Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch

[operating]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I have given Germany the same Convoy PPs strength as British & French convoys,in an attempt to make the naval game much more interesting,all the major powers now have much more naval capability,so it is up to Britain mainly to attack the Convoy from Norway to Germany,Britain has more Dreadnoughts and Cruisers at her disposal,to accomplish this task for the duration of the war,if she fails to stop the German convoy's,then the fault lies with the Entente player,and to counter the Entente aggression,Germany only needs to build up her Submarine force,to inflict losses on the British naval strength.[;)]

I would with agree with you to a point, however, now that Russian cities on average have production value of 2, after being captured will more than likely produce 1 point each for CP, times let's say 20 cities comes out to at least 20 addition points for CP, I believe even at that I am being very conservative in that estimate, combined with an unchallenged Baltic supply convoys is a lot of PP (120 plus CP home economies on a given turn). I think the point is about timing, Yes early on it is about a naval conflict, but later it becomes a economic battle I don't think Entente will survive. It makes for an interesting game NO DOUBT. Presently have 4 MP matches going, 2 as CP, my Russian games are struggling, one badly, actually the Western Front is abysmal as the East. Maybe I'm losing my touch and have to go back to MP strategy school. Lessons are learned from both winning and losing..[:-]

[operating]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I have given Germany the same Convoy PPs strength as British & French convoys,in an attempt to make the naval game much more interesting,all the major powers now have much more naval capability,so it is up to Britain mainly to attack the Convoy from Norway to Germany,Britain has more Dreadnoughts and Cruisers at her disposal,to accomplish this task for the duration of the war,if she fails to stop the German convoy's,then the fault lies with the Entente player,and to counter the Entente aggression,Germany only needs to build up her Submarine force,to inflict losses on the British naval strength.[;)]

Kirk,

Put up a couple of MP Challenges for you, give it a go!

Bob

[operating]

CTGW.

Can anybody please explain how on turn 1 of a SP 1914 game, that AH has 2 infantry next to Temeschburg (circled in red)? Where AH in every game I have played, AH has "only one RR".

Durr, Bob

[operating]

Kirk,
I don't know if you if you are putting additional tech icon window rows (or whatever you call them) or not, if you do, you better add on a lot of them. I like the waiting time numbers in the windows, however the windows are very congested to where countries entering later never get a tech viewing.

Thanks, Bob

ORIGINAL: operating

Hi Kirk!

3 issues: One, Turk Research tech icons don't show, you need at least one more row for tech icons. Two, German Research tech icons for armor don't show either. Three, Game will not let CP refuse Serbia Surrender.

Don't know why?[&:] Turn 19 the AI ran at normal speed, no long wait.

Chao, Bob

[suprass81]

In my oppinion biggest problem to make this game ballanced (at last in MP) is difference in Research. OK- I understand that one side could be mor advanced than other but weapons used in this war was not so advanced to make it so hard to "copy" after one side use it on the battlefield. I'm talking at last about machin guns, metal helmets and granades and so on. I can understand that rail guns and tanks are more advanced tech but that can be represented by different probres starting point for this tech for each country (as it is onw). But thouse simple tech like pillbox and other "small projects" should be research by other sides allmoust same time. We can give one side or another small adventage in different projects but diferences should be defoult abot4-6 turns (2-3 months in game time). Than player should choose to build more labs to increase this adventage or to make is smaller- evry lab could speed up project for 3 turns. So Player could choose to build labs or to build army. This should fix problems with Russia and Serbia if we combine it with small boost in starting army- for Russia give them two mor infantry corps half build at their entry to war and 8 PP more to upkeep them, For Serbia- I was talking about it before... some more ammo for arty and moveing some PP to cities behind first front line. Also subs are ro powerfull for me but... don't change them all- increase upkeep by 1 and this should make them less on the battlefield. Thouse changes combined should make game more ballanced.
One more thing- please don't add new things for now and focus only on fixing ballance. Each time you make new patch you fix some problems pointed by players and you are adding some new things- thous combined togather usually make game unballanced again. I propose to fix biggest existing problems -Russia, Serbia and eventually subs (which are allmoust perfect) witch only small changes. If this will work then add some new things if you want.
This is only my personal oppinion so don't be angry at me Feel free to comment it- maybee I'm wrong....?

