Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ?

[warspite1]

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?

[stockwellpete]

In the one game I have been able to complete (as the Entente) Bulgaria did not enter the war. The Central Powers have no chance as the Beta patch is at the moment anyway, but Bulgaria should usually join the war and help to knock out Serbia.

[bob.]

I don't know all that much about WW1 but I recall having read that German industry was leaps and bounds ahead of all other nations at the start of the war and only over time the Entente managed to get even close to the level of centralization and effectiveness of the German industry.

So instead of starting at 100 % industrial efficiency (I think they do?) maybe have the Entente start at a lower level and only reach the maximum mid-1915 or so. That way Germany has an industrial edge until then.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?

warspite1

Any chance of an answer on this please?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?

warspite1

Any chance of an answer on this please?

In one of my games I think I have done slightly better than historical but Bulgaria still remain neutral. With that said I see no chance of me winning the game.

CTGW is a game that I found was fairly balanced has now become so unbalanced that it hardly feels like it is worth the time playing. I find this saddening since this is, or rather was, one of my favourite games.

So, please, answer warspite1's question about Bulgaria.

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?

Hot fix should be made available within the next couple off days, and Bulgaria will enter the war a few turns after Italy!

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?

warspite1

Any chance of an answer on this please?

In one of my games I think I have done slightly better than historical but Bulgaria still remain neutral. With that said I see no chance of me winning the game.

CTGW is a game that I found was fairly balanced has now become so unbalanced that it hardly feels like it is worth the time playing. I find this saddening since this is, or rather was, one of my favourite games.

So, please, answer warspite1's question about Bulgaria.

There will be a hot fix that fixes reported game crashes, and within this hot fix, the game will have a number off game unbalanced issues addressed,the City of Brugge and the small garrison in Belgium have been removed from the game, as it appears a number off gamers have been finding it difficult to play the Schiefflin Plan .

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question:

What has happened to Bulgaria in the latest patch?

In no 1.4 game I have been involved has she come close to entering the war. What has happened here?

One of the complaints with 1.3 is that Romania did not come in if Russia was doing badly. This just ensured that likely defeat was made all the more certain. Has this problem just been replicated with the Central Powers?

Hot fix should be made available within the next couple off days, and Bulgaria will enter the war a few turns after Italy!

Thank you. I appreciate this.

[Orm]

Now back to how sea battles functions. I have several concerns about this. Here is a picure that illustrates a few of them.

The picture is from a game I play against warspite1 and from a sea battle a while ago. It shows the situation after three turns of fighting where the Russian battleship has been unable to move.

My concern with this sea battle is the following:
1) I find it ridiculous that enemy ships can block other ship from passing. I do understand that passing (through) another fleet means a battle but if you seek battle then I do not see how that blockade can occur. The Russian ship was in fact a German prisoner for at least 6 turns before she was sunk.

2) This fight lasted for 6 or more turns before the Russian BB was lost. I do not like that ships fighting at sea seems to have unlimited supply of ammo. One solution that could be applied is that ships that fight at sea use up ammo as they do when they shore bombard. I think that even subs could use ammo.

3) The Russian battleship is in a home water hex. Yet she has not done even one point of damage to one the German ships although she has fired at them, defensively, 6 times.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Now back to how sea battles functions. I have several concerns about this. Here is a picure that illustrates a few of them.

The picture is from a game I play against warspite1 and from a sea battle a while ago. It shows the situation after three turns of fighting where the Russian battleship has been unable to move.

My concern with this sea battle is the following:
1) I find it ridiculous that enemy ships can block other ship from passing. I do understand that passing (through) another fleet means a battle but if you seek battle then I do not see how that blockade can occur. The Russian ship was in fact a German prisoner for at least 6 turns before she was sunk.

2) This fight lasted for 6 or more turns before the Russian BB was lost. I do not like that ships fighting at sea seems to have unlimited supply of ammo. One solution that could be applied is that ships that fight at sea use up ammo as they do when they shore bombard. I think that even subs could use ammo.

3) The Russian battleship is in a home water hex. Yet she has not done even one point of damage to one the German ships although she has fired at them, defensively, 6 times.

warspite1

This was one of the suggestions from way back. The idea was that - just as army units lose efficiency, so naval units that stay at sea too long do the same and need to return to port to replicate the need to refuel, rearm etc. There is then far more of a tactical element about when you put to sea, how long do you chance your arm for etc etc.

