1.4.2 PATCH

[Hellfirejet]

Cavalry included in Anti-Air research upgrade?

[operating]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Cavalry included in Anti-Air research upgrade?

Absolutely include them, I'm pretty sure cavalry had anti air machine guns, perhaps pom-poms and anti-air artillery when behind the front lines historically, I'm sure they were not just brushing their horses for prolonged periods of time.

[Connfire]

I'm not sure cavalry should have too many AA upgrades. The key to cavalry's success was mobility and the ability to "live off the land". They tended to travel light. While this was all well and good up to the 19th century, it was disastrous when cavalry met machine guns and aircraft in WWI. Any AA other then light weapons hand-held by the riders would severely decrease the cavalry's mobility.

Armoured Cars, on the other hand, I think could benefit from increased AA upgrades, as you can mount AA on the cars themselves, as opposed to the horses.

BUT, playing devil's advocate here, are the armoured car and cavalry units represented in CTGW of the same numerical strength as the infantry units? Would either be physically capable of fielding as much AA firepower as the infantry units?

To me, increasing the AA in the armoured cars, but not the cavalry, is another step toward the historical replacement of cavalry in favor of mechanized weapons.

Just some random thoughts.

EDIT: I also see Operating's point about cavalry having AA support when they were behind the lines. I was more referring to mounted cavalry serving in their traditional roles as either raiders or forward scouts. I don't know if it is possible to do this in the game, but could cavalry's AA increase in turns where they remain stationary?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: suprass81

Very nice about Small Garrison. They looks as they should
About cavalry- I think that it should be as poverfull in attack/ defence as infantry. They can have assault (as an element of surprise attack). They should be a little more expensive than Infantry (becouse you have to maintain horses). After your changes they are to fast in my oppinion. They could stay at the former speed.
Why?
becouse in my oppinion cavalry was something like motorised infantry from WW II. They useing horses to move with high speed and fight on foot like infantry. Speed is their adventage. When war become static in trench their cost (little higher than infantry to build and to upkeep -but small differeces with infantry) will make them usless (like in history) but at the eastern front they will have chance to use their adventage in open fields eaven in 1917 when CP or Entente find a way to punch through lines.
What do you think about this?

Ok I have revised the Cavalry stats,what do you think about these settings?

They now have the same attack as Infantry,and they cost slightly more to purchase & upkeep.

They still have their new assault value.[;)]

Their movement has been returned to their previous allowance = 8.

I am not fond of the improved cavalry. Why would they have a improved assault value when they keep their shock value? Does not that make them stronger in attack than they deserve?

Cavalry also suffered more than infantry by artillery fire, barbed wire and machine guns.

And, as I understand it, most of the cavalry units continued to fight mounted during the entire war and making cavalry charges.

Hence, the cavalry units, disappeared from the Western Front almost at once while they continued to be at use in the Middle East.

Those units that begun to fight dismounted were not large enough to do the same work as a infantry unit of the same size. They were also converted to regular infantry rather than fighting as dismounted cavalry. The horses were to expensive, and vulnerable to artillery, to be kept for a infantry unit. And why should a cavalry unit fighting as dismounted cavalry in a trench warfare setting have a higher LOS than regular infantry?

I think that the cavalry unit should be considered a unit fighting mounted and that their values should reflect this. If you want the cavalry to fight dismounted then you have to disband the cavalry unit and buy a infantry unit instead.

Here is a wiki page for easy information on cavalry use during WWI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_I

[Hellfirejet]

That's what I like to see debate,and plenty of points of view,after all we are all trying to make the game better,I know mounted Cavalry,were being phased out, and the motorized scout Armoured Car used more,so maybe giving the Armoured car improved AA capability would be a good thing,instead of the mounted Cavalry.[;)]

[Hellfirejet]

Ok what about this for the Cavalry?

Small Anti-Air defense,but Anti-Air can't be upgraded.

Shock increased from 1 to 2.


