1.4.2 PATCH

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: operating

warspite1

In our other game, where I am the Entente, the Germans are doing better then historically - holding a line north of Paris, pushing into Russia and have broken the Serbian front line.

In this instance Bulgaria is on track to come into the game - as expected.

Can you remember how Italy and others were reacting to these events? Historically and in game, Italy enters May 1915 (which you already knew). Unless there are influences to alter that. Italy was reluctant to join a war against it's former Allies. Do you have any suggestions on the diplomatic picture about the game?

warspite1

Depends what the game is trying to achieve. As far as I am concerned, this is supposed to be a fun game, based on WWI, that either side can win. Its not a hugely detailed game in terms of OB and historical accuracy and does not need to be - so long as it has a WWI flavour.

I do not see how a fun, balanced game is possible if all the minors + Italy may or may not come in. This concept makes the game too predictable (in terms of play balance) and too dependent on early success or failure - thus making scenarios a foregone conclusion. E.g Germany makes a bad start - right no Bulgaria. Russia is struggling, right no Romania. The game becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bulgaria, the US, Turkey, Italy and Romania should all come in to the war on the side that they historically came in on. Yes, to add to replayability, the actual entry dates may be varied, but the fact of their entrance, and on whose side, should not be. Again to aid replayability, the set up of those countries units should not be set in stone, but should be up to the owning player.

[operating]

warspite1

Depends what the game is trying to achieve. As far as I am concerned, this is supposed to be a fun game, based on WWI, that either side can win. Its not a hugely detailed game in terms of OB and historical accuracy and does not need to be - so long as it has a WWI flavour.

Totally in agreement with you here.

I do not see how a fun, balanced game is possible if all the minors + Italy may or may not come in. This concept makes the game too predictable (in terms of play balance) and too dependent on early success or failure - thus making scenarios a foregone conclusion. E.g Germany makes a bad start - right no Bulgaria. Russia is struggling, right no Romania. The game becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Would agree with you to a point. Only because the game would have to be totally reconstructed, which right now, does not seem likely to happen, except through patches (that may or may not reflect players' points of view). One thing I can say; Is the game is in a state of constant build, which in some games does not happen, or,but rarely.

Bulgaria, the US, Turkey, Italy and Romania should all come in to the war on the side that they historically came in on. Yes, to add to replayability, the actual entry dates may be varied, but the fact of their entrance, and on whose side, should not be.

First sentence: Well they do come onto the side intended, but, a savvy opponent, who knows the in and outs of "this game", can change that balance in play, but they have to work at it, with a successful strategy, it's not always a given (especially in MP).

Again to aid replayability, the set up of those countries units should not be set in stone, but should be up to the owning player.

There's merit to what you have to say here, however, starting sequences "seem" to be historical. The only differences are: A player who pays attention to the diplomatic panel, can anticipate a country's entrance and plan movements accordingly. The only reason I chime in on that: Is because nobody then really expected a war to happen so quickly, actually it was such a brief time for all these countries to have preparedness to mobilize for total war (including positioning).

I've learned plenty about WW1 since the release of this game, Yes, There is room for improvement (like any game), Yes I support the playability of the game, for it has been fun, in spite of some odd features.

[operating]

Did anybody notice that the shell production went down in 1915 for Germany? This SS 1915.

[operating]

1914

[operating]

Shell production should have increased at least by 1 shell per turn onto previous total, with each succeeding year. This being 1916 should have been 11 shells per turn. Historical Shell production went up from 1914, not down....OR, for game purposes the shell production should have naturally increased, not decreased.

[Dorb]

I don't want to play a game that follows history to the tee, just a hint of historic direction. I want to play what could have been with the tools they had. Really don't want to be on history rails that I have to follow.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: Dorb

I don't want to play a game that follows history to the tee, just a hint of historic direction. I want to play what could have been with the tools they had. Really don't want to be on history rails that I have to follow.

I have to agree with you, for if this game (as it is) were to be historical in every way, it would be a train wreck. However, where there have been patch changes to the game it should be symmetrical.

[amtrick]

Just finished playing the (balanced) 1914 scenario as CP. Ran the entire 118 turns and got the “Ultimate Victory” with the US and Portugal still standing on the Entente side. Made several missteps along the way, so I think I could do better. Before moving on to play the same scenario from the Entente side, I thought I would stop and summarize what I had learned and observed along the way. Some this may be repeats from earlier posts, so bear with me. Here we go:

