Public Beta 1.02 updated to subversion G

[Random23]

Hi,

Awesome game. There seems to be a display issue with fuel use: when using group movement the fuel cost of just one of the units in the group is displayed instead of the cost of moving the whole group.

And I can confirm the issue Franciscus is showing, both with an old 1.02 savegame in the 1.02e game and with a new 1.02e game.

[Vic]

Thanks for reporting that continued tooltip bugginess. Fixing it right now.

[Vic]

Uploaded version 1.02 F which should fix the last issues caused by the tooltip repairs.

best wishes,
Vic

[Vic]

@random,
Noted the limited oil prognosis issue for 1.03. Thanks for reporting.

best wishes,
Vic

[Speedysteve]

A tiny one but Goebbels has a new name in this decision[;)]

[Franciscus]

Tooltips look Ok in 1.02F [:)]

Regards

[lancer]

Hi Speedy,

Got it!

Thanks,
Cameron

[Falke]

There is a bug with Forts. I have reported it under Tech Support since i can not upload the save file here due to size restrictions.


I guess 1.02G will be out tomorrow [:D]

[lancer]

Hi Falke,

That's the forts not being their for a turn in order for your to recapture them?

As mentioned elsewhere it's probably working as designed but keep an eye on it.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Falke]

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi Falke,

That's the forts not being their for a turn in order for your to recapture them?

As mentioned elsewhere it's probably working as designed but keep an eye on it.

Cheers,
Cameron

It is them being destroyed when retaking.
Updated the other Thread with more Details from the savegame. It is probably not WAD

[Speedysteve]

Daugavpils is still referred to as Dunaburg in Decisions......

[kosmoface]

Highlighted items like Kommandante = Oberbefehlshaber have been omitted as non-german speakers would struggle here.

Okay, but why Kommandante then?

e.g. Commander means in
German: Kommandant
Italian: comandante

Is it that much more understandable for english speakers when you say "KommandantE"? Or is it just a cunning mixture between italian and german to represent the Axis more truly?

[Speedysteve]

Baffled on this one.

The 7 PP decision has a 35% chance of a GOOD outcome but the cheaper 3 PP decision has a 35% chance of a BAD outcome?

[Falke]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Baffled on this one.

The 7 PP decision has a 35% chance of a GOOD outcome but the cheaper 3 PP decision has a 35% chance of a BAD outcome?

I would guess 7 PP 35% - Get some Benefit (Possibly same as 11pp)
65% - No Change

3 PP 35% - Things get worse
65% - No change

[Tweedledumb]

Play Balance via Reinforcement Scheduling - Some Ideas[/b]

Vic and Cameron, thank you for your ongoing support of this brilliant paradigm-breaking design.

My PBEM buddy and I bought this along with DC1 and 2 during the holiday sales. We decided to play DC1 first as it appeared the most approachable game in the series. What we discovered in Poland was that a reasonable human player could make a VERY challenging defense of Warsaw. My point is that a human player can defend much more competently than any AI (even Vic's excellent one). Nothing new there.

We've played portions of about 8 PBEM++ games using 1.01 over the last two weeks. In all the games we have discovered that the German side, as the manual warns, is more challenging as many things can go off the rails (pun intended). Also, the Soviet Central Front reinforcements lead to a veritable wall of divisions from Gomel to Polotsk and shut down AGC's advance to a crawl. AGN and AGS have "possibilities" for German strategic success and the Soviets are definitely stressed (particularly in the South). In the one set of two games (we always play German/Soviet at the same time to compare and contrast experiences) which went into September, the forests and swamps south of Leningrad were also wall-to-wall Soviets.

I'm not claiming that in two weeks we are expert German players, but a quick review of the forums here seems to confirm some of this experience. I applaud the experts like Michael T for testing out some of the best German possibilities! I think my buddy and I are more "average" players.