MP = 2 ( reduced from 6 )

Upkeep = 5 ( increased from 3 )

Build time = 3 ( reduced from 5 )

[Hellfirejet]

What about Armoured Cars can benefit from Anti-Air upgrade?

Highlighted in green, what about reducing Labs upkeep from 3 to 2 ?

Are you for or against any of these changes?[;)]

[Connfire]

My personal opinion:

Cavalry:
- Agree to small AA defense that can't be upgraded.
- Agree to shock value increase. Cavalry served as shock troops for centuries.
- Agree to MP reduction
- Do not agree with increasing upkeep. Traditionally they lived off the land. Granted that would be hard to do in winter, but having their movement reduced compensates for that.
- Not sure if I agree with reducing build time. This places them between garrisons and infantry in terms of train times. Even though they are fewer in numbers, I'd think training troopers to move and fight while mounted in formation would give them a longer training period then infantry.

Armoured Car:
- Agree to allowing them to upgrade their AA

Not sure about reducing the lab upkeep costs. Probably need to think about it a little more.

[Hellfirejet]

Quick update regarding next patch,the patch I believe will be for,multi platform play compatability IPad for example,also for bug fixing,mainly dealing with Multiplayer crash issues,and the fix for the Small Garrison,in that it can't stray more than one hex from the City it begins the game,no Sea or Rail transport allowed,this patch I think will be numbered 1.48[:)]

The 1.50 patch will follow this release,with most if not all, of the recent changes being discussed here,within this forum,plus some other secret at this time changes[;)]

[operating]

Yo Kirk,

Highlighted in green, what about reducing Labs upkeep from 3 to 2 ?

What the stinker is about the labs is: The addition of hood/gas mask and anti-tank categories to the infantry tech column. Which I have mixed feelings about. Currently in a MP match turn 100 (keeping fingers crossed it does not CTD), A couple of turns ago upped my infantry lab to 2 labs, still 6 or more turns (maybe more) to barrage balloon, anti-tank rifles are even father away, anti-tank rifle ammunition is still father away than that. Hanging on by a thread PP wise, cannot afford any more labs, plus I may have to cash-in the 2nd infantry lab for the PP soon. What kicks my butt: Is that some of these techs don't pan out till the last few turns of the 118 turn match, if at all for some. The same could be said for naval techs. Artillery tech seems OK, except for that lame RR gun tech, which is pure foolishness to develop, even in a SP game. It takes forever to develop, then it's another 7 turns in the queue, once placed cannot be fired or moved, when it is able to fire it has the effect of a fart in the wind, at or near the end of a game, Plus it has no anti-air defense, get's blown to pieces by counterbattery defense, and superior airpower at this point of the game, it's insane. [:(]

More later, Bob

[Hellfirejet]

So what your saying is,the Tech tree needs reworked, as to the time they take to come on stream,I have only scratched the surface with changes here,but I will take a much closer look at time these take to research[;)]

[Hellfirejet]

OK I have been having a closer look at the research tech tree,and I have to say the prognosis is not good,in fact its a mess,the later war scenario's,bear no relation to what was available, for most off the Countries involved in the war.[:-]

For example : In 1915 Germany had the C/15 Depth Charge in service,with more than 2,000 made,yet in the game,in the 1918 scenario,Germany is only beginning its Depth Charge research, see photo highlighted in red.[&:]

Rest assured,it might take me a few days to fix all the stuff in the Research Tech Tree,but now that I know about it,it will be fixed.[;)]

[operating]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

So what your saying is,the Tech tree needs reworked, as to the time they take to come on stream,I have only scratched the surface with changes here,but I will take a much closer look at time these take to research[;)]

