Open Beta Patch 1.4.1

[bob.]

So, could you explain how the convoy system works right now? Does this mean if the Russian sink a German convoy in the Baltic, no more German convoys AT ALL, or does it mean only no more convoys through the Baltic?

[operating]

Kirk says;
I will tweak the tech development before official release.

Please give some consideration to separating Commanders from tech development. A hard to get Commander, is now even harder to activate, for a standard game would be over before let's say: ex..At the rate Creeping Barrage is developed (the general strapped to this tech), would unlikely be utilized . I suppose there could be an Historical argument, that when some of these Commanders (in game) entered service, would be incorrect. History, is not my argument, "practicality" is!

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: bob.

So, could you explain how the convoy system works right now? Does this mean if the Russian sink a German convoy in the Baltic, no more German convoys AT ALL, or does it mean only no more convoys through the Baltic?

No more convoys through the Baltic.

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk says;
I will tweak the tech development before official release.

Please give some consideration to separating Commanders from tech development. A hard to get Commander, is now even harder to activate, for a standard game would be over before let's say: ex..At the rate Creeping Barrage is developed (the general strapped to this tech), would unlikely be utilized . I suppose there could be an Historical argument, that when some of these Commanders (in game) entered service, would be incorrect. History, is not my argument, "practicality" is!

I'm looking at the restrictions on commanders,I hope to remove these tech upgrade restriction completely,and just have it reliant on Kills & Casualties![;)]

[bob.]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: bob.

So, could you explain how the convoy system works right now? Does this mean if the Russian sink a German convoy in the Baltic, no more German convoys AT ALL, or does it mean only no more convoys through the Baltic?

No more convoys through the Baltic.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but if this means ONLY no more convoys through the Baltic, then at some place in the scripts there needs to be a clause to determine if a Baltic convoy has been sunk and thus is should be a matter of adding the events there to split up the "Baltic convoys sunk" and "Atlantic convoys sunk" event, no?

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: bob.

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: bob.

So, could you explain how the convoy system works right now? Does this mean if the Russian sink a German convoy in the Baltic, no more German convoys AT ALL, or does it mean only no more convoys through the Baltic?

No more convoys through the Baltic.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but if this means ONLY no more convoys through the Baltic, then at some place in the scripts there needs to be a clause to determine if a Baltic convoy has been sunk and thus is should be a matter of adding the events there to split up the "Baltic convoys sunk" and "Atlantic convoys sunk" event, no?

Yes there needs to be more new clauses in the scripts, to be more specific,as to which Sea areas are effected,North Sea,Atlantic even the Mediterranean.

[bob.]

Kirk, are you absolutely sure about the convoys? The UK sunk an Atlantic convoy a few turns ago and I am not receiving any more BALTIC convoys.

[amtrick]

I've played a couple of partial games as both the Entente and the CP. Here are my general observations:

