Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
Moderators: Lord Zimoa, MOD_Commander_The_Great_War
-
AdmiralSarek
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:47 am
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
Cool manual convoys, I was going to ask for the ability to do that
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
Nice, I like that alot.[:)]
SwedeWolf
I was called Lill Sputnik (Little sputnik) as a baby in 58-59
I was called Lill Sputnik (Little sputnik) as a baby in 58-59
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
Yes, convoys have been a bone of contention, it will be interesting to see how members manage them. Kirk: Will this manual convoy play be optional?
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
Kirk,
What do you think about when a country surrenders "unconditionally" (they are totally wiped out, all cities lost); That their Management assets go to the Victor?
Just thinking, Bob
What do you think about when a country surrenders "unconditionally" (they are totally wiped out, all cities lost); That their Management assets go to the Victor?
Just thinking, Bob
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
Kirk,
Any chance that England and Germany could get an additional 1 each transport capacity at the start of their respective turns? Or when these countries get Naval Research that they then get an additional troop transport included? Since it would be about the time that commercial ships were being commandeered for military use.
Just thinking, Bob
Any chance that England and Germany could get an additional 1 each transport capacity at the start of their respective turns? Or when these countries get Naval Research that they then get an additional troop transport included? Since it would be about the time that commercial ships were being commandeered for military use.
Just thinking, Bob
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
Kirk,
If I wanted to "demolish" my own city (destroy my own PP) before vacating it. Would that be possible to have as a tactic in the game? In other words: I cannot hold the city without sacrificing the unit that is presently there, yet the city is worth 7 PP, but I do not wish to just hand over that kind of PP value. So I am looking for a solution to deny the enemy those points.
Bob...
If I wanted to "demolish" my own city (destroy my own PP) before vacating it. Would that be possible to have as a tactic in the game? In other words: I cannot hold the city without sacrificing the unit that is presently there, yet the city is worth 7 PP, but I do not wish to just hand over that kind of PP value. So I am looking for a solution to deny the enemy those points.
Bob...
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
Kirk,
Is there a reason why airships do not have "Depth Charges" this version versus all the past versions?
Bob
Is there a reason why airships do not have "Depth Charges" this version versus all the past versions?
Bob
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
Kirk,
Making a request that next turn PP and PPs that are in the bank be posted on the Management page, to make it easier to figure or guess when a player may have enough PP to buy: Ammo, RR or Transports. As it is, it's a PITA to jump from one window to another, especially if you are like me, who has short term loss of memory. [:)]
Thanks, Bob
EDIT: It would be easier to spot than the Finances Overview window...

Making a request that next turn PP and PPs that are in the bank be posted on the Management page, to make it easier to figure or guess when a player may have enough PP to buy: Ammo, RR or Transports. As it is, it's a PITA to jump from one window to another, especially if you are like me, who has short term loss of memory. [:)]
Thanks, Bob
EDIT: It would be easier to spot than the Finances Overview window...

- Attachments
-
- ctgw_1399213435.jpg (358.09 KiB) Viewed 347 times
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
-
DanielHerr
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:49 am
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
Kirk, did you use the same method as me for removing convoy movement, and will this ship in 1.6? I deleted the following in ManageConvoys, game_convoys.lua:
Code: Select all
if not arrived then
-- Move convoy automatically
-- For player only! AI should do the same in AI scripts
if alliance.id == playerAlliance.id then
table.insert(gameplay.convoys, unit)
end
end danielherr.github.io
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
Kirk,
Slight problem: Countries like Bulgaria that have an artillery tech tree have to develop Rail Road Super Guns, but upon completion of the RR Gun tech, the host country does not have the availability of the RR Gun in their Production Panel!!!!!
Bob

Slight problem: Countries like Bulgaria that have an artillery tech tree have to develop Rail Road Super Guns, but upon completion of the RR Gun tech, the host country does not have the availability of the RR Gun in their Production Panel!!!!!
Bob

- Attachments
-
- ctgw_1423312723.jpg (232.47 KiB) Viewed 347 times
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
ORIGINAL: operating
Kirk,
Slight problem: Countries like Bulgaria that have an artillery tech tree have to develop Rail Road Super Guns, but upon completion of the RR Gun tech, the host country does not have the availability of the RR Gun in their Production Panel!!!!!
Bob
![]()
Completed tech