[operating]

ORIGINAL: suprass81

In my oppinion biggest problem to make this game ballanced (at last in MP) is difference in Research. OK- I understand that one side could be mor advanced than other but weapons used in this war was not so advanced to make it so hard to "copy" after one side use it on the battlefield. I'm talking at last about machin guns, metal helmets and granades and so on. I can understand that rail guns and tanks are more advanced tech but that can be represented by different probres starting point for this tech for each country (as it is onw). But thouse simple tech like pillbox and other "small projects" should be research by other sides allmoust same time. We can give one side or another small adventage in different projects but diferences should be defoult abot4-6 turns (2-3 months in game time). Than player should choose to build more labs to increase this adventage or to make is smaller- evry lab could speed up project for 3 turns. So Player could choose to build labs or to build army. This should fix problems with Russia and Serbia if we combine it with small boost in starting army- for Russia give them two mor infantry corps half build at their entry to war and 8 PP more to upkeep them, For Serbia- I was talking about it before... some more ammo for arty and moveing some PP to cities behind first front line. Also subs are ro powerfull for me but... don't change them all- increase upkeep by 1 and this should make them less on the battlefield. Thouse changes combined should make game more ballanced.
One more thing- please don't add new things for now and focus only on fixing ballance. Each time you make new patch you fix some problems pointed by players and you are adding some new things- thous combined togather usually make game unballanced again. I propose to fix biggest existing problems -Russia, Serbia and eventually subs (which are allmoust perfect) witch only small changes. If this will work then add some new things if you want.
This is only my personal oppinion so don't be angry at me Feel free to comment it- maybee I'm wrong....?

I believe Suprass is talking about adjusting the "bar graph" below each tech icon, or at least one of them. He has had an issue in our MP match that the Germans have advanced to higher tech levels faster than the Russians. For one, I have more than 1 lab covering infantry techs (top secret). I'll do my homework to check and see what the comparisons are between German and Russian tech bar graphs when Russians enter the war. [Take note that the Germans have been at war at least 3 turns before Russians enter]. Serbia could use a tweak in this area, not much, just to make having a lab justified. I do not see this as a problem in SP, it's more of an MP problem.

Let me ask this: Might there be a different set of parameters set for MP than SP?

Below is an example of what I am referring to..

[suprass81]

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: suprass81

In my oppinion biggest problem to make this game ballanced (at last in MP) is difference in Research. OK- I understand that one side could be mor advanced than other but weapons used in this war was not so advanced to make it so hard to "copy" after one side use it on the battlefield. I'm talking at last about machin guns, metal helmets and granades and so on. I can understand that rail guns and tanks are more advanced tech but that can be represented by different probres starting point for this tech for each country (as it is onw). But thouse simple tech like pillbox and other "small projects" should be research by other sides allmoust same time. We can give one side or another small adventage in different projects but diferences should be defoult abot4-6 turns (2-3 months in game time). Than player should choose to build more labs to increase this adventage or to make is smaller- evry lab could speed up project for 3 turns. So Player could choose to build labs or to build army. This should fix problems with Russia and Serbia if we combine it with small boost in starting army- for Russia give them two mor infantry corps half build at their entry to war and 8 PP more to upkeep them, For Serbia- I was talking about it before... some more ammo for arty and moveing some PP to cities behind first front line. Also subs are ro powerfull for me but... don't change them all- increase upkeep by 1 and this should make them less on the battlefield. Thouse changes combined should make game more ballanced.
One more thing- please don't add new things for now and focus only on fixing ballance. Each time you make new patch you fix some problems pointed by players and you are adding some new things- thous combined togather usually make game unballanced again. I propose to fix biggest existing problems -Russia, Serbia and eventually subs (which are allmoust perfect) witch only small changes. If this will work then add some new things if you want.
This is only my personal oppinion so don't be angry at me Feel free to comment it- maybee I'm wrong....?

