Matrix Games Forums

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.

Thanks for all the work you're doing to improve the game, Kirk; I think that Stockwellpete has it right with the infantry descriptions.

ORIGINAL: 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.

I have slowed down the research programme,as I feel that things are discovered to quickly.

As for the slowing down off upgrading units,as above Germany,France & Britain 4 Infantry per turn etc, I will hand that task over to the software wiz kid.

ORIGINAL: kirk23

As for the slowing down off upgrading units,as above Germany,France & Britain 4 Infantry per turn etc, I will hand that task over to the software wiz kid.

The related idea I have got in my head at the moment concerns the "Logistical Upgrades" part of the Management tab. At the moment there are three upgrades available here - ammunition, railways and transport - but there is actually space for three more such upgrades. I would need to do a bit more work on this idea but tentatively, how about "Agriculture" (Expand Food Production), "Industry" (Expand Industrial Production) and "Government" (Expand State Control").

The idea would be that you would allocate a proportion of your PP's in the same way as you do for ammunition etc and you would get certain benefits for doing so. So increased food production might reduce the chance of food riots and rationing and it might delay the deterioration of manpower joining the army. Increased industrial Production would enable research improvements to be more speedily allocated to that nation's military units. And Increased State Control could have positive impacts in terms of overall production as a nation moves towards a "Total War" posture.

As I say, it needs a lot more thought, but something like this would bring in more strategic elements without detracting from what is essentially a war game (I mean that the main focus in the game is the fighting).

What do people think of these ideas?

ORIGINAL: kirk23

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?

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.[:)]
[/quote]

As per Bob. Earlier discussion regarding all the major Nations starting war build up, I have been working on the following Idea where all the major countries,build up at a different rate.

INCREMENTAL WAR BUILD UP FOR Germany, Austria & Turkey.

function PhaseStart(alliance)
local turn = game.turn + 1
if alliance.id == 2 then
if turn == 2 then
SetWarEffort(2, 80)
SetWarEffort(3, 79)
end
if turn == 3 then
SetWarEffort(2, 85)
SetWarEffort(3, 83)
end
if turn == 4 then
SetWarEffort(2, 90)
SetWarEffort(3, 87)
end
if turn == 5 then
SetWarEffort(2, 95)
SetWarEffort(3, 90)
end
if turn == 6 then
SetWarEffort(2, 100)
SetWarEffort(3, 93)
SetWarEffort(5, 77)
end
if turn == 7 then
SetWarEffort(3, 96)
SetWarEffort(5, 79)
end
if turn == 8 then
SetWarEffort(3, 100)
SetWarEffort(5, 81)
end
if turn == 9 then
SetWarEffort(5, 83)
end
if turn == 10 then
SetWarEffort(5, 85)
end
if turn == 11 then
SetWarEffort(5, 87)
end
if turn == 12 then
SetWarEffort(5, 89)
end
if turn == 13 then
SetWarEffort(5, 91)
end
if turn == 14 then
SetWarEffort(5, 93)
end
if turn == 15 then
SetWarEffort(5, 95)
end
if turn == 16 then
SetWarEffort(5, 97)
end
if turn == 17 then
SetWarEffort(5, 100)
end
end
end

INITIAL WAR BUILD UP FOR France,Britain,Germany,Austria,Russia,Turkey.

SetWarEffort(0, 75)
SetWarEffort(1, 75)
SetWarEffort(2, 75)
SetWarEffort(3, 75)
SetWarEffort(4, 75)
SetWarEffort(5, 75)

INCREMENTAL WAR BUILD UP FOR France,Britain & Russia.

local turn = game.turn + 1
if alliance.id == 1 then
if turn == 2 then
SetWarEffort(0, 78)
SetWarEffort(1, 80)
SetWarEffort(4, 77)
end
if turn == 4 then
SetWarEffort(0, 82)
SetWarEffort(1, 85)
SetWarEffort(4, 79)
end
if turn == 6 then
SetWarEffort(0, 86)
SetWarEffort(1, 90)
SetWarEffort(4, 81)
end
if turn == 8 then
SetWarEffort(0, 90)
SetWarEffort(1, 95)
SetWarEffort(4, 83)
end
if turn == 10 then
SetWarEffort(0, 94)
SetWarEffort(1, 100)
SetWarEffort(4, 85)
end
if turn == 12 then
SetWarEffort(0, 98)
SetWarEffort(4, 87)
end
if turn == 14 then
SetWarEffort(0, 100)
SetWarEffort(4, 89)
end
if turn == 16 then
SetWarEffort(4, 91)
end
if turn == 18 then
SetWarEffort(4, 93)
end
if turn == 20 then
SetWarEffort(4, 95)
end
if turn == 22 then
SetWarEffort(4, 97)
end
if turn == 24 then
SetWarEffort(4, 100)
end
end
end

