Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: kirk23

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

Same scenario time frame turn 1 1915,but note the increased PPs,MP & Ammunition for Germany.

Also highlighted in red,you can see the reduced Research Labs & Upkeep cost.[;)]

Italy & Bulgaria very close to joining the war 1915 scenario.

Italy actually joins the war within days of when she did it in history May 1915.[:D]

Kirk (Lord Extraordinaire),

The proposed changes would they be included in the 1914 scenario? Going on to a 106th turn in MP, longest match yet in 1.4.2 without a CTD (knock on wood), maybe last another week at the pace we are going, a real good game. Question: Would 1.4.8 be released anytime soon? Don't see any comments, one way or the other about Turk armored cars. Would like to test all these new ideas and changes for they seem to be opening the game up.

Thanks, Bob [:)]

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk (Lord Extraordinaire),

The proposed changes would they be included in the 1914 scenario? Going on to a 106th turn in MP, longest match yet in 1.4.2 without a CTD (knock on wood), maybe last another week at the pace we are going, a real good game. Question: Would 1.4.8 be released anytime soon? Don't see any comments, one way or the other about Turk armored cars. Would like to test all these new ideas and changes for they seem to be opening the game up.

Thanks, Bob [:)]

All changes will apply to all scenario's,I'm going through each and everyone with fine tooth comb,I have already noticed a lot off things that are wrong,and they are all being corrected as I find them.[;)]

Turkish armoured car,assists in the defense of the border with Russia.[:)]

Early research suggests that,Turkey purchased some armoured cars from France before the war,in fact most off the major powers,had very early designs of armoured cars already in use, long before the war started.

Question: What is going to happen to isolated SGs

All isolated Small Garrison's,are changed to just Garrison units simple ain't it![:D]

Kirk the explainer,

Will you be addressing this subject also in the War Room thread: SUPPLY RULES NOT IMPLEMENTED ?

Bob

Open,

This is a NOTE to the "nay sayers": With the upcoming patch or patches, don't bitch and moan if you see something that is troubling to you then, that could have been looked into NOW! I say this because there are matters that could be brought to light, that others may have not noticed, then addressed, that very well might have an effect on everybody's game. I've looked to play other games, But keep coming back here to CTGW for some games are to me are too advanced or micro-managed, or down right dumb games. to me this game has a nice stroke to it, once a player understands it. The MP pbem system has worked great, can't say enough about how well the MP community has been here. It's just my 2 cents worth to all the different styles of players.

Bob

Kirk,

Just some random suggestions:

What if the lab cost and upkeep was free or very low for the first lab in each category, but with steep increases for every additional lab above 1 you buy in each category?

Regarding Turkish armoured cars: I think automobile, machine gun, and armour technology was available to all the Great Powers by 1914. It is just a matter of how the techs were applied and in what numbers. I honestly do not know if Turkey fielded an "armoured car unit" in the real war so would defer to those who do. But in any event I wouldn't be against it being a researchable tech for Turkey and other countries.

I notice the Turkish cruisers can't be upgraded beyond Level 1. This makes sense, since the Turkish fleet didn't do much in the real war. But what if they were allowed to upgrade to Level 2 if the Goeben and Breslau event occurs? Or maybe have it happen for free as an incentive for the CP player to take a risk.

I'd like to see more variation on which sides Turkey and Italy join, since they both could have gone either way in real life. I don't think they should ever be on the same side, though.

Lastly, two major events which were important for the USA in World War I are missing. The first is the sinking of the Lusitania. What if this were given as an event as a warning to the CP when the US was at a certain point toward declaring war - halfway, 2/3, something like that. Much like Unrestricted Submarine Warfare gives a heads up, but later than that.

Second, the infamous Zimmerman Note. That could also be an event gauging how close the USA is going to war against the CP, only I'd make this the last one.

Regarding the Zimmerman Note, Germany did attempt on some level to have Mexico join the CP. If there were Zimmerman Note event, what if there was a small chance, say 10%, that Germany was actually successful? It could play out like the Arab Revolt does against Turkey - not to be ignored but not too hard to put down - unless the CP sends help.

Connfire wrote;
What if the lab cost and upkeep was free or very low for the first lab in each category, but with steep increases for every additional lab above 1 you buy in each category?

Makes sense to me.[:)]

Might add: this idea would be an incentive for a side to keep labs, for if they don't, it would really "cost" them to get it back, also this might help in rounding the game later in a match. Buying a lab with upkeep would weigh on the economy, something to think about.[8|]

<edit>

I've seen where one lab in a category of the tech tree, for the length of a game, had done a saficient (?sp) job. Yes,, it would be great to have multiple labs in a category, but not as easy as getting an ice cream at the store down the street. If what Kirk says: tech development is going to pick up speed in future patch(s), one lab maybe all a nation needs per category, to be fair. If you have the spare PP, a rich player, may invest into expensive labs as part of the owning side's strategy.

ORIGINAL: 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...

If the AI does not buy or sell labs, then it should be the same for players. Just thought to throw that out there for a reaction. for if the AI cannot or will not make a strategic decision along those lines, it's either at a disadvantage or it should be the same for the player. Just kicking the ball around on this one...

