Open Beta Patch 1.4.1

[operating]

Whats wrong with the picture? The picture has not changed

What do you think? that I born yesterday! That there dots at the end of sentences... something like that... No really, you have paying outstanding attention to this thread and to what everyone has been talking about (including the messaging about blockades).

most off the day

should read: most of the day.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about increasing Germany's PP. As an experienced player in SP 1.4.1 (balanced)(and MP 1.30), PP was just barely enough to gain a victory for Germany and the CP, but very doable, and there lied the challenge. If it was an MP match, I'd probably be screaming for more PP, I'd like to hear from anybody who has been playing MP with 1.4.1.. I have not gone MP lately, have been more interested in learning how the recent fixes affect game play and being more of a public critic, both pro and con. To the less experienced players: I would say go "Handicap", if you want to go full bore on both fronts at the same time, Yes, it is a ground pounding, beat the other side to a pulp type thing, but then the scenario ends so quickly, it more than likely is going to feel like an empty victory. Victory is something to savor, especially when your side has been on the ropes and about to break, your forced to pull yourself together and come up with a plan, to make a
comeback, that's a Victory!, even if you don't win, that's a Victory! Cause next time YOU are going to kickass...
Kirk, I found that the game 1.4.1 is strongly winnable both ways, carefully weigh changes to balance.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

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![;)]

Played a single player game as Entente on standard settings this morning. Very easy for Entente. I knew I was going to win the game by the end of November 1914 as I had pushed German troops back to their own border. It took another year before Germany lost Berlin and surrendered. Austria-Hungary surrendered the next turn and the Turks were losing on both fronts against the British and Russians. The Entente had massive amounts of PP's to spend. On one turn Britain nearly had 400PP's available!! Russia was also generating lots of PP's and Italy was very powerful when entering the game. France though was wholly dependent on convoys which seems wrong.
Tech development was very slow, which is a shame. Earlier renditions of the game had this right, I feel.

To adjust Serbia, to make it slightly stronger, I would start her with 4 infantry and 5 garrison instead of 3 and 6 and war readiness should be higher (in the 90% range) as Serbia had just fought in Balkan Wars.

[operating]

Read Stockwellpete's post, he has improved his game play, and makes some good points. The thought occurred to me: Could the CP AI get more PP, but not when SP playing as the CP against the Entente AI?

PS; And still be at "Balanced" setting.

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: operating

Read Stockwellpete's post, he has improved his game play, and makes some good points. The thought occurred to me: Could the CP AI get more PP, but not when SP playing as the CP against the Entente AI?

PS; And still be at "Balanced" setting.

You mean the AI cheats ![:D]

[Hellfirejet]

Hey guys, I noticed that some of you are thinking, that the AI is taking longer to do its thing,you have to remember, that a lot more is happening,in this version of the game since it was first released,I think maybe that might have something to do with it,anyway the software wiz kid will know for sure![:)]

[operating]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: operating

Read Stockwellpete's post, he has improved his game play, and makes some good points. The thought occurred to me: Could the CP AI get more PP, but not when SP playing as the CP against the Entente AI?

PS; And still be at "Balanced" setting.

You mean the AI cheats ![:D]

Lately, I would want to have the CP (German) AI to have an advantage in PP (German), but not the advantages of being in "Privilege" setting, if that makes any sense...

My PC is new (12 gig ram), the AI delay is "minimal and expected", the same as when this game was first released, back then had a 10 gig (it fried recently).

[Hellfirejet]

Convoy Protection Tip !

I find the best way for Germany to protect its Baltic Convoy, is always to keep your force concentrated,avoid trying to track the enemy down,let them come to you.[;)]

[operating]

Without a doubt, what you say is the way to go... In my strategy in taking Belgium and French coast cities, I like using the fleet. It takes time to do and helps to keep the "momentum" going on the Western Front. The English fleet is huge, my feeling is to meet power with power and a little cunning to get the best roll of the dice. Sure I take a beating, but I think the end results are worth it.

After France fell, refused Russian surrender twice, which meant going to the ends of the Russian map for an unconditional surrender, really at this point don't have another choice, the game does not allow a player to make diplomatic counter proposals. As rigid as the game is, at least a player can change strategy from time to time.

[operating]

Kirk, Have ownership of 99.9% of Russia the last couple of turns, they should have gone into Unconditional Surrender. The problem is: That Russia has 3 hexes down to the right of the Caspian Sea, that are inaccessible by land (from any direction). There are no ports on this sea, so troop transports are out of the question, airplanes cannot land there, So what does one do to capture those 3 hexes??????

Suggestion: Make a map change to go from Russian hexes to Prohibited Zone hexes, which is one solution to me, another would be to make Baku a port, then again if you transport any troops there they will be trapped, they won't be able to embark out.

[Flimbo]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Convoy Protection Tip !

I find the best way for Germany to protect its Baltic Convoy, is always to keep your force concentrated,avoid trying to track the enemy down,let them come to you.[;)]

Convoy Protection Tip !