- Attachments
-
- ctgw_1423312713.jpg (207.35 KiB) Viewed 349 times
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
Noticed the Full supply rule of being within 30 hexes of a Capital is in effect during MP matches! Good job![:)]
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
- Hellfirejet
- Posts: 3040
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:19 pm
- Location: Fife Scotland
- Contact:
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
ORIGINAL: operating
Kirk,
Slight problem: Countries like Bulgaria that have an artillery tech tree have to develop Rail Road Super Guns, but upon completion of the RR Gun tech, the host country does not have the availability of the RR Gun in their Production Panel!!!!!
Bob
![]()
This has been fixed for the 1.6 official release whenever that happens.
Make it so!
- Hellfirejet
- Posts: 3040
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:19 pm
- Location: Fife Scotland
- Contact:
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
ORIGINAL: operating
Kirk,
Is there a reason why airships do not have "Depth Charges" this version versus all the past versions?
Bob
Airships carried small bombs, they never ever carried Depth charges hence the reason they are not allowed to be carried in game.[;)]
Make it so!
- Hellfirejet
- Posts: 3040
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:19 pm
- Location: Fife Scotland
- Contact:
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
ORIGINAL: DanielHerr
Kirk, did you use the same method as me for removing convoy movement, and will this ship in 1.6? I deleted the following in ManageConvoys, game_convoys.lua:
Code: Select all
if not arrived then -- Move convoy automatically -- For player only! AI should do the same in AI scripts if alliance.id == playerAlliance.id then table.insert(gameplay.convoys, unit) end end
I have altered a great many scripts, and I really can't mind when I changed how Convoys are handled, but hopefully this will be in the official release when it does finally become available.
Make it so!
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
warspite1ORIGINAL: kirk23
ORIGINAL: operating
Kirk,
Is there a reason why airships do not have "Depth Charges" this version versus all the past versions?
Bob
Airships carried small bombs, they never ever carried Depth charges hence the reason they are not allowed to be carried in game.[;)]
Good work kirk23, and that is really good to hear - another example of how the original game was too heavily weighted toward air power. This is 1914-1918 not 1939-1945 after all!! [;)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
Kirk,
Admiral Sarek and myself are in our 84th turn of a MP match and have been experiencing what may be a BUG from airship/zeppllin sub attacks that cause friendly fighters to lose strength points, it's absolutely maddening, and seems so unnecessary. Below are the before and after SS of one such attack as an example.
Bob

Admiral Sarek and myself are in our 84th turn of a MP match and have been experiencing what may be a BUG from airship/zeppllin sub attacks that cause friendly fighters to lose strength points, it's absolutely maddening, and seems so unnecessary. Below are the before and after SS of one such attack as an example.
Bob

- Attachments
-
- ctgw_1423651463.jpg (291.07 KiB) Viewed 349 times
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
ORIGINAL: operating
Kirk,
Admiral Sarek and myself are in our 84th turn of a MP match and have been experiencing what may be a BUG from airship/zeppllin sub attacks that cause friendly fighters to lose strength points, it's absolutely maddening, and seems so unnecessary. Below are the before and after SS of one such attack as an example.
Bob
![]()
Attack results

- Attachments
-
- ctgw_1423651484.jpg (424.5 KiB) Viewed 349 times
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
Kirk,
Question: Is there any value to adding labs to a "single" tech beyond the present 4 armor labs? For it seems a 5th lab has "no effect" on tech development...
Bob

Question: Is there any value to adding labs to a "single" tech beyond the present 4 armor labs? For it seems a 5th lab has "no effect" on tech development...
Bob

- Attachments
-
- ctgw_1423653913.jpg (363.91 KiB) Viewed 349 times
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest
RE: Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch
ORIGINAL: operating
Kirk,
Question: Is there any value to adding labs to a "single" tech beyond the present 4 armor labs? For it seems a 5th lab has "no effect" on tech development...
Bob
![]()
With 5 labs

- Attachments
-
- ctgw_1423653897.jpg (365.24 KiB) Viewed 349 times
and one flew over the Cuckoos nest



