Good Or Bad 1.40 Open Beta Patch ?

[aesopo]

ORIGINAL: 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?

We should be naming them according to their military designation to represent unit strength and manpower allocated to each unit. Static garrisons - regiments/divisions, garrison- corps, infantry- armies. More realistic for me.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

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?[;)]

I doubt that this is a good idea without changing a lot of other things as well.

If battleships gets a range of two hexes then it will be almost impossible to capture a enemy port with one unit dug in for defence. Regardless of the resources that the attacker commit to attack the port.

Battleships, as they are now, are imperious to land based artillery but they, in turn, crush the land based art. So with increased range then the battleships can pulverize any attempt to give artillery support to the attack against the port.

In my recent attack, as Germany, towards Paris the German units in a coastal hex was more or less put out of action because of bombardment by the Royal Navy. The Schlieffen plan would be impossible to attempt with a two range bombardment.

Battleships bombardment is stronger than artillery yet it costs less than a third in ammo to fire a BB than it does to fire a art.

Previously you could at least protect some part of the coast with friendly artillery but now the only protection against enemy shore bombardment are battleships.

Historically, as I understand it, they were wary to give shore bombardment with battleships since that put the battleships at great risk. Remember that even the Turkish coastal defences won against the the Royal Navy when they tried to force in the Dardanelles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_ ... he_Straits

So therefore my answer is:No, no, no!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: kirk23

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?[;)]

I doubt that this is a good idea without changing a lot of other things as well.

If battleships gets a range of two hexes then it will be almost impossible to capture a enemy port with one unit dug in for defence. Regardless of the resources that the attacker commit to attack the port.

Battleships, as they are now, are imperious to land based artillery but they, in turn, crush the land based art. So with increased range then the battleships can pulverize any attempt to give artillery support to the attack against the port.

In my recent attack, as Germany, towards Paris the German units in a coastal hex was more or less put out of action because of bombardment by the Royal Navy. The Schlieffen plan would be impossible to attempt with a two range bombardment.

Battleships bombardment is stronger than artillery yet it costs less than a third in ammo to fire a BB than it does to fire a art.

Previously you could at least protect some part of the coast with friendly artillery but now the only protection against enemy shore bombardment are battleships.

Historically, as I understand it, they were wary to give shore bombardment with battleships since that put the battleships at great risk. Remember that even the Turkish coastal defences won against the the Royal Navy when they tried to force in the Dardanelles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_ ... he_Straits

So therefore my answer is:No, no, no!

warspite1

Once again this comes back to one of the earliest ideas for the treatment of naval assets in enemy controlled (or at least contested) waters.

It was suggested that there be zones (similar to the current Green Dots) whereby enemy vessels sailing in those areas run the risk (a dice throw) of taking losses over and above any damage from surface vessels and subs. This reflects mines, torpedo boats and shore batteries. There is no justification for battleships (or cruisers) to be allowed to park themselves off an enemy coast and just blast away to their hearts content impervious.

[Hellfirejet]

[/quote]warspite1

Once again this comes back to one of the earliest ideas for the treatment of naval assets in enemy controlled (or at least contested) waters.

It was suggested that there be zones (similar to the current Green Dots) whereby enemy vessels sailing in those areas run the risk (a dice throw) of taking losses over and above any damage from surface vessels and subs. This reflects mines, torpedo boats and shore batteries. There is no justification for battleships (or cruisers) to be allowed to park themselves off an enemy coast and just blast away to their hearts content impervious.

[/quote]

Yes There is no justification for battleships (or cruisers) to be allowed to park themselves off an enemy coast and just blast away to their hearts content impervious.

With the new scripted port defence strength I'm play testing, even if you park a Battleship right next to a Transport, which is safely tucked up in its home port,if you attack the Transport with the Battleship, then your in for a surprise, because it will be the Battleship that takes very heavy losses.So you are all fore warned,that old tactic just won't work any more. Also the Green Dot Area,will see any foolish ships, attempting to attack, suffer much heavier losses than the Owner of the Green Dot Area.[;)]

If you need to fight a Naval battle, make sure its on the high seas, away from any Port or Green Dot Area, exactly where Naval Battles should be fought,just like Jutland, in the North Sea away from land.