I'm trying to think how to respond to your inquiry? As you know, I am more of the MP mind of how this game works as of late, at the same time, trying not to forget consideration on how SP is played. One of my questions would be: Does the AI buy labs? or sell labs? It seems to me that the AI hangs onto all it's (free) labs no matter how bad their disposition get's (even when they are getting crushed). I seriously doubt the AI buys labs and I seriously doubt the AI ever reaches the fullest "Tech Tree" potential for some of the tech categories. If that is a correct conclusion; Then the SP or MP player who leaves just one lab in a tech category for the duration of a 118 turn game will achieve the same results (incomplete tech development). Lately, what I experience, is that it is nearly impossible for a MP CP player to maintain a lab in each category of the tech tree, they simply can not afford the PP in upkeep costs, especially when there are static fronts, which is frequent. the attrition from small and large battles sucks up the PP, leaving rare opportunity for CP to buy and maintain additional lab or labs, hence, a slow tech development, often without all the category selections in the tech tree (no armor lab, no naval lab, no artillery lab, no air lab), especially later in a game, just concentrate on infantry development. SOLUTION: I don't have one just yet,,,,,,A little tired, there is more to this issue, going to have to think about it and how to set up examples, later...

[Tomokatu]

That sounds as though it will need to be spreadsheeted with cost vs time and the major variable will be the contributions.
Search for the solution which gives the desired time target. I
t MAY need to be a separate one for each tech on the tree and end up with different lab costs for each tech thread (which is GOOD! aircraft engines take more time and effort than throwing depthcharges overboard)

[Hellfirejet]

I think your right,I'm going to have to spend a great deal of time,painstakingly going through all the Tech Tree's,in order to fix everything,for each and every Country.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: Tomokatu

That sounds as though it will need to be spreadsheeted with cost vs time and the major variable will be the contributions.
Search for the solution which gives the desired time target. I
t MAY need to be a separate one for each tech on the tree and end up with different lab costs for each tech thread (which is GOOD! aircraft engines take more time and effort than throwing depthcharges overboard)

Kirk wrote
I think your right,I'm going to have to spend a great deal of time,painstakingly going through all the Tech Tree's,in order to fix everything,for each and every Country.

Kirk & Tomokatu,

I'm almost afraid to ask (so I will not), about speadsheets. Do not know how to do spreadsheets, however, the idea of using them is the way to go. I can only imagine there must be countless ways/configurations to set one up. Let's say: a tech tree spreadsheet for 1 lab per tech category with/without "focus" on a particular tech, next,,, a spreadsheet with 2 labs and so forth, ect.. To come up with the estimated game turn a tech would come to fruition.

Orm wrote,
-Set researching "air defence" as first priority from turn one.
-CP can counter air strike. Build some zeppelins and bombard any air unit you see. If you see no air unit then you can harass their art or land units instead. Making him see the same fun of air power as you do.
-Try to avoid garrisons as front units as they have no air protection.
-If opponent focus on air power then he has less land units so if you can make the war mobile then that might cause trouble for him.

I took up Orm's first suggestion in a fairly new MP match, just to see if it proves to be beneficial in a timely manner. The iffy part is: What if the opponent goes with a strong focused ground (infantry techs) game? Then I would be weak on ground combat defense techs, it's a gamble, but at least I have a choice.. The problem with coming to a decision on which way to go, it takes a lot of game turns to figure out if the move was a right one? or a wrong one?

Bob

[Hellfirejet]

Well all I can say is,in the next patch,Garrison's,Infantry,Cavalry,Artillery & Armoured cars,all have some Anti-Air defense from the start.So Anti-Air research,I suspect won't be the first thing you will need to worry about.[:)]

For game players who like to use a lot of Air Power,the above changes won't stop air warfare,it just means you can't attack,in the knowledge that you won't take some losses.[;)]

[Hellfirejet]

Starting to make changes to Tech Tree research,in the 1915 scenario Britain has 70% Depth Charge Research complete.

[Hellfirejet]

Also in the 1915 scenario Germany has 30% Depth Charge Research complete.

[operating]

Can't scroll through a tech, like I used to be able to. For instance: If depth charge picture is in the queue, cannot scroll to hydrophones in the back of that part of the tech tree. Is anybodyelse having this problem?