1. The Small Garrisons are a useful concept (small, local defense forces), but have to more limited in their mobility. They really need to stick around their hometown and not be allowed up on the front lines. Yeah, they’re slow, but the AI is incredibly patient about moving them forward, where they slide into an entrenchment and require substantial effort to get out. Plus they require no manpower or PP spend to reinforce. Really skews the gameplay.
2. Artillery shell production needs to be really tweaked to get any near historical levels. You just can’t build it up fast enough. Plus, as I learned in the latter stages of the game, your inventory is capped at 90! This means three artillery units can burn through lord knows how many turns of production in about three turns. Then you are practically back at square one.
3. Convoys should be moved by the human player. Unless I missed a setting somewhere (entirely possible) the AI moves all convoys. And South Atlantic CP convoys will doggedly keep trying to make for Cuxhaven, even if the CP controls Brest or Nantes. Just not very realistic. And very frustrating to see all though PPs chewed up in the English Channel.
4. The AI does run slow, especially while Russia is in the war … probably figuring out how to move all those @#$%^&* Small Garrisons. Once you knock Russia out of the war, it gets back to more reasonable levels. I needed quite a few save and reloads (even quiting the game in between) to clear RAM and that seemed to help, but a mid-game turn for the AI could easily take 10-15 minutes. I would just find small chores to do and check back in every once in a while.
5. After I was reminded by "operating" to RTFM (thank you), I was able to supply amphibious invasions on the beach (keep a surface ship next to the unit) and knock Great Britain out of the war. But I did notice that you can’t supply units not on the beach, not even when you capture a port city. Seems to fly in the face of every amphib ops manual (see D-Day and Cherbourg) I know of. There may be something in the rules engine that makes this happen, but it shouldn’t happen. I can see not being able to use a captured port for a turn or two … but never?
6. Britain can simply materialize units in Egypt. Magic transportation isn’t realistic and if this is going on, something in the rules engine should be changed to avoid this.
7. Hate to say it, but I have a tendency to accidently move a unit to somewhere I didn’t really want it to go. How about adding a “last movement undo” button?

[amtrick]

A few other comments on some topics that have been discussed in the forums:

1. I know the naval portion of the AI is being reworked (in fact the entire AI is being reworked), but it really needs it. I was able to absolutely isolate Great Britain and France with 7 submarines. I mean, nothing got through. This is because the AI didn’t have a rudimentary idea about convoy operations. And here’s the thing, you don’t need six ships to protect a convoy. You need three surrounding it with one open hex between them. The subs can get through to attack, but the escorts can get their licks in, too. And this means the CP subs have to return to a friendly port to refit, which means they can’t be out ambushing convoys. Now you have a more even Battle of the North Atlantic, especially as anti-submarine techs come on line.
2. I noticed an exchange concerning Bulgaria’s entry into the war. In my game it seemed to take a while (Serbia had surrendered and Italy come into the war), but it happened and made a big difference on the Eastern Front. The Bulgarians took out the Romanians (I DOW on them) and forced the Russians to divert forces to cover their southwestern border, thinning out the line facing the Germans and Austrians. I think I am in favor of the minors + Italy joining the war more or less when they did historically, with a moderate plus or minus (5 or 10 turns) based on game events, but I don’t think you should be able to game the system to keep them out indefinitely.
3. Not saying it is right, but I fought primarily an infantry/artillery war with the CP. I only kept labs for AH inf/arty and German inf/arty/armor. If there were more PP available I would have kept aircraft open, next. Dirigibles are useful for pounding enemy artillery, but other aircraft either develop too late to be effective or cost too much or both. I’m sure the French would have agreed with me at the end when they were throwing fighters and bombers into the front lines in a vain attempt to slow down by infantry corps.
4. I noticed a suggestion that other unit types should be added. Can’t remember all of the suggestions, but I do remember sappers/engineers (for mining enemy entrenchments). I would suggest that these are actually a technology to research. The relative scale difference of the corps units in the game versus something like engineer battalions is too large.

Someone in the forums noted they had been a gamer for several decades. So have I, having started with SPI and Avalon Hill back in the early ‘70’s. So I love hex- and turn-based wargames, and think that CTGW is going to be one of my favorites. It really has the high-casualty, grind-it-out feel of WWI, where the breakthrough always seemed just out of reach. Looking forward to the further improvements and enhancements to the game.

[warspite1]

The bug whereby a refusal to accept a surrender cannot be actioned still exists. I am the Entente and have been asked whether or not to accept Austrian surrender. I say no - to no effect. I can only advance the turn if I say yes.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The bug whereby a refusal to accept a surrender cannot be actioned still exists. I am the Entente and have been asked whether or not to accept Austrian surrender. I say no - to no effect. I can only advance the turn if I say yes.

Aye, I've seen this, too.

[Lecivius]

OK, so I can read ( but not type, or play worth a darn)...Let me ask here.
 
"Ok, so it's obviously possible.  How do you get so far as the CP?  I played 2 times on easy, and the overwhelming attack ratios ( 4-8 dmg points per attck) plus the ability for the AI to attack, move, and repair all in the same turn just crushed me.  Tips are appreciated [;)] "

[operating]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Ok, so it's obviously possible. How do you get so far as the CP? I played 2 times on easy, and the overwhelming attack ratios ( 4-8 dmg points per attck) plus the ability for the AI to attack, move, and repair all in the same turn just crushed me. Tips are appreciated [;)]

I'm trying to create a seamless AAR to show you and others how to beat the Entente AI on balanced setting, but I am having a problem getting all the jpg SS into the same post. It's more end game stuff than the beginning.