I believe Suprass is talking about adjusting the "bar graph" below each tech icon, or at least one of them. He has had an issue in our MP match that the Germans have advanced to higher tech levels faster than the Russians. For one, I have more than 1 lab covering infantry techs (top secret). I'll do my homework to check and see what the comparisons are between German and Russian tech bar graphs when Russians enter the war. [Take note that the Germans have been at war at least 3 turns before Russians enter]. Serbia could use a tweak in this area, not much, just to make having a lab justified. I do not see this as a problem in SP, it's more of an MP problem.

Let me ask this: Might there be a different set of parameters set for MP than SP?

Below is an example of what I am referring to..

Yes Operating I'm talking about what you show on picture. But this problem isn't only in Russia or Serbia Research. It's a problem for all of the Entente side. There is to much time for Germans to act in adventage. I understand about 4-6 turns for Germans in adventage to gave them chance to make any offensive before fron will stop in trench. But after you give to Germany 10 turns adventage or more in offensive tech it is too much... For now Entente is behind in allmoust all of research. In our game you (as CP player) have better arty, fighter planes and infantry (if I'm correct- or at last you will have level III soon). You have fighter planes level 2 from about 5 turns and I need about 10-12 (I have 2 labs in air research from about 5 turns). You are killing my planes and baloons like a flys. In previouse versions there were no such a big differences in infantry, art and air tech if I remember correct? So I don't understand why it is changed in this patch. This changes combined with new starting army for both sides and new PP income make game a lot unballanced.
For me Russians can be more behind in tech than other Entente countries (wasn't that in history) but they should have something in return- a little bigger PP income and a little bigger starting army than she has now.
Mechanics of this version works for me very well- I mean air war, naval and ground battles works good in my oppinion. In my oppinion problems in balance are becouse of the tech differences (a big problem) and in starting army for Serbia and Russia (only small changes should fix this).
P.S. I can understand that Germans will have better torpedo tech for about half of the year (12 turns) or more but I don't belive that one side fight half of the year in metal helmets and second can't develop it...

[Hellfirejet]

Hi guys, I have been reading your feedback,and I have just sent the software wiz kid,modified game play scripts,that Increase Russian PPs & give them another Infantry unit near Moscow,I have also adjusted the research time delays,for Serbia,France,Britain & Russia,Germany still has the advantage in research,but she has less time, to make that advantage tell on the battlefield before,the Entente respond with their own research coming on stream.

[operating]

Kirk,

To be certain: The problems suprass and myself are experiencing (we have 2 matches going, alternating sides), is an MP issue, not an SP issue. I've said this before: I find the SP game very winnable with either side. IF POSSIPLE only make adjustments in the MP scenario (1914), can it be done in that mode? That is the question that would be of importance to me. There is only a few of us who are participating in the 1.60 beta MP matches, there are more than likely a lot more engaging in SP. It would be of the utmost interest, to hear from them about the changes you propose, I certainly would not want to upset "their games" to satisfy my/individual (and others) interests, so I find myself in a bit of a dilemma on how to move forward, without going into a mod. Most who enter the MP Lobby, look to join/post a (challenge) scenario they are familiar with, something that is generally accepted. Personally, I would love that everybody take a shot at MP in CTGW. It blew me away my first start in MP (of course I got crushed), but the challenge was there to do better, for I was just about completely bored playing the AI after many enjoyable games.

Thanks, Bob

[suprass81]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Hi guys, I have been reading your feedback,and I have just sent the software wiz kid,modified game play scripts,that Increase Russian PPs & give them another Infantry unit near Moscow,I have also adjusted the research time delays,for Serbia,France,Britain & Russia,Germany still has the advantage in research,but she has less time, to make that advantage tell on the battlefield before,the Entente respond with their own research coming on stream.

