Thoughts on 1.64

[operating]

Kirk, I did not notice this till just now: That Italy is occupying a AH hex before Italy enters the war?[&:] I remember that hex being AH (in prior versions) and could be occupied by AH units before Italy enters. Is this a mistake in the current version? If so, could you please correct the present ownership of this hex. In it's present state, it is indicating Italy is already at war with AH ..[X(]

<EDIT>
Can't produce an earlier version that shows that hex occupied by AH...

[operating]

Noticed in the Management screen below that show the tallies for kills and losses there is a line for "vehicles" (highlighted by the cursor). There were a number of armored cars killed during the course of this match that just ended. These armored car losses should have registered in the vehicle category, perhaps tanks and armored trains should also register there losses in this category also. It's curious that no tallies ever show up there: So I have to ask why the category exists at all? or, Is this something that is going to be utilized at a later date?

[AdmiralSarek]

I think the Belgium surrendering event should be changed, either removed entirely or my preference only fire when the whole country is overrun.

I just had a game as the Allies where I was taking back Belgium, there was a Belgium unit in the Antwerp fortress (which shouldn't be a fortress) and then Belgium surrendered sending the whole BEF back to England. In the real war they never surrendered, why should they here? Especially when I was liberating the country.

[operating]

Kirk.

Admiral Serak, myself and a few other MP players have been talking amongst ourselves about the air game and how it seems unbalanced. The Admiral and I have been discussing "House Rules" concerning strategic air campaigns (we have not finished with the subject).

One of my concerns is: Balloons can travel the same distance and strike as airships, somehow that does not seem right?

Another is the use of balloons and airships in field attacks against ground units, there does not seem to be much history to that application, and more than anything: The frequency of these attacks in this game!

The Admiral has asked me: "What do I think about limiting strategic attacks to "1" per turn?" I am contemplating the idea, thus have not answered him about the proposal (of course I have been drugged using these attacks, it's hard to kick an addiction).

If you get the time; check out my latest posts in the Admiral Serak vs Operating AAR concerning kills/casualties, pay attention to the ratio of troop losses to air losses.

I'm struggling to think of a compromise that may be a solution about air power. (1) Should bomb loads cost more ammo (will reduce frequency of bombing runs). (2) Should air units cost more PP to produce? (thus a valued asset not to be flagrantly exposed). (3) Should an air unit "killed/casualty" count more towards MP, than ground units? (as it is now, there is hardly any consequences to a side's MP (or NM) for frequent use of air power losses).

More to come, Thanks, Bob

[operating]

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk.

Admiral Serak, myself and a few other MP players have been talking amongst ourselves about the air game and how it seems unbalanced. The Admiral and I have been discussing "House Rules" concerning strategic air campaigns (we have not finished with the subject).

One of my concerns is: Balloons can travel the same distance and strike as airships, somehow that does not seem right?

Another is the use of balloons and airships in field attacks against ground units, there does not seem to be much history to that application, and more than anything: The frequency of these attacks in this game!

The Admiral has asked me: "What do I think about limiting strategic attacks to "1" per turn?" I am contemplating the idea, thus have not answered him about the proposal (of course I have been drugged using these attacks, it's hard to kick an addiction).

If you get the time; check out my latest posts in the Admiral Serak vs Operating AAR concerning kills/casualties, pay attention to the ratio of troop losses to air losses.

I'm struggling to think of a compromise that may be a solution about air power. (1) Should bomb loads cost more ammo (will reduce frequency of bombing runs). (2) Should air units cost more PP to produce? (thus a valued asset not to be flagrantly exposed). (3) Should an air unit "killed/casualty" count more towards MP, than ground units? (as it is now, there is hardly any consequences to a side's MP (or NM) for frequent use of air power losses).

More to come, Thanks, Bob

Another thought occurred to me that might curb the air war a little: Make it more expensive to repair fighters, balloons, bombers and airships (enough so as to slow down their use, or over use). 1 PP per plane lost in a unit, so if an air attack resulted in 3 losses to an attacker, it would cost 3 PP to repair that attacking unit, instead of 1 PP currently used to repair an air unit with 3 losses, the same could hold true for defending air units, I'm a little iffy on that aspect, but I think my suggestion or proposal would have an effect on the operational (deployment) aspect of the game.. [;)]

[AdmiralSarek]

I think airships should cost 50 to produce, the same as bombers, not the current 30.
That would solve a lot of problems.

Also when one of your fighters gets attacked on the ground, and the unit is exhausted, another neighboring fighter should be used to intercept the attack ie a CAP. In the current situation you just pick on the weak enemy fighter with a bunch of zepplins from 1/2 a continent away and destroy it, much to easy.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: AdmiralSarek

I think airships should cost 50 to produce, the same as bombers, not the current 30.
That would solve a lot of problems.

Also when one of your fighters gets attacked on the ground, and the unit is exhausted, another neighboring fighter should be used to intercept the attack ie a CAP. In the current situation you just pick on the weak enemy fighter with a bunch of zepplins from 1/2 a continent away and destroy it, much to easy.

What's funny: When the game was first released fighters cost 40 or 50 PP each, but many complained that was too expensive, that's how we ended up with 30 PP for a fighter today, that's another reason why I was suggesting other alternatives to dampen the fighter (not just the fighter but all air units), or as you say increase the cost. My feeling is this: Fighters (as well as other air units) seldom get efficiency losses for they don't really move during combat, wheras, most other units suffer efficiency losses for a number of reasons, so if a fighter loses a couple of strength points, it costs diddily-squat to repair that unit. It's not the initial cost of a unit that is a deterrent in over using air, it is the cheap maintenance and repair of the unit that is the crux to having over powering air power.