1. Trench tech improvements happen too slow. In fact all tech seems to move too slowly.
2. On the first few turns playing CP in a balanced scenario the game wouldn't scroll right. Had to move using the strategic map. This corrected itself after about 5 turns, but it was very annoying.
3. When fighter aircraft attack ground units, there is no "explosion" sound.
4. At times, when moving a unit by rail, it conitinues past its stopping point to the nearest city then "bounces" back to its original destination.
5. Not sure how Entente subs get into the Baltic if Denmark is neautral. Can subs violate neutral waters? I seems that surface ships cannot, and espcially in the case of Denmark, subs doing it is unrealistic historically. I have "blockaded" the narrow western neck of the Baltic with 3 cruisers lined up but the the Entente subs still just cruise on through.
6. It seems that even after I lost a Baltic convoy to the Russians, more kept originating, which I liked.
7. Was there actually a German sub in the Mediterranean when Germany entered the war? Iwas suprised to see this.
8. The Small Garisons don't seem to act like I would expect. These are local, self-defense units whoes oriignal intent Iin game terms) was to keep rogue enemy units from just moving into an friendly town. Instead they regularly show up on the frontlines ... the worst was a set of 3 British SGs the were suddenly standing shoulder to shouldder protecting the Belgium coast. Maybe they should be a property of each town/city/fortress, rather than a unit. A "built-in" defense value, acting more like a terrain effect than anything else. They definitely should not be mobile.
8. I don't know if this was an AI choice or a glitch, but Serbia had a definite preference for building new units rather than reinforcing old ones. In the end, all it had was a whole bunch of units worn down to 2-3 point level, which all finally collapsed at once.
9. No matter how many units I built, AH never had any unit maintenace costs. Couldn't tell for sure, but given the large number of Russion units fielded, I suspect the same was for them.
10. It seemed manpower pools fell much more slowly for the CP than in the 1.3 version. Halfway into 1915, I was still running at about 93 - 95% for each CP country.
11. The AI turns got progressively slower. Turn 18 took over 2 hours (I just let it keep running). I exited the game a restarted from the EOT autosave. Things went fine until it started slowing down again around Turn 25. I stopped the AI Turn 27 after it had been running for about 2.5 hours
12. The Turks seem to be able to build way too many units.
13. The British can deploy a unit in Egypt just like they were deploying it in Britain. Sounds like instantaneous matter transmission to me. It would seem more logical that all units originate in England and then travel by transport to Africa. I suppose you could make the case that new builds deploying directly to Africa are Indian/ANZAC troops ... but multiple arimies of them?
14. Overall, the game still has the grinding feel WWI, which is good.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk says;
I will tweak the tech development before official release.

Please give some consideration to separating Commanders from tech development. A hard to get Commander, is now even harder to activate, for a standard game would be over before let's say: ex..At the rate Creeping Barrage is developed (the general strapped to this tech), would unlikely be utilized . I suppose there could be an Historical argument, that when some of these Commanders (in game) entered service, would be incorrect. History, is not my argument, "practicality" is!

I'm looking at the restrictions on commanders,I hope to remove these tech upgrade restriction completely,and just have it reliant on Kills & Casualties![;)]

Kemal Pasha: 159/50 kills and Barbed wire in 1914, did not activate till sometime in 1915.

Kahalil Pasha: 315/100 kills + 1915 in 1915, did not activate till sometime in spring of 1916.

Vonstrassenberg: 560/100 kills + Grenade + At war with Russia (met requirements in late 1915) Did not activate till early summer of 1916.

Above is an example of the anarchy of the commanders system, mind you this is just a portion of what I see as a problem, just trying to provide an idea as to what is going on.

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: operating



Please give some consideration to separating Commanders from tech development. A hard to get Commander, is now even harder to activate, for a standard game would be over before let's say: ex..At the rate Creeping Barrage is developed (the general strapped to this tech), would unlikely be utilized . I suppose there could be an Historical argument, that when some of these Commanders (in game) entered service, would be incorrect. History, is not my argument, "practicality" is!

I'm looking at the restrictions on commanders,I hope to remove these tech upgrade restriction completely,and just have it reliant on Kills & Casualties![;)]

Kemal Pasha: 159/50 kills and Barbed wire in 1914, did not activate till sometime in 1915.

Kahalil Pasha: 315/100 kills + 1915 in 1915, did not activate till sometime in spring of 1916.

Vonstrassenberg: 560/100 kills + Grenade + At war with Russia (met requirements in late 1915) Did not activate till early summer of 1916.

Above is an example of the anarchy of the commanders system, mind you this is just a portion of what I see as a problem, just trying to provide an idea as to what is going on.

All the Commanders in game requirements,will be fixed in patch 1.50. I don't think its possible to make sweeping changes for this patch,[;)]

[operating]

Kirk
Russia has surrendered, CP has a vast # of units way out on this front. Usually in the past, disband all garrisons (not worth the upkeep in the time to bring back to home turf), to save the 2 PP for upkeep. In this patch, disbanding these units on Russian soil, does not result in a savings of 2 PP upkeep (per garrison), on or after the current turn. Is this a intended or unintended result?

Naturally, I would rather disband a unit on home turf, and get the full potential of doing so (recovering MP, reduce upkeep, and increasing PP).