The AI does buy and sell labs,it reacts to the flow off the game.

As previously stated,research is being overhauled,Lab cost,Upkeep cost have been reduced,research time has been sped up slightly,both for standard research and focused.Plus each major power starts the game,with more variation on the research already carried out on Tech.[;)]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Another bone of contention that has been fixed,is the use off the Small Garrison.It will now, not stray more than one hex from the City it starts from.Meaning that it can't be transported by Sea or Rail,and neither will you see it creep slowly into the front lines,they will now do, what they were originally intended to do,and that is defend your Cities behind the front lines.[;)]

Often SGs become front line, simply because the front line crosses over their city at some point. Is there any chance that SGs will receive tech upgrades? In 1.4.2, SGs do get the entrenchment upgrade. My thinking is: that if a SG is pinned in to a city and it's surroundings, that the attacker will concentrate on this weak unit, much like in 1.40. combined arms attacks on SGs is devastating. I realize that SG s are meant to hold till more powerful units arrive or swap places, but if it is later in a game, the attacker may be many times tech heavier, whereas, a SG never change tech elevations. Can you see where I am going with this? I'm OK with SG limited movement.

<edit>

IIRC, in 1.40 SGs could not be disbanded when restricted to a city.

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Another bone of contention that has been fixed,is the use off the Small Garrison.It will now, not stray more than one hex from the City it starts from.Meaning that it can't be transported by Sea or Rail,and neither will you see it creep slowly into the front lines,they will now do, what they were originally intended to do,and that is defend your Cities behind the front lines.[;)]

Often SGs become front line, simply because the front line crosses over their city at some point. Is there any chance that SGs will receive tech upgrades? In 1.4.2, SGs do get the entrenchment upgrade. My thinking is: that if a SG is pinned in to a city and it's surroundings, that the attacker will concentrate on this weak unit, much like in 1.40. combined arms attacks on SGs is devastating. I realize that SG s are meant to hold till more powerful units arrive or swap places, but if it is later in a game, the attacker may be many times tech heavier, whereas, a SG never change tech elevations. Can you see where I am going with this? I'm OK with SG limited movement.

<edit>

IIRC, in 1.40 SGs could not be disbanded when restricted to a city.

If you are allowed to upgrade the Small Garrison,then you will have to pay Upkeep,and if you pay upkeep on them,then the PPs for all Countries, will have to be increased by quite a large amount,to cover the cost of the SG units,because there are many Small Garrison units on the map,especially for Countries like Russia,who have a lot of Cities to protect,the question is where to you draw the line,its swings and roundabouts,somewhere down the line you have to balance the books.Remember the Small Garrison is a free unit,it cost's your Countries zero,they only cost you anything when you decide to repair them after combat,I could easily grant them upgrade enhancements,that is not the problem.[;)]

Hi Bob, I have given the Small Garrison unit an Upkeep cost,since they are no longer a freebie,I will give them access to Tech Upgrades like all other units in the game.[;)]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Another bone of contention that has been fixed,is the use off the Small Garrison.It will now, not stray more than one hex from the City it starts from.Meaning that it can't be transported by Sea or Rail,and neither will you see it creep slowly into the front lines,they will now do, what they were originally intended to do,and that is defend your Cities behind the front lines.[;)]

Often SGs become front line, simply because the front line crosses over their city at some point. Is there any chance that SGs will receive tech upgrades? In 1.4.2, SGs do get the entrenchment upgrade. My thinking is: that if a SG is pinned in to a city and it's surroundings, that the attacker will concentrate on this weak unit, much like in 1.40. combined arms attacks on SGs is devastating. I realize that SG s are meant to hold till more powerful units arrive or swap places, but if it is later in a game, the attacker may be many times tech heavier, whereas, a SG never change tech elevations. Can you see where I am going with this? I'm OK with SG limited movement.

<edit>

IIRC, in 1.40 SGs could not be disbanded when restricted to a city.

If you are allowed to upgrade the Small Garrison,then you will have to pay Upkeep,and if you pay upkeep on them,then the PPs for all Countries, will have to be increased by quite a large amount,to cover the cost of the SG units,because there are many Small Garrison units on the map,especially for Countries like Russia,who have a lot of Cities to protect,the question is where to you draw the line,its swings and roundabouts,somewhere down the line you have to balance the books.Remember the Small Garrison is a free unit,it cost's your Countries zero,they only cost you anything when you decide to repair them after combat,I could easily grant them upgrade enhancements,that is not the problem.[;)]

I don't think it would be wise to upgrade each and every SG, only the ones who are threatened, and let it be known if a player decides to upgrade an SG, what are the consequences of doing so, short of disbanding, or loss of the unit due to combat. Certainly would not want to upset the PP as you have planned, to an even greater amount. It might be worth it to upgrade a SG to save a city temporarily, then disband (return upkeep cost to production) it after the threat is over or destroyed, if desired. This is a subject that should be discussed now, instead of later. To tell the truth: I am a little on the fence about this proposal, but felt it was worth mentioning.