[operating]

Kirk, the next 2 SS always confound me. The first one has a class III German artillery specifications (red box), however, in the next SS: Is the specifications (red box) for a class II English artillery, which have exactly the same data. This does not make sense? I'll have to "assume" that the German artillery upgraded to chlorine gas, but there is no "icon" or anything else to indicate so. If the German artillery had upgraded to "Shell", I can't see the difference (data) between that and the class II English artillery, which either way confounds me. For the German artillery could be upgraded to a shell and be a class III, also it could be upgraded with just chlorine gas and still be a class III, if the German unit had both "shell" and "chlorine" it would be upgraded to a class IV. There should be an icon to show the difference between the 2 class III settings. But of course I really don't expect anyone would do anything about it, cause it would mean "work", which does not seem to be on the agenda of CTGW lately.

[operating]

Class II English artillery:

[operating]

OK, I guessed right it was a poison gas upgrade to the German class III artillery. So instead of guessing: Why is there not an icon (that shows that the artillery unit is poison gas ready)? Enough with the charades!

[GreyDonkey]

The more I read, the more I get the feeling that playing this game is wasting time. (Just a feeling.)

Even in version 1.64 seems to be many things that negatively affect on the gameplay . To be honest, most of them I haven't noticed or realized yet. (One reason might be my lack of experience with this game.)

The last weeks I've read a lot here and at slitherine forum. And I sadly must say that I think this game has been abandoned by its creators. Are these forums not the way to stay in contact with the gamers? I'm wondering, because I thought this is the place for constructive interchange. But response from the devs is very rare.

Just my 2 cents.

But now back to topic.

[lparkh]

I believe more active forum maybe at Slitherine.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: Kettengeist

The more I read, the more I get the feeling that playing this game is wasting time. (Just a feeling.)

Even in version 1.64 seems to be many things that negatively affect on the gameplay . To be honest, most of them I haven't noticed or realized yet. (One reason might be my lack of experience with this game.)

The last weeks I've read a lot here and at slitherine forum. And I sadly must say that I think this game has been abandoned by its creators. Are these forums not the way to stay in contact with the gamers? I'm wondering, because I thought this is the place for constructive interchange. But response from the devs is very rare.

Just my 2 cents.

But now back to topic.

Don't get me wrong: I love the game, it has progressed and improved so much since when it was first released and I tell ya, I give Kirk23 a lot of the credit for making things happen, he has been the glue that has kept the game, the forum and development together resulting in a really good experience, regardless there is more work to be done. Is the game at it's fullest potential? I don't think so! Could it be a polished gem? Yes! Besides that, there has been a sense of community here that I think many members have benefited from, it's a great thing to see members helping other members, for these members get their enthusiasm from "the powers to be", but when the powers to be are MIA, it's not only looks bad for them (justly so), it affects the forum, when there is a break in the link between customers and the owners. It tears at me when members make inquiries that only the developers can solve that go unanswered, I'm not just speaking for myself, for I ask a lot of questions and don't expect that they all be answered (really I do). I just hate this feeling of being in "Limbo" and I'm sure a lot of the members feel the same way, regardless if it is here, at the Slitherine CTGW forum or even the Steam CTGW forum.

<EDIT>
Oh Yeah! Forgot to mention the Lordz CTGW forum. Don't expect to get any help there either, after all this game is their baby..

[operating]

ORIGINAL: lparkh

I believe more active forum maybe at Slitherine.

lparkh
Can you have this avatar over at the Slitherine forums?:




I did not think so! I read and post at Slitherine, also noticed there has been so much interest (pun) at that CTGW forum there, that nobody has posted an AAR there for almost a year, to be exact since 21 Aug 2014. If you think that forum is so interesting, Why don't you do an AAR there? Anything constructive would do. In the end, it's each to their own.[;)]

Bob[:)]

<EDIT>
Should say the last comment on a incomplete Slickwillie AAR (actually last dated screenshots were 30 Nov. 2012) was 21 Aug 2014.

The last AAR was done by Suprass on 13 Nov 2013, meaning for over 21 months to date there has never been another AAR at the Slitherine CTGW forum. This is not a sign of a "more active forum" as you say.[&:]

<EDIT>
Slitherine CTGW forum: 744 Topics 4854 posts
Matrix CTGW forum: 755 Topics 8569 Posts

Now, which one did you say is more active than the other? Do your homework...

[Meteor2]

Is there any possiblity to do something with the "strategic-AI" ?
As central powers, I have noticed several times, that the Entente-AI is focussing on defending Serbia with french, and britisch troops or north-east Italy with french, british and portugese troops, even if the home countries are are in absolute danger of being overrun.
The same is true for the turkish-russian border, where russian troops are deployed, even if Moskau or Petrograd is threatened.

Can something be done here?[:)]

Otherwise, a very entertaining game.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

Is there any possiblity to do something with the "strategic-AI" ?
As central powers, I have noticed several times, that the Entente-AI is focussing on defending Serbia with french, and britisch troops or north-east Italy with french, british and portugese troops, even if the home countries are are in absolute danger of being overrun.
The same is true for the turkish-russian border, where russian troops are deployed, even if Moskau or Petrograd is threatened.

Can something be done here?[:)]

Otherwise, a very entertaining game.

I wish I could help you with your observations. What you are asking for has to reprogramed by the dev's or an enterprising soul who could create a MOD to suit your desires. Is there a lua file that will do as you say? I don't know? AI scripts have been altered in the past as the game has evolved, that being done by the dev's.
I'll tell you one thing: MP matches are not brain dead strategy wise, compared to the SP AI, also MP matches are a hell of a lot more entertaining (head to head) if you are a master of the war in SP. [;)]