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk
Russia has surrendered, CP has a vast # of units way out on this front. Usually in the past, disband all garrisons (not worth the upkeep in the time to bring back to home turf), to save the 2 PP for upkeep. In this patch, disbanding these units on Russian soil, does not result in a savings of 2 PP upkeep (per garrison), on or after the current turn. Is this a intended or unintended result?

Naturally, I would rather disband a unit on home turf, and get the full potential of doing so (recovering MP, reduce upkeep, and increasing PP).

I'm sure its intended,it also depends on the strength of the unit,at the time you disband them.You get less UpKeep for units that are not at full strength when they are disbanded.

The “Disband” button allows you to disband units. For every strength
point the unit has left, you’ll recover 5% of its original production cost.
This means you can recover a total of 50% of the original cost for a unit
that still has 10 strength points.
You’ll recover 10% MP for every strength point, meaning you can recover
the full 100% if the unit still has 10 strength points.

[stockwellpete]

I have played two games as the Central Powers in single player (standard difficulty) . . .

Both games ended in defeat for the Central Powers by autumn 1915. I could tell that I was going to lose by the spring of 1915. In both games I managed to achieve on the Western Front what Germany managed in real life by November 1914. I never seriously threatened Paris but I knocked Belgium out of the game by taking Antwerp. After then the Western Front became locked even though trenches were very slight. On the Eastern Front I held the Russians outside Konigsberg and Danzig in one game although I did lose Cracow and Posen for a while; in the other game I did manage to take Warsaw in the spring of 1915 but I lost it after 2-3 months again. In both games the Russians overwhelmed me in 1915. Also, in both games the Austro-Hungarians defeated the Serbs but then they became complete "basket cases" in 1915 and collapsed very quickly. In one game the Turks were going 50/50 with the British and Russians in 1915, in the other they collapsed catastrophically in Palestine in 1915 even though they were holding the Russians in the Caucasus. In both games my navies performed well and sank lots of convoys and enemy shipping.

The game still seems very unbalanced to me. Germany cannot fight a two front war for more than 6 months it seems. Basically it plays like 1914 followed by 1918 with 1915, 1916 and 1917 missing. Not good.

Other observations (in no particular order) . . .
i) Austria-Hungary too weak, unable to generate surplus PP's after start of 1915
ii) Germany too dependent on its convoys for surplus PP's
iii) Turkey is the most dynamic of the Central Powers in the game which is completely unrealistic
iv) Serbia is slightly underpowered, collapses before Bulgarians enter the war
v) British send far too many units too quickly to Palestine front in 1914
vi) Russians have horde like quality and become far too strong in 1915
vii) Italian infantry reach level 3 very quickly when joining the war, they should be level 1, I would think
viii) German infantry are caught up by French and British at level 2, when really the German army should always be the best army in the game (the quality of the British army declined in 1915 as BEF was replaced by "pals" batallions and then by conscripts in 1916
ix) logistical upgrades are now prohibitively expensive for the Central Powers and are virtually taken out of the game. This is a shame. The cost should be reduced so decisions about munitions, research labs, transport options are restored
x) airships always inflict 1 damage on enemy cities, too powerful
xi) AI turn often very slow
xii) when AI turn moving the screen seems to halt mid-move before resuming
xiii) AI fleet is bonkers!(I realise you will deal with this in 1.50, Kirk)

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I have played two games as the Central Powers in single player (standard difficulty) . . .

Both games ended in defeat for the Central Powers by autumn 1915. I could tell that I was going to lose by the spring of 1915. In both games I managed to achieve on the Western Front what Germany managed in real life by November 1914. I never seriously threatened Paris but I knocked Belgium out of the game by taking Antwerp. After then the Western Front became locked even though trenches were very slight. On the Eastern Front I held the Russians outside Konigsberg and Danzig in one game although I did lose Cracow and Posen for a while; in the other game I did manage to take Warsaw in the spring of 1915 but I lost it after 2-3 months again. In both games the Russians overwhelmed me in 1915. Also, in both games the Austro-Hungarians defeated the Serbs but then they became complete "basket cases" in 1915 and collapsed very quickly. In one game the Turks were going 50/50 with the British and Russians in 1915, in the other they collapsed catastrophically in Palestine in 1915 even though they were holding the Russians in the Caucasus. In both games my navies performed well and sank lots of convoys and enemy shipping.

