Impressions and suggestions

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

There are a lot of great suggestions throughout these threads, but everyone has their own wrinkles on what they would like changed & how.  Personally, I would NOT like to see a lot more "complexity" added (build times, range of air units, etc.).  What I would like to see are PATCHES that fix all the issues (CTDs, events, etc.) with the basic game, and then maybe some MODS that are optional for those that want to change fundamental game mechanics.  This game is about 90% in the "sweet spot" for me.  I would hate to see an update that combines the two so that it's an "all or nothing" proposition.  Some of the changes to basic gameplay proposed might very well ruin the game for me-- and then I'm stuck having to play a bugged version if I want to play at all.

Nothing personal against any recommendations, but I"ve played several games where stuff that wasn't broken (IMO) was "fixed" to the point that I lost interest in the game...

I am sorry... but what complexity are you talking about?? E.g. air units do have a range, the only thing is that it is not marked on the map.. surely marking it makes the game simpler (you do not have to count it manually) not more complex... So far most changes promised for the patch are interface changes, making easier to know what's going on, not gameplay changes... That said I do agree that maybe the devs are trying to put too many changes in one patch, maybe a series of smaller patches would be better?

[RandomAttack]

ORIGINAL: Borsook

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

There are a lot of great suggestions throughout these threads, but everyone has their own wrinkles on what they would like changed & how.  Personally, I would NOT like to see a lot more "complexity" added (build times, range of air units, etc.).  What I would like to see are PATCHES that fix all the issues (CTDs, events, etc.) with the basic game, and then maybe some MODS that are optional for those that want to change fundamental game mechanics.  This game is about 90% in the "sweet spot" for me.  I would hate to see an update that combines the two so that it's an "all or nothing" proposition.  Some of the changes to basic gameplay proposed might very well ruin the game for me-- and then I'm stuck having to play a bugged version if I want to play at all.

Nothing personal against any recommendations, but I"ve played several games where stuff that wasn't broken (IMO) was "fixed" to the point that I lost interest in the game...

I am sorry... but what complexity are you talking about?? E.g. air units do have a range, the only thing is that it is not marked on the map.. surely marking it makes the game simpler (you do not have to count it manually) not more complex... So far most changes promised for the patch are interface changes, making easier to know what's going on, not gameplay changes... That said I do agree that maybe the devs are trying to put too many changes in one patch, maybe a series of smaller patches would be better?

There are some suggestions throughout various threads about reduced/variable aircraft ranges, increased recruitment times, limited recruit placement, supply issues, and a lot more tweaks to game mechanics.

[doomtrader]

I am sorry... but what complexity are you talking about?? E.g. air units do have a range, the only thing is that it is not marked on the map.. surely marking it makes the game simpler (you do not have to count it manually) not more complex... So far most changes promised for the patch are interface changes, making easier to know what's going on, not gameplay changes... That said I do agree that maybe the devs are trying to put too many changes in one patch, maybe a series of smaller patches would be better?

Most of the changes in the patch will be connected with the interface to make the game more userfriendly.
Next thing is of course bug fixing. There is whole lot of events and numbers there so we have to correct all the typos we have made (with a great feedback from you). Another issues concerns AI, we will try to make it more flexible and better reacting to player deeds.
We are not planning any major changes in the mechanics, rather polishing what you already common with.

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

I am sorry... but what complexity are you talking about?? E.g. air units do have a range, the only thing is that it is not marked on the map.. surely marking it makes the game simpler (you do not have to count it manually) not more complex... So far most changes promised for the patch are interface changes, making easier to know what's going on, not gameplay changes... That said I do agree that maybe the devs are trying to put too many changes in one patch, maybe a series of smaller patches would be better?

Most of the changes in the patch will be connected with the interface to make the game more userfriendly.
Next thing is of course bug fixing. There is whole lot of events and numbers there so we have to correct all the typos we have made (with a great feedback from you). Another issues concerns AI, we will try to make it more flexible and better reacting to player deeds.
We are not planning any major changes in the mechanics, rather polishing what you already common with.

This a very good approach, while personally I believe some gameplay changes are needed (but maybe as optional rules) first patch should concentrate on less invasive areas.

[Tordenskiold]

Thanks cpdeyoung
Is it actually possible to change side when loading the game again? I was wondering about that and think it is an extremely good idea. I wish many more games was like that. But, I can not choose which nation to be human controlled when I load the game. Only on the very first round. How should this actually work?

This would solve a lot of the realism issue since the AI with never do better than an experienced human, at least that is what I think.

[cpdeyoung]

The F11 key allows you to set the "AI" vs. "Human" criteria for each country. You can also adjust the DP and PP here if you need to, as when I gave Germany 5,000PP in my AAR. I have a little trick to get the game to recognize the AI-Human change right away - I go into the "Save game" dialog, and just hit "Exit", you do not even have to save, and the AI will take over at that point.