We have just started up a set of 1.02f games today and note that this version adjusts the Soviet Central Front reinforcements. This is great! We'll see how the games progress with this and the other changes (the adjusted AGN start and the Soviet "randomized" starting positions are great additions).

The other thing I noted in the forums, particularly Vic's posts, is that 95% of the people are playing against the AI only, and most of those are playing the German side. This makes sense to me. Then the light bulb popped on...

Why not provide the players with several Soviet reinforcement options?

Here's my logic for this:

Human (PBEM) players will be able to defend MUCH more competently and use the Soviet decsions far more effectively than any AI - agree? To "balance" the game and make it challenging for the majority of players (playing Germans against the AI) will not necessarily produced a "balanced" game between two expert human players - agree? So why not provide a series of reinforcement options for the Soviets as a "balancing" feature?

I throw out for discussion five possible reinforcement schedules:

1. Rapid Soviet mobilization (the hardest - for players who can beat the 1.01 AI easily)
2. Improved Soviet mobilization (harder - a challenge for players who have beat the 1.01 AI))
3. Standard Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.01)
4. Slower Soviet mobilization (what you have in 1.02f - to avoid the wall syndrome above)
5. Poor Soviet mobilization (the ultimate challenge for the expert human Soviet player!)

Of course there could be a million variants on this and I would love to see more than 5, but you get the idea, I hope. The amount of programming to make these variants I presume would be minimal.

My suggestion, basically, is that rather than trying to "lock in" a one-size-fits-all Soviet reinforcement schedule, that you investigate using this mechanic as a play balance tool. My assertion is that a Soviet reinforcement schedule which works to balance an AI game will NOT be the same as one which balances a PBEM game.

I'll certainly report on how our 1.02f PBEM games progress as compared to our 1.01 experience. I think throwing out these reinforcement options to the public would give you A LOT of feedback on play balance both PBEM and against the AI.

Thanks again for this design, which I posted elsewhere that I thought was the BEST computer wargame of all time, and for considering this feedback.

[Tweedledumb]

Under the hood design question:

In the starting (June 22nd) setup, is the entrenchment level of AI Soviet infantry HIGHER than in a human-human game?

In a quick test, I saw most Soviet infantry divisions at 100 ENT in an AI match and in my new PBEM++ most of them were around 50. Or is it just random?

Keep up the good work!

[etsadler]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Baffled on this one.

The 7 PP decision has a 35% chance of a GOOD outcome but the cheaper 3 PP decision has a 35% chance of a BAD outcome?

Probably should be changed to have a "Quiet" word, rather than a "Quite" word.

[lancer]

Hi,

Thanks for the typo. Quite a mistake.

The decision options give you four different ways of handling the situation.

The top two have varying chances of achieving a good outcome with a default neutral result if this doesn't occur.

The bottom two give you varying chances of things getting worse with a similar default neutral result.

Opting for the default 0 PP outcome, or delegating (same option chosen, always the last in the list), probably isn't the best way to go here.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Vic]

Version 1.02 G has been uploaded.

This should be the last subversion before we go GOLD with 1.02.

You'll still have the weekend to give it a spin.

Update the top post of this thread with link and to-do list.

Best wishes,
Vic

[Flaviusx]

Folks, there is a solution to the iron wall problem and it works just fine even in 1.01.

When more people than Michael T figure it out, 1.02 is going to look pretty lopsidedly against the Sovs. I can only shake my head here that this is going gold.

Here is the short version: PG3 can flip over control of Vitebsk and Polotsk around turn 3-4, and also lock down Orsha. This makes it impossible to feed in reinforcements in these places. And that pretty much takes care of the iron wall, since the Soviet can only feed in reinforcements via Smolensk. By the time they get up into the action, AGC is past the river and the Center theater is fighting it out in the open.

Everybody but Micheal T is pushing PG2 as hard as possible towards Minsk and burning up their fuel, whereas he goes slowly with Guderian and makes sure Hoth gets fuel priority to push through the gap east of Vilnius.