The game still seems very unbalanced to me. Germany cannot fight a two front war for more than 6 months it seems. Basically it plays like 1914 followed by 1918 with 1915, 1916 and 1917 missing. Not good.

Other observations (in no particular order) . . .
i) Austria-Hungary too weak, unable to generate surplus PP's after start of 1915
ii) Germany too dependent on its convoys for surplus PP's
iii) Turkey is the most dynamic of the Central Powers in the game which is completely unrealistic
iv) Serbia is slightly underpowered, collapses before Bulgarians enter the war
v) British send far too many units too quickly to Palestine front in 1914
vi) Russians have horde like quality and become far too strong in 1915
vii) Italian infantry reach level 3 very quickly when joining the war, they should be level 1, I would think
viii) German infantry are caught up by French and British at level 2, when really the German army should always be the best army in the game (the quality of the British army declined in 1915 as BEF was replaced by "pals" batallions and then by conscripts in 1916
ix) logistical upgrades are now prohibitively expensive for the Central Powers and are virtually taken out of the game. This is a shame. The cost should be reduced so decisions about munitions, research labs, transport options are restored
x) airships always inflict 1 damage on enemy cities, too powerful
xi) AI turn often very slow
xii) when AI turn moving the screen seems to halt mid-move before resuming
xiii) AI fleet is bonkers!(I realise you will deal with this in 1.50, Kirk)

Hi guys, this is for everyones attention,I'm in the process of making final adjustments to the game before official release,I have looked at this entire thread very carefully, and taken notes,I will cover the vast majority of the issues raised within the threads feedback,as to Game balance issues etc,there are some things that can't be done for 1.40 at this time,but will be addressed for 1.50. The main thing for me is the Naval AI being nuts in most cases![;)]

[Hellfirejet]

Hey guys can you tell me if there are anything more game balance wise,that bothers you that has not already been mention in this thread,if there is now is the time to let me know cheers![;)]

I will be away from the forum for 4 or 5 hours things to do TOO CTGW you know,I will check back then to see if anyone has raised any last minute issues.[:)]

[operating]

As CP, I aggressively fought to keep the English Channel free of blockades, putting all of my German navy to the task. Losing a Cruiser and nearly lost my BBs and subs in the process, a continuing exorcise of repair (capturing Calais helped plenty), then go out and fight again, at the expense of my Baltic merchants being sunk left and right. Yes, my overall PP starved, but felt it had to be done, eventually prevailed. Norway merchants did not start arriving till about turn 20. It was not till about mid-1916, did my navy have enough strength to take on the Russian raiders and checking English subs. Before this time, France had surrendered, freeing up the Zeppelin to fight the nasty subs (Zeppelin hits on subs usually downgraded them 2 steps). Yes, felt as though the Entente ships made some foolish moves, but the "majority" of the time they were a challenge. I think next game I would employ 2 zeppelins (if I can afford it, tight budget), however they cannot hit a target they cannot detect out in the open waters, but certainly a help in the land game..

[Hellfirejet]

Ok folks we now have a new blockaded ports message see if you can spot the change?

[operating]

Hmmmm-m-m! It must be the picture.....[:-]

[Hellfirejet]

Whats wrong with the picture?[&:] The picture has not changed,its the text that's changed,Instead off having Russia Blockade German ports in the Baltic, It is now more generic,Entente blockade Central Powers on the high seas,one message fits all,be it the North sea,Baltic,Mediterranean Sea or Atlantic.It is after 2 am here in Scotland and I have been at this most off the day,I have fixed Russian & Turkey Commanders activation's.I have reduced the cost off upgrades for Ammunition,Rail & Sea transport,I have also fixed research,and PPs for different Countries,meaning Germany can fight on 2 fronts at once if need be,Germany now also does not rely on her Convoys for PPs,because the Cities provide more.These are just some of the changes requested by forum members feedback,and I'm still busy testing and proberly will be all night![;)]

[Hellfirejet]

Russian General Evert joins the game early in the war.Its 2.30 in the morning here in Scotland and I'm now going to my bed goodnight folks.[8D]