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: aesopo

ORIGINAL: 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?

We should be naming them according to their military designation to represent unit strength and manpower allocated to each unit. Static garrisons - regiments/divisions, garrison- corps, infantry- armies. More realistic for me.

Folks I'm sure the powers that be will not be against,changing the names of some off the land units, IE : Garrison & Infantry.

What do you all think about the above suggestion,made by aesopo.

Small Garrison = Regiment?

Garrison = Corps or Division ?

Infantry = Armies ?

I also want to change Battleships - Dreadnoughts officially, in the next patch 1.50![;)]

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Folks I'm sure the powers that be will not be against,changing the names of some off the land units, IE : Garrison & Infantry.

What do you all think about the above suggestion,made by aesopo.

Small Garrison = Regiment?

Garrison = Corps or Division ?

Infantry = Armies ?

I also want to change Battleships - Dreadnoughts officially, in the next patch 1.50![;)]

I would go . . .

Small garrison = Garrison

Garrison = Division

Infantry = Corps

The Dreadnought change is absolutely essential. We need pre-dreadnought battleships and destroyers too at some point.

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Folks I'm sure the powers that be will not be against,changing the names of some off the land units, IE : Garrison & Infantry.

What do you all think about the above suggestion,made by aesopo.

Small Garrison = Regiment?

Garrison = Corps or Division ?

Infantry = Armies ?

I also want to change Battleships - Dreadnoughts officially, in the next patch 1.50![;)]

I would go . . .

Small garrison = Garrison

Garrison = Division

Infantry = Corps

The Dreadnought change is absolutely essential. We need pre-dreadnought battleships and destroyers too at some point.

Pre-Dreadnoughts already sorted!

Guys these changes,only require some time spent, in altering them anything is possible, I'm willing to make the time to do it, just needs the say so off the powers that be![;)]

[Hellfirejet]

Has anyone anything to say about, Russia surviving longer in game now & USA war entry?

Plus if you like the new Submarine script changes that make them much more effective now?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Has anyone anything to say about, Russia surviving longer in game now & USA war entry?

Plus if you like the new Submarine script changes that make them much more effective now?

warspite1

I have played - or am playing - about 10 games of 1.4 so this is not exactly exhaustive feedback but:

Russia

The biggest problem with 1.3 was that Russian revolution was all too predictably achieved and there was essentially nothing that the Entente player could do against someone who knew that weakness. Furthermore, any such problems for the Russian meant the Romanians would not come in.

USA

The problem - not just with 1.3 - but with all versions since launch, was that the US simply does not come into the game.

Has 1.4 changed either of these?

Russia

Yes, completely but its impossible to say whether the rules concerning Russia are effective because essentially it is seemingly impossible for the Entente to lose - so the conditions are not being tested. The Entente have so many PP that spending them all is a problem. It's simply too easy to rack up artillery ammo, units and research.

In contrast, it's a struggle for the CP to build up ammo stocks or research points, let alone sufficient units to take Paris or Moscow.

As a result, Russia is never in any danger of losing and the Entente win sometime in 1915.

As mentioned previously, to compound the issue for the CP, Bulgaria now fails to appear...

USA

I have noticed no difference to previously. When playing as the CP, because of the problems mentioned above, I have not been able to devote any build points on submarines so have not conducted a U-boat campaign. In one game I have played as the Entente, my opponent is having some success and I have seen the warning about the US not being happy about the situation - so it can be done. I would caveat though that he is the best player I have ever played against. No one else has achieved this or come close.

Sorry if that is pretty negative, but the way I see it 1.4 is simply 1.3 on steroids (except this time its the Entente that cannot lose instead of the CP).

[Hellfirejet]

I have taken the feedback on board, and I have changed a great many things already, that will be included when the hot fix is released any day now.

So what have I changed.

1 : Entente has less PPs.

2 : Central Powers have more PPs.