Hi Kirk!
Good to read this !
Step by step and we will find ballance.
For now all the new units are working good, their stats looks ballanced and I can't say any bad thing about it. Air units take casulties during ground attack (bombing rides and suppresing missions). For the first time naval war looks very interesting (but I think Germans can build to much subs- or I can't fight with them or... it's the consequences of loosing Antwerp and Calais -you can see it in my AAr).
In my oppinion moust emportant is the begining- Serbia and Russia (or maybe only Russia) must have at last a small chance to do something in 1914- rest of the game will goes depanding on player skill. I made a lot of mistakes at sea so I understand that I'm looseing slowly but I can't see any chance on the ground too...
I think that research mechanics should give both sides chances to attack- once Cp and than Entente and so on. If Russia will be e threat in early 1915 Entente will have a chance to attack in France. In my oppinion Russia and Serbia should depend each other in 1914 unless Entente will be able to send there French and British. I mean if Serbia die quick (this option should be abel to achive by full scale attack -makeing France more safe at the beginig and giveing some room for Russia) Russia should still have a chance to defend or counterattack but with some limits. Entente player should be carefull in Russia with his attack/defend actions to not make any big mistake... And then time slowly should work for Russia giving a chance for CP to make action on western or eastern front. Russia shoud gain max strenght in 1916 if left without attantion. I know it's difficult to achive. What do you think?
I think that adding this one infantry corps is a good option- not too much but in the early war it can be very emportant.
And one mor thing- I will say it again- changes are good and we are going in good direction. I wish you luck with patching this great game!

[operating]

In both of our matches, we are still in the early going, no more than turn 23. Both of us are seeing the Eastern Front collapsing early on, then it's a pac-man game of gobbling up territory. The Russians then have no choice but to pick strong points to defend: such as Kovno , Riga, Sarakimish, maybe Keiv, ultimately falling back to Capitals. I tried going on the offensive to take Koenigsberg with this new Russian OOB, had some minor successes, but could not maintain the momentum, resulting in a German Tanninberg type victory. The Moscow infantry units came in handy to RR in only as far as Riga one at a time, in a way I liked how Kirk positioned them there. Which got me to thinking[8|]: One of Russia's main problems is RR management for so vast an area to defend. Yes, the front get's very fluid as intended after 1.20, entrenching was reduced so as to not have the game go static in the East. But it seemed the Russians were always on the run. Yes, reinforcements could be called up and placed to where they could best be used, often stuck there when the action happens elsewhere (too great a distance to march hex by hex). I guess what I am saying is, that Russia would have to have a Monster army to hold the Eastern Front, which in turn would not be fair to CP resources. Getting back to the RR thought, If Russia had increased RR management would be OK, but I would also ask that CP RR management be increased too.

[Hellfirejet]

So you think the Rail Transport allowance, for the major powers in the game should be increased slightly? Plus the distance you can travel per turn should be raised as well?

[operating]

Yes, Suprass's RN is taking a beating, however his merchant convoys have been reaching home ports, enough to where he can buy an extra transport, plus numerous English ground forces of which he has 3 English infantry waiting to disembark near Galipoli, plus naval support, too boot: he has artillery and a lot of infantry down on the Sinai, not including the English artillery and other units stationed in France. To me in both matches England has been balanced. Two things here, reducing the RN to gain naval superiority, as of yet, not a complete knockout blow, however, England should be able to replenish Light cruisers and or have extra airships built, both low upkeep. Secondly, I seriously question increasing England 's PP and tech bar graphs to where it would be "Too strong" for Turkey to handle, resulting in a premature Turkish rout, after all Turkey is fighting on 2 fronts with a bare minimum of PP and low tech bar graphs, which is hampering their development as bad as Serbia's, with an even greater land mass to defend. So beware: That by giving England and France additional advantages, that will possibly unbalanced other aspects of the game.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

So you think the Rail Transport allowance, for the major powers in the game should be increased slightly? Plus the distance you can travel per turn should be raised as well?