[Hellfirejet]

I hear you folks, I have altered a lot off Naval stuff, which will solve most of the above issues, Home Port & Green Dot Area are now much more off a deterant to, aggressive enemy attack's, and believe me you ain't going to be attacking in the Green Dot Area from now on simply because you will loose big time! Once you play with the new scripts for naval combat, the Russian Battleship will more than hold its own against 3 or 4 attacking fleets.

PLUS HOW ARE YOU GUYS MANAGING TO TAKE SCREEN SHOTS, MY PRINT SCREEN KEYBOARD BUTTON IS NOT WORKING FOR ME.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I hear you folks, I have altered a lot off Naval stuff, which will solve most of the above issues, Home Port & Green Dot Area are now much more off a deterant to, aggressive enemy attack's, and believe me you ain't going to be attacking in the Green Dot Area from now on simply because you will loose big time! Once you play with the new scripts for naval combat, the Russian Battleship will more than hold its own against 3 or 4 attacking fleets.

Thank you for the work and effort you make in perfecting this game. [:)]

[Orm]

Now onwards to my next naval concern.

Should English or French submarines be allowed to sail into the Baltic sea without opening some sort of route into the Baltic? Like capturing Copenhagen or something to that effect?

In many of the games I play the entire German fleet is needed to protect the Baltic convoys versus one Russian and one British submarine.

Should submarines be allowed to attack convoys where they appear at the edge of the map?

I thought that shipments from Sweden to Germany did suffer any major losses during WWI. But in the game almost every convoy gets annihilated if the triple entente so desire.

Edit: I use my print screen buttons (two) so I am afraid I can't help you with that. [:(]

[Hellfirejet]

I don't like the idea that the Entente, IE Britain & France Submarines can gain easy access to the Baltic, I tried to make it harder by giving Germany more cruisers so that she could blockade the entrance to the Baltic.

While I'm here I'm play testing Battleships with the same range advantage that the Artillery unit gets off 2 hexes,what do you guys think?[;)]

Another thing I have just left a message for the software wiz kid, asking him how hard would it be, to treat Naval units the same as the Artillery unit, IE that they consume ammunitions after maybe 3 rounds of combat maximum,and once ammo depleted then they have to return to port to rearm.[;)]

[stockwellpete]

I really like the way the discussion is going on the naval aspects of the game. With ammunition, and maybe repairs being altered at a later stage, players are going to have to think really hard about how they use their navies. Rotation of ships will become a factor and this will encourage some nations to build extra ships for this purpose (e.g. Russia and Austro-Hungary. One class of ship that is not represented at the moment is the destroyer and I was wondering what the thinking is about these ships? At the moment I tend to assume that when I have a battleship unit at strength 10 then that might represent 4 capital ships and their destroyer escorts. Is that how you all see it?

[stockwellpete]

I am trying to understand the two main infantry units at the moment - "infantry" and "garrison".

Infantry costs 30PP, garrison costs 10PP = one third the cost (33%)
Infantry costs 10MP, garrison costs 6PP = three-fifths the cost (60%)
Infantry upkeep costs 3PP, garrison upkeep costs 2PP = two-thirds the cost (66%)
Infantry takes 3 turns to complete, garrison takes 1 turn - one third the time (33%)

I don't actually understand exactly what these two unit types are meant to represent or why there seems to be discrepancies between their costs and completion times on the one hand and their upkeep and costs on the other. Do "infantry" units represent a certain number of men and "garrison" units a lesser number of men? Is there any scale at work here? Maybe army corps and army division perhaps?

I was looking at another WW1 game yesterday and they have the following infantry units - HQ, Corps, Detachment, Garrison (also Marines, Engineers and Partisans). The Corps units represent 2+ divisions or somewhere between 50-100,000 men. The Detachments represent less than 50,000 men and the Garrisons are just a token force.

I would imagine that whatever you do it is very difficult to reproduce historical mobilisation rates in the game and maybe what we have is the best that can be done (apart from "garrison" being the wrong term for the smaller infantry unit).

Any thoughts on this?