As yet I have not tested this theory out in game, because it just might cause a major crash, but I have made a backup,so I will put it to the test later today,fingers crossed it should work, I think [:D]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

ORIGINAL: kirk23

As for the slowing down off upgrading units,as above Germany,France & Britain 4 Infantry per turn etc, I will hand that task over to the software wiz kid.

The related idea I have got in my head at the moment concerns the "Logistical Upgrades" part of the Management tab. At the moment there are three upgrades available here - ammunition, railways and transport - but there is actually space for three more such upgrades. I would need to do a bit more work on this idea but tentatively, how about "Agriculture" (Expand Food Production), "Industry" (Expand Industrial Production) and "Government" (Expand State Control").

The idea would be that you would allocate a proportion of your PP's in the same way as you do for ammunition etc and you would get certain benefits for doing so. So increased food production might reduce the chance of food riots and rationing and it might delay the deterioration of manpower joining the army. Increased industrial Production would enable research improvements to be more speedily allocated to that nation's military units. And Increased State Control could have positive impacts in terms of overall production as a nation moves towards a "Total War" posture.

As I say, it needs a lot more thought, but something like this would bring in more strategic elements without detracting from what is essentially a war game (I mean that the main focus in the game is the fighting).

What do people think of these ideas?

I like this suggestion, but its out with my remit,this can only be done by the Software Wiz Kid.[;)]

Kirk, good changes. It won't cause any crashes, I am certain of that. I have tried modding the game a little bit myself, just to see what is possible and there were no problem at all.
Just note that for each SetWarEffort value you need a SEPARATE entry in the localization file:

war_effort_85 = War Effort increased to 85%
war_effort_80 = War Effort increased to 80%
war_effort_75 = War Effort increased to 75%
etc etc

EDIT: Tested and worked beautifully.

ORIGINAL: bob.

Kirk, good changes. It won't cause any crashes, I am certain of that. I have tried modding the game a little bit myself, just to see what is possible and there were no problem at all.
Just note that for each SetWarEffort value you need a SEPARATE entry in the localization file:

war_effort_85 = War Effort increased to 85%
war_effort_80 = War Effort increased to 80%
war_effort_75 = War Effort increased to 75%
etc etc

EDIT: Tested and worked beautifully.

Good to know that it can work,so it might help balance the game even more![;)]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I like this suggestion, but its out with my remit,this can only be done by the Software Wiz Kid.[;)]

OK, I'll do a bit more work on it and post here again.

Kirk, I raised the issue earlier about the Eastern Front developing exactly the same way as the Western Front in my beta test single-player game i.e. two sets of extended trench networks lasting a number of years resulted. Now, my understanding is that the Eastern Front, in reality, saw a much more mobile form of warfare and so I was wondering if reducing the entrenchment capabilities of units on the Eastern Front would help. Because artillery would find it easier to blast static infantry units out of their trenches, players would pick more cavalry, armoured car and aircraft units and try and use their mobility more.

I suppose the difficulty is that it is the unit that has the entrenchment capability and not the terrain hex - but is there some way of limiting entrenchment levels on different parts of the map?

While I respect all the feedback provided by the Beta testers (I have not run it), let me comment the following.
Games do not need to be 100% Historically accurate. We can play being New Generals, we create strategies and tactics based on what the games offers, winning or loosing based on that.If we push too far to replicate the historic conditions, the game can be just a "replication" of WW1, and by itself would become boring.
Kirk23 and all the team have developed an awesome game, much better than Commander at War Europe. I cannot stop playing this game on line, although against AI I win easily.
Lets allow some creativity, regardless of if West or East fronts move or entrench too much. I have made the Turks become marines, British invade low countries, Germans take Spain... Let the creativity become your general!
Humbly and Sincerely, Alejandro.

PS: Please correct Russian surrender mode. I have had to either beat them very hard, or see them surrender at nothing in early 1916!
Thanks for the GREAT game.