I find the best way for Germany to protect its Baltic Convoy, is always to keep your force concentrated,avoid trying to track the enemy down,let them come to you.

Kirk, your convoying is certainly effective, but not exactly benificial for the gameplay from my point of view. I want use the my fleet the way I want to and can't do so if 6 (!!!) ships have to be dedicated to convoying in the baltic sea most of their time.
Also, you have to consider that the fleet shown on your picture costs 7 PP maintenance every turn. The convoy from Sweden gives only 20-30 PP every 4-5 turns. Overall a bad deal. I agree that the player should be forced to protect his convoys, but not that much.
Anyway, if CP gets more PP from cities in the official patch, as you mentioned in a previous post, that issue won't be such a problem anymore.
Looking forward to the official version! I think there are some decent improvements so far. Most importantly the game seems to run stable and I'm now able to actually finish a campaign without a repeatable crash. I don't bother about pictures and text messages screwing up baltic and north sea or whatever. Gameplay-wise such flaws are not important at all in my opinion.

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: Flimbo

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Convoy Protection Tip !

I find the best way for Germany to protect its Baltic Convoy, is always to keep your force concentrated,avoid trying to track the enemy down,let them come to you.[;)]

Convoy Protection Tip !

I find the best way for Germany to protect its Baltic Convoy, is always to keep your force concentrated,avoid trying to track the enemy down,let them come to you.

Kirk, your convoying is certainly effective, but not exactly benificial for the gameplay from my point of view. I want use the my fleet the way I want to and can't do so if 6 (!!!) ships have to be dedicated to convoying in the baltic sea most of their time.
Also, you have to consider that the fleet shown on your picture costs 7 PP maintenance every turn. The convoy from Sweden gives only 20-30 PP every 4-5 turns. Overall a bad deal. I agree that the player should be forced to protect his convoys, but not that much.
Anyway, if CP gets more PP from cities in the official patch, as you mentioned in a previous post, that issue won't be such a problem anymore.
Looking forward to the official version! I think there are some decent improvements so far. Most importantly the game seems to run stable and I'm now able to actually finish a campaign without a repeatable crash. I don't bother about pictures and text messages screwing up baltic and north sea or whatever. Gameplay-wise such flaws are not important at all in my opinion.

The large Convoy protection,is not needed for the duration of the game,because sooner or later the Russian fleet will have to intervene,and when it does that,its history.[;)]

HEADS UP AS PER THE OFFICIAL RELEASE 1.40 !!!

Should be before the weekend all going well.[:)]

[operating]

Kirk, Have ownership of 99.9% of Russia the last couple of turns, they should have gone into Unconditional Surrender. The problem is: That Russia has 3 hexes down to the right of the Caspian Sea, that are inaccessible by land (from any direction). There are no ports on this sea, so troop transports are out of the question, airplanes cannot land there, So what does one do to capture those 3 hexes??????

Suggestion: Make a map change to go from Russian hexes to Prohibited Zone hexes, which is one solution to me, another would be to make Baku a port, then again if you transport any troops there they will be trapped, they won't be able to embark out.

FYI: Got a major victory, instead of an ultimate victory, not that it made any difference, except Russia never surrendered because of the silly 3 hexes across from Baku. The NM loss to England from a earlier Russian surrender, would more than likely shortened the game up considerably. This situation might prove bothersome to MP matches, if it should ever go that far after a refused Russian surrender.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

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.

Kirk, You might want to take another look at disbanding. I'm pretty sure that when disbanding a unit in home country, one of the results should be a change (increase) in the "predicted next turn PP", not just the overall PP of the current turn (which shows an increase). Typically; disbanding a Garrison should cause a minus -2 PP for upkeep, to be a positive + 2 PP to the next turn predicted PP, even on the following turn, I'm not seeing that result. Upkeep always seemed to stay the same to me regardless if a unit was at a step 1 or a step 10.

I feel as though I am being continuously charged upkeep for a unit (the rest of the game), that is not on the map.

You get less UpKeep for units that are not at full strength when they are disbanded.

I've seen where a unit is not up to full strength and less efficiency that is disbanded, result in less MP and PP returned to the stockpiles, but not upkeep in this patch.

What I did, is go back to a saved game and disbanded some perfectly good units (infantry) on home turf. Result: No return of upkeep points, on that turn nor the next turn. Try it yourself, if you do not believe me.

[stockwellpete]

Disbanding should be removed from the game in my opinion. If a unit has been reduced to 2 or 3 points, withdraw it from the fighting zone and gradually build it back up with new troops. And if you could merge understrength units that would be even better, more realistic anyway. In my SP games I never disband anything.

Kirk, something to think about maybe for 1.50. I am reading Allan Mallinson's book "1914 Fight the Good Fight" (Bantam, London 2013) which is about the British army. He writes about the BEF, "The BEF of August 1914 was materially and morally a world away from those who followed them into the trenches of subsequent years." (p98) So the British army started off as a match for the Germans (they were the best army in Europe at that time) but by 1915 it had already declined with the influx of volunteers in the "Pals" batallions - and it must have declined further in 1916 with conscription. Might this be simulated in the game at all?