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I really like the way the discussion is going on the naval aspects of the game. With ammunition, and maybe repairs being altered at a later stage, players are going to have to think really hard about how they use their navies. Rotation of ships will become a factor and this will encourage some nations to build extra ships for this purpose (e.g. Russia and Austro-Hungary. One class of ship that is not represented at the moment is the destroyer and I was wondering what the thinking is about these ships? At the moment I tend to assume that when I have a battleship unit at strength 10 then that might represent 4 capital ships and their destroyer escorts. Is that how you all see it?

It is all abstract guess work, as to the exact number off capital ships, a fleet unit is supposed to represent. I think the term fleet is misleading, I think of them as Squadrons off no more than 10 Battleships, with an escort of a Destroyers,as for Destroyers as a new unit, I have included them in my mod, as a new unit type, in the production queue. I would like to see them added to the game, as the main anti-submarine unit,and not have Cruisers doing this job,the anti-submarine roll is a perfect fit for the Destroyer.

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I am trying to understand the two main infantry units at the moment - "infantry" and "garrison".

Infantry costs 30PP, garrison costs 10PP = one third the cost (33%)
Infantry costs 10MP, garrison costs 6PP = three-fifths the cost (60%)
Infantry upkeep costs 3PP, garrison upkeep costs 2PP = two-thirds the cost (66%)
Infantry takes 3 turns to complete, garrison takes 1 turn - one third the time (33%)

I don't actually understand exactly what these two unit types are meant to represent or why there seems to be discrepancies between their costs and completion times on the one hand and their upkeep and costs on the other. Do "infantry" units represent a certain number of men and "garrison" units a lesser number of men? Is there any scale at work here? Maybe army corps and army division perhaps?

I was looking at another WW1 game yesterday and they have the following infantry units - HQ, Corps, Detachment, Garrison (also Marines, Engineers and Partisans). The Corps units represent 2+ divisions or somewhere between 50-100,000 men. The Detachments represent less than 50,000 men and the Garrisons are just a token force.

I would imagine that whatever you do it is very difficult to reproduce historical mobilisation rates in the game and maybe what we have is the best that can be done (apart from "garrison" being the wrong term for the smaller infantry unit).

Any thoughts on this?

The new Infantry v Garrison script settings, I'm play testing. Have the Infantry being twice the size and strength off the Garrison unit.

Infantry costs 20PP, garrison costs 10PP

Infantry costs 12MP, garrison costs 6MP

Infantry upkeep costs 4PP, garrison upkeep costs 2PP

Infantry takes 4 turns to complete, garrison takes 2 turns to complete.

Although very handy,having a new unit built and be available to use, as a fighting unit in 1 turn, or 2 weeks in game terms is ludicrous.Even 2 turns or a month, for a new Garrison unit to be made available, is a short period of time, to create a new fully functioning fighting unit. But having these slight changes makes the gamer plan ahead and think more about what they are doing.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

The new Infantry v Garrison script settings, I'm play testing. Have the Infantry being twice the size and strength off the Garrison unit.

Infantry costs 20PP, garrison costs 10PP

Infantry costs 12MP, garrison costs 6MP

Infantry upkeep costs 4PP, garrison upkeep costs 2PP

Infantry takes 4 turns to complete, garrison takes 2 turns to complete.

Although very handy,having a new unit built and be available to use, as a fighting unit in 1 turn, or 2 weeks in game terms is ludicrous.Even 2 turns or a month, for a new Garrison unit to be made available, is a short period of time, to create a new fully functioning fighting unit. But having these slight changes makes the gamer plan ahead and think more about what they are doing.

Sounds very good, Kirk. Maybe the "efficiency" rating of newly built infantry units should be lower to start with to represent inexperienced troops. So losses would be very heavy if they were thrown into battle straight away?

Is there a better term than "garrison" we can use for the smaller infantry unit? Would it be a big job to change it?

[bob.]

ORIGINAL: kirk23
PLUS HOW ARE YOU GUYS MANAGING TO TAKE SCREEN SHOTS, MY PRINT SCREEN KEYBOARD BUTTON IS NOT WORKING FOR ME.

You can use Fraps:
http://www.fraps.com/download.php

Also saves you the trouble of having to paste it in an image editor after printing the screen (saves in Fraps directory).

Alternatively of course, you can always just play in a window.