3 : Garrisons now take 2 turns to build.

4 : Infantry now take 4 turns to build.

5 : Britain Transport capacity reduced to 2. ( still double any other nation )

6 : Artillery,Rail & Transport now costs more to increase their capacity.

7 : Port & Green Area Defence, now much more of a deterrant too attacking forces.

8 : Fighter aircraft from the start off the war, are little more than Air Recon.

9 : Pre-Dreadnought added to the game ( These can't be built,so what you start with thats your lot )

10 : Research has been slowed slightly,even when focused.

11 : Brugge & Small Garrison in Belgium removed from the game.

12 : Infantry unit in Belgium reduced to a Garrison unit.

13 : 2 German Garrison units near Metz fortress, are now Infantry units.

14 : German Convoys now are strength 10 as per Entente.( Giving them a chance to at least deliver some PPs if attacked)

15 : Bulgaria now does join the war.

16 : New event ANZACS arrive in Cairo.

17 : New event French Army Of Africa arrive in Algiers.

18 : Canadian Corps now arrive in Britain as per the Event Message.

19 : German Baltic Convoy message,now correctly reports that Russia has blockaded German Ports in the Baltic.

20 : Mountain & Swamp movement is now impossible for Artillery.

22 : Italy not as strong as before.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Has anyone anything to say about, Russia surviving longer in game now & USA war entry?

Plus if you like the new Submarine script changes that make them much more effective now?

I agree with warspite really. The game as it stands is very unbalanced so it is hard to know how Russia and America will perform. Bulgaria joining the war will help to balance things a bit more; Italy should not be able to swarm over the Alps so that still seems a bit of a problem; and if the Americans do come in to the war then it should mean that Portuguese troops cannot reach Europe in any great numbers because there were not enough troop ships available. Once we get the hotfix then we will be able to play into 1916 and 1917 as the Central Powers and report back to you.

[stockwellpete]

Don't forget variable winters! (he says forlornly)

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

14 : German Convoys now are strength 10 as per Entente.( Giving them a chance to at least deliver some PPs if attacked)

Some great changes there, Kirk. It is going to make it very interesting to play again. Not sure about this one though. My default position is that we should stick to the history as far as possible UNLESS there is a compelling reason to improve the gameplay. So I think we need to research the comparative values of the various trade routes to be more accurate than just saying they all should be 10. And maybe they don't all have to be the same value every time either. The second issue is that a lot of merchant ships were impounded rather than sunk so maybe there could be a way of representing this in the game in due course? The unrestricted submarine warfare phases of the war would be different and then convoys would be sunk.

[Hotschi]

Stopped playing the 1.40 Beta as CP, because it was impossible for me to achieve any advance on all fronts - except taking Liege in Belgium. Turn 20, March 1915, French Forces crossed the Rhine and started to encircle my German Forces on the Western Front. That was it for me.

Let's see what a new patch will do.

[bob.]

I am an accidental double-post, ignore me.

[bob.]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I have taken the feedback on board, and I have changed a great many things already, that will be included when the hot fix is released any day now.

So what have I changed.

1 : Entente has less PPs.

As I have said earlier why not instead of outright lowering PPs make the efficiency low at start and increase over time? That way the Entente will slowly but surely overpower the CP, which is in my opinion exactly how it should be.

8 : Fighter aircraft from the start off the war, are little more than Air Recon.

What does that mean, they do more plane damage now at the start? Not sure if I like this change too much if that is the case.

11 : Brugge & Small Garrison in Belgium removed from the game.

12 : Infantry unit in Belgium reduced to a Garrison unit.

13 : 2 German Garrison units near Metz fortress, are now Infantry units.

14 : German Convoys now are strength 10 as per Entente.( Giving them a chance to at least deliver some PPs if attacked)

Very good!

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: bob.

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I have taken the feedback on board, and I have changed a great many things already, that will be included when the hot fix is released any day now.

So what have I changed.

1 : Entente has less PPs.

As I have said earlier why not instead of outright lowering PPs make the efficiency low at start and increase over time? That way the Entente will slowly but surely overpower the CP, which is in my opinion exactly how it should be.