The F11 key works whenever you are in your phase.

Chuck

[Tordenskiold]

Fascinating! How on earth did you find that out? I have been through most of the manual but can't say I remember this one. Super[:)]
Just an addition, why can't one do the AI changes everytime one loads the game? It always goes through the screen where this seems to be possible.

[sapper32]

Maybe for the Norway issue there could be an event where German Paratroops and Inf start the campain on Noweigan soil and lose a random amout of naval forces,German naval losses were heavy in the campain,or for an Allied AI Anglo French forces start on Norweigan soil if Germany invades just a thought??

[oldspec4]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

The F11 key allows you to set the "AI" vs. "Human" criteria for each country. You can also adjust the DP and PP here if you need to, as when I gave Germany 5,000PP in my AAR. I have a little trick to get the game to recognize the AI-Human change right away - I go into the "Save game" dialog, and just hit "Exit", you do not even have to save, and the AI will take over at that point.

The F11 key works whenever you are in your phase.

Chuck

Will have to try this one out..

[parusski]

I just bought and downloaded this game earlier today. So far I am really enjoying it. To me it has a nice, fresh feel. At this point I can't give any critique. I just want to say-fun. Good job guys.

[doomtrader]

Thanks parruski

[Tordenskiold]

Hi, that might be an idea, at least the German navy most be able to pass through to Norway despite the superior UK navy.
As of now the game can't cope with "über human" achievements like Finland kept USSR at bay in the Winter war despite much smaller forces and the German conquest of Norway despite the Royal Navy and tiny forces compared to Norwegian and Allied forces combined. Brute force is what counts, especially at sea where no strategy and tactics other than combination and placements of forces and when to go to port and repair is possible. I wish the developers could make an ingenious solution to this.

[carnifex]

The AI is unable to take the Crimea. I left one Soviet corps in the fort and that was that. The AI spent months and months milling about, shuffling units back and forth, never made a real attack in spite of bombing the unit once or twice.

Also, the isthmus hex should be attackable from two directions. You need the entire air force and the best Panzerarmee to have any hope of dislodging that unit.

[Anraz]

Crimea is connected to the mainland by the 5–7-kilometer wide Isthmus of Perekop. The area is very easy to defend. Only frontal attack is possible. Also enemies can be seen from many miles (as area is flat and has no trees), but for some reasons ( firstly very poor soviet generals in mind) Germans succeeded. You are a smart commander, and AI is trying to find the other way, simultaneously having around some units in case of your counterattack.

[carnifex]

I agree about your physical description of the area but disagree with the military analysis. The narrowness of the front is not an advantage to the defender but to the attacker. In ancient times 300 hoplites could defend a narrow frontage for days, but in modern times all it means is a more concentrated artillery target. Furthermore, there is no chance that the attacker will be counterattacked from the flanks a la Stalingrad and defensive reinforcements are further hindered because they have to travel through a very narrow and easily interdicted area. As you yourself describe, the area is flat which is a further advantage to the attackers.

Anyway, we could argue about that for a long time. My point is that the AI will never take that hex and I doubt a human player would be able to power through unless they used all their air and the very best unit, since the Soviet can rebuild the unit to full from even .01 strength. This would be an ahistorical solution to a problem created through gameplay mechanics. If you're going to have one-hex wide chokepoints to critical areas, no matter how geographically accurate, bear in mind that game mechanics at present would not allow historical results using historical forces. So you can have an accurate map that produces results out of whack with history, or you can "fudge" the map for gameplay reasons.

[Mike Parker]

Well the Axis would drop a paratrooper or three behind the unit and attack from 4 sides instead of two.  A Frontline Motorized Corp, three frontline paratroop divisions, and 4 Air Armies plus one Air Army for every Soviet Supporting Air Army would be needed to take this hex.
 
Would you as the Axis do this?  I would put a German Inf Corp there, backed by 3 Rom/Hun/Bul units to protect its flanks from paratroopers and just bypass the Crimea all together.  Sevastapol isn't a VP city if I remember correctly anyway.

[Anraz]

Having long and narrow flat corridor a defender can set numerous minefields, can build several lines of defenses, can dig-in and have dozens of lines of trenches, prepared artillery positions and have adjustment of artillery fire, especially when defender has more divisions, more man, tanks and guns it is not a set of advantages for an attacker The attacker was just German infantry corp (IIRC LIV) only with two infantry divisions and without tanks in initial phase of breaking through the Isthmus of Perekop...
Anyway Germans usually preferred manoeuvre warfare instead of frontal wave attack in an obvious points. Frontal attacks was Soviet tactic