Yes to both questions... I would not even try to argue Historical, but I would argue for practical. For one: Adding RR would not increase PP, Additional PP could add to imbalance, depending on how much we are talking about. Secondly: adding additional ammunition stockpiles would be another way to have balance without increasing PP by too much, same could be said with adding additional transports. All these expensive Management tools could be re-emplemented without a drastic effect on the game. Transports I'm a little iffy on, but something to consider.

[operating]

Kirk,

If you want or could, instead of waiting for an official patch release, could you set up a MOD (1914) with changes, that myself and others could test? That way suggestions implemented could be done in short order, instead of going through the Guru. Then if results have merit, then send it on to the Guru.

Just thinking, Bob

[Hellfirejet]

Unfortunately modding the game, use's the same scripts that are needed by all the scenarios,at the present time you can't mod a stand alone scenario,to me that is an area that really should be addressed as soon as possible.[;)]

[operating]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Unfortunately modding the game, use's the same scripts that are needed by all the scenarios,at the present time you can't mod a stand alone scenario,to me that is an area that really should be addressed as soon as possible.[;)]

Who is this up to decide? or, Is it a giant PITA to consider? To me it would be a great tool to use and at the same time save a lot of the members the aggravations of downloading a questionable untried patch....

[operating]

Supras wrote:
P.S. I can understand that Germans will have better torpedo tech for about half of the year (12 turns) or more but I don't belive that one side fight half of the year in metal helmets and second can't develop it...

Did a little research on helmets... A list of sites:
http://www.ultimatehistoryproject.com/world-war-i.html
Steel helmet development
http://www.worldwar1.com/sfgstal.htm
Brodie Helmet
http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2014/0 ... -on-it.cfm
And of course the Wikipedia site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodie_helmet
Turk steel helmet
http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/ww1-tur ... el-helmet/

If the game was to be historically correct; the Germans would have been the last to have helmets. However, this game employs "labs" that as a result can alter history, it's a matter of in-game strategy, it's a matter to take advantage of labs or not. Did not find anything yet on "Russian helmets", or maybe I missed it in the sites.

[suprass81]

ORIGINAL: operating

Supras wrote:
P.S. I can understand that Germans will have better torpedo tech for about half of the year (12 turns) or more but I don't belive that one side fight half of the year in metal helmets and second can't develop it...

Did a little research on helmets... A list of sites:
http://www.ultimatehistoryproject.com/world-war-i.html
Steel helmet development
http://www.worldwar1.com/sfgstal.htm
Brodie Helmet
http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2014/0 ... -on-it.cfm
And of course the Wikipedia site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodie_helmet

If the game was to be historically correct; the Germans would have been the last to have helmets. However, this game employs "labs" that as a result can alter history, it's a matter of in-game strategy, it's a matter to take advantage of labs or not. Did not find anything yet on "Russian helmets", or maybe I missed it in the sites.

Yes- labs can change history but if Germans has 15 turns adventage in fighter planes tech what can you do?
If I'm correct Russians dodn't used helmets.
P.S. This was only an example but remamber that german's pikielhauba was a helmet but made from skin...

[operating]

Suprass wrote;

Yes- labs can change history but if Germans has 15 turns adventage in fighter planes tech what can you do?
If I'm correct Russians dodn't used helmets.
P.S. This was only an example but remamber that german's pikielhauba was a helmet but made from skin...

Suprass,

Just having a little fun looking some of these details up, next, will move onto aircraft...

Yes, it seems all armies of 1914 wore something from plain hats to the pikielhauba (leather), did find that the: Finnish army had steel helmets late in the war, but no official Russian army steel helmet. Maybe it should be taken out of the Russian infantry tech categories?[&:] [:D]

No, I'm just doing homework on how to put a train of thought together about the comparison between German and Russian techs (about what would be fair), it's not a bad idea to debate the subject, to see what resolutions can come of it.. Another question I have is: Should Russian labs come to an end in October, 1917 or there a bouts?

The enemy, Bob