8 : Fighter aircraft from the start off the war, are little more than Air Recon.

What does that mean, they do more plane damage now at the start? Not sure if I like this change too much if that is the case.

11 : Brugge & Small Garrison in Belgium removed from the game.

12 : Infantry unit in Belgium reduced to a Garrison unit.

13 : 2 German Garrison units near Metz fortress, are now Infantry units.

14 : German Convoys now are strength 10 as per Entente.( Giving them a chance to at least deliver some PPs if attacked)

Very good!

Your first question,by reducing a countries efficiency,are you talking about their war ready state % ?

Your second question regarding Early war fighter aircraft,the first aircraft over the Western front,were little more than Reconnaissance, with NO ATTACK CAPABILITY ! ( Fact as per History ) and in this roll they do serve a purpose,until research turns them into true Fighter Aircraft.

[bob.]

ORIGINAL: kirk23
Your first question,by reducing a countries efficiency,are you talking about their war ready state % ?

Your second question regarding Early war fighter aircraft,the first aircraft over the Western front,were little more than Reconnaissance, with NO ATTACK CAPABILITY ! ( Fact as per History ) and in this roll they do serve a purpose,until research turns them into true Fighter Aircraft.

1. Yes. Considering that the Centrals do start with reduced ready state, it seems very reasonable to me. Actually... why Does Germany and AH start with reduced ready state in the first place and the Entente not? Is there a historical reason for that?
2. I know. Thats why I was asking what you have changed. Since this is already how it is right now.

[Hellfirejet]

ORIGINAL: bob.

1. Yes. Considering that the Centrals do start with reduced ready state, it seems very reasonable to me. Actually... why Does Germany and AH start with reduced ready state in the first place and the Entente not? Is there a historical reason for that?
[/quote]

After all this time playing the game,I never realized how stupid I have been, I actually never noticed, that it was just Germany & Austria/Hungary that are restricted in this manner.There is absolutely no reason why the Central Powers should start with reduced ready state, if anything it should be the Entente who are restricted. I must say thank you for pointing this out,I have altered the scripts,rather than removing this anchor around the Central Powers necks, because if I did that, it might cause conflict elsewhere within the game,which usually ends in the game crashing big time. As I said I have edited the script,so that it only takes them 6 turns to be at full ready status,instead off as now 13 Game turns. No wonder the Central Powers struggle in the game.[:)]

[stockwellpete]

Another thing I have noticed is this. At the start of the game the infantry level of most countries starts at I, only Germany starts at II, I believe. Then, when the research for "industrial warfare" is completed infantry levels will rise to II. In my recent single player game the following happened . . .

Serbian infantry started at I, had researched "industrial warfare" by 1/10/14 so troops had become II
Belgian infantry started at I, had researched "industrial warfare" by 29/10/14 so troops had become II
French infantry started at I, had researched "industrial warfare" by 17/9/14 so troops had become II
Austro-Hungarian infantry started at I, had researched "industrial warfare" by 24/9/14 so troops had become II
British infantry started at I, had researched "industrial warfare" by 24/9/14 so troops had become II
Russian infantry started at I, had researched "industrial warfare" by 17/9/14 so troops had become II

Whereas German infantry started at II, had researched the next level by 12/11/14 so troops had become III

So, all the Entente troops from the various countries (except Belgium) do catch Germany up very quickly in the game (before the end of September) and although Germany might pull ahead again in November (when going up to III) this advantage is very short-lived. I think this situation is probably OK for French, British and maybe even Serbian troops, but not for the Belgians and Russians who should not really be able to catch the Germans up.

The other thing is that once a research is achieved a player may allocate it to all his units if they have enough PP's when, in reality, the advance would be rolled out gradually to the various units. So maybe there is a way of slowing down the upgrading of units in an army? So Germany, France and Britain can upgrade 4 infantry units a turn, whereas Austria-Hungary, Russia, Serbia and Italy can only upgrade 2 infantry units a turn. Something along these lines anyway to make things a bit more realistic.