I feel the German army needs to be a bit further ahead in its tech developments so that they are always the best army in the game (except for in 1914) - at the moment the other armies can just about catch them up and be on the same army level (II or III) for a number of turns. I also think the German entrenching capability should start further forward. The reason for this is that on the western front the German army tended to dig in on the higher ground so that weren't sloshing around in water as much as their enemies.

One thing I want to research this weekend is the rate of deployment of British forces (mainly colonial soldiers) in Egypt and Palestine because at the moment it feels like they are deploying too quickly there - the fighting did not start until 1915 and the main British attack was not until 1917. I will also try and find out about Turkish deployments too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_and_ ... e_Campaign

[stockwellpete]

Just had a quick look at the game before going off to work. The British army starts at level I (so do most of the other powers, not sure what Italy is when it enters in 1915 but it should be I) while Germany starts at level II. Really British units need to start at level II in Britain only (not in Egypt), but any new units need to come in at level I. Is that possible? Also, British start with a cavalry unit in Southampton. Really that should be an infantry unit as BEF was mainly infantry.

As mentioned before, in the research tab, the German entrenchment level could be much further forward at the start, maybe half-completed? So that would given them an entrenchment advantage on the western front.

Another area to look at is the "efficiency" rating. All units appear to start at 10 at the moment. Maybe newly deployed units should start off at 4 or 5 so that they have to be "in play" for 3-4 turns before reaching 10? This would simulate new troops getting their bearings on the battlefield. And maybe units with efficiency ratings below 5 should lose one hex of movement too? Little things like this would make the game more interesting and would probably discourage the disbanding of units with high efficiency ratings (but with high casualties) as well.

I have mentioned this quite a few times before. Is there any way of using a colonial soldier graphic for British troops deployed in Palestine? Many Indian soldiers served Britain in WW1 there - they also served on the Western Front early in the war (e.g. Ypres 1914)

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

British start with a cavalry unit in Southampton. Really that should be an infantry unit as BEF was mainly infantry.

British Army's role in a European war was to embark soldiers of the British Expeditionary Force, which consisted of six infantry divisions and five cavalry brigades that were arranged into the I Corps and the II Corps. In October 1914, the 7th Division arrived in France, forming the basis of the III Corps and the cavalry had grown to form the Cavalry Corps of three divisions.By December 1914, the BEF had expanded to such an extent that the First Army and the Second Army were formed.

By the end of 1914, after the battles of Mons, Le Cateau, the Aisne and Ypres, the old regular British Army had suffered massive casualties and lost most of its fighting strength but had managed to help stop the German advance.


Hi stockwellpete as I said in earlier posts I have been reading all comments,and when the 1.40 patch gets final release, very soon, most off your concerns have been addressed,watch this space for 1.40 arrival![:)]

I have to say I personally don't like the option to disband in game,but its not down to me.[;)]

[OxfordGuy3]

I'm having a problem with the game effectively crashing if a) I'm in windowed mode and minimise the window, then try to restore it or b) I'm in full-screen mode and alt-tab to the desktop, then try to alt-tab back again. In both cases the window/screen does not restore properly - no game screen is displayed.

I'm running with the 1.4.1 hotfix, installed over the 1.4.0 patch, which was applied to a clean 1.3.0 installation yesterday. I have the 2012 C++ runtime installed.

I'm running Windows 7 professional (updated with all security patches etc.)

Any ideas? I don't know if this was also the case with 1.3.0, as only bought the game yesterday and dived straight into version 1.4.1

[OxfordGuy3]

BTW the error I've reported happens every time I minimise or alt-tab the application

[operating]

Another area to look at is the "efficiency" rating. All units appear to start at 10 at the moment. Maybe newly deployed units should start off at 4 or 5 so that they have to be "in play" for 3-4 turns before reaching 10? This would simulate new troops getting their bearings on the battlefield. And maybe units with efficiency ratings below 5 should lose one hex of movement too? Little things like this would make the game more interesting and would probably discourage the disbanding of units with high efficiency ratings (but with high casualties) as well.

Disbanding garrisons to enable a better quality infantry into the OOB is about strategy and logistics. Often seen at the beginning of a scenario is lower quality garrisons whose mission becomes mote, compared to what your opponent has built. Logistically, an owning player may be hamstrung for lack of PP to produce better quality troops, which leads to sacrifices by disbanding to achieve this goal.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Please remember this is still a beta release,we will look closely at gamer's feedback, and fine tune Countries PP etc.Before official 1.40 patch release![;)]

The hex just north of Turin, shows it is French, yet the international border goes to the left side of this hex, indicating it should be an Italian hex. Which is correct the border line or the current designation of the hex being French?

Add on update: Italy just surrendered, if in fact that hex north of Turin (city captured), had been Italian, it would or possibly have been Neutral right now, entrance to it would have brought Italy back into the war. By being French, it allows a 2 hex wide front into South France.