be an idea from me though, if this is possible:
make a small garrison unit lose 5 efficiency or so when it moves. That way it can't effectively be used for a defense in the early game.

[Hellfirejet]

The fault that the schlieffen plan is harder to accomplish,is not because a new type of unit has suddenly appeared on the scene,that can move or not move,the Small garrison was designed to do one job,and one job only,that job was to defend your Countries Cities behind the font line,a static defence unit with one roll to play.

The fault with the game at the present time, lies fair and square,on the fact that you can replace your standard Garrison unit in 1 game turn,whats the point of destroying 1 or 2 Garrisons,when you know they will be replaced by your enemy the next turn,a Garrison should take a minimum off 3 turns to build,and an Infantry unit 6 turns,that way the gamer would need to use more strategy and think ahead more.

[bob.]

Kirk, I'm not sure I understand you correctly. That the Schlieffen plan is harder to accomplish than before is very much because the small garrisons are moveable now, because they can block the way and cost the Central Powers at least 2 turns to destroy. Doesn't matter what the unit was designed for, the only thing that matters is how it works. With railroad movement, the low movement isn't a big hindrance either.

That is why I said, maybe unmoveable garrisons might be the better way. I would like to hear some opinions from other players on that matter!

Although I don't disagree that increased build times might be a good thing.

[Hellfirejet]

Small Garrisons will revert to there original roll,of unmoveable static defence,that can be disbanded if needed.I also intend to make the Garrison unit take 3 turns to build,and Infantry unit 6 turns to build.I will also reduce the free upkeep allowance.I'm play testing these new settings as we speak.

[bob.]

I think reverting it back to the original small garrisons is a good change. It was worth a try though[:D]

[Hellfirejet]

I agree they were never intended to be moveable,I don't like that option,they are a static city defence and nothing else.[;)]

[stockwellpete]

Yes, I agree that the small garrisons should not be moveable too. I raised the possibility that other stronger units might move into a city where there is a small garrison and "supersede" that small garrison while it remained in the city - and then when it left the city the small garrison would re-appear. Is that possible to do, Kirk? Do you like the idea? Another idea that was mentioned right at the beginning of the year was that new units, especially infantry, should have very low "battle-readiness" (or whatever it is called) when first placed on the map to represent "new recruits". I thought that was an interesting suggestion and might address the issue you were raising about quick build times for infantry. If the "battle readiness" level of new units was low then players would look to place them in the rear until the level rose out of the red and yellow and into the white. Also, I had another crash to desk top in 1915 as the Entente this time. Something is wrong somewhere but I don't know what it is.

[suprass81]

I think that small garisons idea is good only when you can't move them. but there must be the way to move other units inside the city with SG... For me if there is no chance to make stronger unit take pace of SG and when it leavs SG take the city there should be a possibility to disband them without resources back...

[timc424]

The down load for the patch is gone, I logged on in members and there was the patch verbage but no link???

[aesopo]

You have to do the one question survey first.

[Hellfirejet]

I'm sorry for the confusion folks, but could you all please redownload the 1.40 open beta patch from the members area.

Just test the 1.40 open beta thanks.

I had made additional links available to try and fix things that way,but I have removed these links because they were confusing the beta test process,the Small Garrison being changed from a static unit,too a unit with movement just does not work,so please just test the 1.40 beta from the members area,then once all your comments have been noted regarding the beta,then they can be addressed and fixed at the end of the testing period.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

Yes, I agree that the small garrisons should not be moveable too. I raised the possibility that other stronger units might move into a city where there is a small garrison and "supersede" that small garrison while it remained in the city - and then when it left the city the small garrison would re-appear. Is that possible to do, Kirk? Do you like the idea? Another idea that was mentioned right at the beginning of the year was that new units, especially infantry, should have very low "battle-readiness" (or whatever it is called) when first placed on the map to represent "new recruits". I thought that was an interesting suggestion and might address the issue you were raising about quick build times for infantry. If the "battle readiness" level of new units was low then players would look to place them in the rear until the level rose out of the red and yellow and into the white. Also, I had another crash to desk top in 1915 as the Entente this time. Something is wrong somewhere but I don't know what it is.

I was referring to the "efficiency" rating of a unit here when using the term "battle-readiness" in case that wasn't clear. I am just wondering whether the quality rating of the small garrisons should be 10 as they represent older people living in the city. As economic production declines in the game due to war fatigue the quality of new recruits goes down so maybe the maximum quality rating of a small garrison unit should be around 6 or 7? Another thought I have had is what if the efficiency unit of a rating dropped temporarily by 1 every time you repaired it? This would represent the absorption of new recruits into the unit. The tactical implications would be significant too. Units that did not move while being repaired would often do better than those that moved in a turn - and it would reward players who were able to rotate their troops more effectively too. All this seems quite realistic to me. Just chucking out ideas anyway!

[stockwellpete]

And maybe there shouldn't be small garrison units in Belgium and northern France at the start of the game to encourage Schlieffen a bit more? What actually happened was that there were great long streams of refugees fleeing in front of the German advance as the Belgians were not expecting to be attacked at all so civilian resistance had not been organised.

[Hellfirejet]

The Small Garrison units don't effect the Schlieffen plan,the only Small Garrison unit is in Brugge before you can reach Paris! and if you are using the 1.40 open beta,they are static,just ignore Brugge and sweep towards Paris with the German land units.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

The Small Garrison units don't effect the Schlieffen plan,the only Small Garrison unit is in Brugge before you can reach Paris! and if you are using the 1.40 open beta,they are static,just ignore Brugge and sweep towards Paris with the German land units.

I can hardly get past Brussels, let alone Brugge, I'm afraid.