Let's take this conversation over to the 1.4.2 patch thread, for there is some experimenting going on with this thread.
Thanks, Operating

My strategy has been to get Serbia to surrender first. (SssssH! Am playing an MP match right now, don't want to give away all my thinking right now). Which is easier to do in SP than MP. Bring 1 German east front gun and AH gun, plus German and AH fighters, to bear on Serbia. Build an AH airship or 2 for deep attacks, use combined arm attacks (minimum 2 infantry, but 3 or more would probably do it) on Belgrade. Use AH cruiser to punch away at Cattaro (whatever that coastal Serb fort is), keeps MP losses down from assaults. Prepare an AH/German static front for when Russia enters. Use German BB to bombard Antwerpt, before England enters, then just thrust as thoughtfully as you can into Belgium, with 2 infantry assaulting Brussels first turn with zeppelin. By turn 2 Brussels fall, by turn 4, maybe 5 Antwerpt, prevent English ships from supplying port city. Once that is done, the hard phase of the game begins. CP PP is the enemy from this point on. To me a player has to prioritize PP to what front you want to succeed, there is simply not enough PP to attack on 2 fronts for AH or Germany. Russia starts off with 64 PP per turn, France and England combined is somewhere around 70 to 80 PP per turn. Captured Belgium and Serb cities are a gold mine over time, so don't waste time getting them. There is gaps in what I have told you, that I am leaving to you to figure out. Good luck...

[warspite1]

Here's a first. I am playing as the Entente and Italy enters the war....minus its fleet [&:][&:]Neither the BB nor the cruiser appear on the map.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Here's a first. I am playing as the Entente and Italy enters the war....minus its fleet [&:][&:]Neither the BB nor the cruiser appear on the map.

Have seen something like that before (different unit, Gibralter garrison). Look at your mini-map, see if it shows up there, and, or, click hex where BB should be to see if it shows up on the production queue. If it does, move it a hex or more, then it will appear.

<edit>
Hit disband or upgrade button, the units should "highlite", regardless if vizable.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Here's a first. I am playing as the Entente and Italy enters the war....minus its fleet [&:][&:]Neither the BB nor the cruiser appear on the map.

Have seen something like that before (different unit, Gibralter garrison). Look at your mini-map, see if it shows up there, and, or, click hex where BB should be to see if it shows up on the production queue. If it does, move it a hex or more, then it will appear.

<edit>
Hit disband or upgrade button, the units should "highlite", regardless if vizable.

warspite1

Yes I tried hitting the hex they should have appeared in - but no joy. Both units turned up on my opponents turn [&:]

[operating]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Here's a first. I am playing as the Entente and Italy enters the war....minus its fleet [&:][&:]Neither the BB nor the cruiser appear on the map.

Have seen something like that before (different unit, Gibralter garrison). Look at your mini-map, see if it shows up there, and, or, click hex where BB should be to see if it shows up on the production queue. If it does, move it a hex or more, then it will appear.

<edit>
Hit disband or upgrade button, the units should "highlite", regardless if vizable.

warspite1

Yes I tried hitting the hex they should have appeared in - but no joy. Both units turned up on my opponents turn [&:]

It's an ODD thing to happen, but if it happens at an inopportune time, that's where it could be a problem. To a new player, they might not even realize that something is wrong and miss a chance to make the best use of the unit(s).
By the way: Were you in MP or SP at the time?

[Hellfirejet]

Hey guys I might not be posting much,but I have been reading all the comments.[;)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: operating


Have seen something like that before (different unit, Gibralter garrison). Look at your mini-map, see if it shows up there, and, or, click hex where BB should be to see if it shows up on the production queue. If it does, move it a hex or more, then it will appear.

<edit>
Hit disband or upgrade button, the units should "highlite", regardless if vizable.

warspite1

Yes I tried hitting the hex they should have appeared in - but no joy. Both units turned up on my opponents turn [&:]

It's an ODD thing to happen, but if it happens at an inopportune time, that's where it could be a problem. To a new player, they might not even realize that something is wrong and miss a chance to make the best use of the unit(s).
By the way: Were you in MP or SP at the time?

warspite1

MP - and yes it was inopportune - the AH battleship had sailed into the Med and the Italian BB was much needed [:@]

[suprass81]

Hi guys. I wos out for some time but now I'm back for some action on the front

Did anybody has a same problem that in replay not all of actions are showed correct- I mean that sometimes replay don't show that my unit is destroyed. After I star my turn unit that in replay survived attck at one are two steps is gone so it means that my enemy killed it and program didn't show this...
This is in MP game...