ORIGINAL: Kstk

While I respect all the feedback provided by the Beta testers (I have not run it), let me comment the following.
Games do not need to be 100% Historically accurate. We can play being New Generals, we create strategies and tactics based on what the games offers, winning or loosing based on that.If we push too far to replicate the historic conditions, the game can be just a "replication" of WW1, and by itself would become boring.
Kirk23 and all the team have developed an awesome game, much better than Commander at War Europe. I cannot stop playing this game on line, although against AI I win easily.
Lets allow some creativity, regardless of if West or East fronts move or entrench too much. I have made the Turks become marines, British invade low countries, Germans take Spain... Let the creativity become your general!
Humbly and Sincerely, Alejandro.

PS: Please correct Russian surrender mode. I have had to either beat them very hard, or see them surrender at nothing in early 1916!
Thanks for the GREAT game.

The best way to please both the "history-addicts" and the "fantasists" is to provide a tick box pre-game menu to adjust the parameters of the game to taste. Maybe something for the future?

Our aim is to create a fun game against a historic background and try to follow history as close as we can, but in the end, games we design will be open, where you should be able to change history and some outcomes will/can be a-historic.

Creating exact historic simulations contradicts often with this principle, but it is a game after all and that is what we want to create.

This balance is often tricky I admit, but again, our games will always be games in the first place set in historic settings that may eventually lead to hypothetical backgrounds and outcomes.

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

Our aim is to create a fun game against a historic background and try to follow history as close as we can, but in the end, games we design will be open, where you should be able to change history and some outcomes will/can be a-historic.

Creating exact historic simulations contradicts often with this principle, but it is a game after all and that is what we want to create.

This balance is often tricky I admit, but again, our games will always be games in the first place set in historic settings that may eventually lead to hypothetical backgrounds and outcomes.

Oh yes, you don't want the same outcomes occurring every game because people would soon stop playing. But WW1 was on a knife-edge until mid-1918 so a victory for the Central Powers is quite a credible outcome. The subject matter is absolutely perfect for a war game really. I suppose my approach to these type of games is to stick to the history as far as you can (because it is often very exciting in its own right) and only break from history if there is a compelling reason to (i.e. if it enhances gameplay). In actual fact, if you read up on the history of Europe in the decades prior to 1914 it is not too hard to imagine Britain and Germany being in an alliance against France and Russia in the next war. That is how it seemed to many Europeans living at that time.

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: 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.

I have slowed down the research programme,as I feel that things are discovered to quickly.

As for the slowing down off upgrading units,as above Germany,France & Britain 4 Infantry per turn etc, I will hand that task over to the software wiz kid.

I am not that fond of the idea to limiting the number of units you can upgrade per turn. I feel that this is something that a commander should be able to control and decide when and how units should be upgraded if he can afford to pay for the upgrade.

And what if someone do not upgrade any units one turn should he then be allowed to upgrade twice as many units next turn?

If you feel that upgrading units goes to fast then you can increase cost for the upgrade or you can make units that upgrade reduce readiness. Or my favourite - units that are to be upgraded may not move during the turn. If they have already moved then they may not be upgraded.

ORIGINAL: kirk23

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![;)]

I like the names as is. If it is changed to 'division' and 'corps' then it sounds like there should be stacking in the game two divisions may stack in a hex. To me infantry units and garrison units has roughly the same number of men but the garrison unit has less able men and less equipment (machineguns and so on).

Kirk, Just finished a SP 1915 CP scenario, ended in a draw (Jan. 1919). Captured all of France proper plus Corsica, sank it's BB, although there was 1 left. Question; What does it take to have France offer to surrender? Italy (offered and was accepted) surrendered upon the very last turn, without losing Rome. French units in Italy returned to the production panel. Despite all the quirks with the patch, it was quite an enjoyable (uphill) battle the whole way.

ORIGINAL: Orm

I like the names as is. If it is changed to 'division' and 'corps' then it sounds like there should be stacking in the game two divisions may stack in a hex. To me infantry units and garrison units has roughly the same number of men but the garrison unit has less able men and less equipment (machineguns and so on).

Garrison is just the wrong name for the smaller unit as it suggests soldiers are defending a fort or something like that - whereas in the game the garrison units are very mobile and are usually to be found in the trenches.

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am not that fond of the idea to limiting the number of units you can upgrade per turn. I feel that this is something that a commander should be able to control and decide when and how units should be upgraded if he can afford to pay for the upgrade.

And what if someone do not upgrade any units one turn should he then be allowed to upgrade twice as many units next turn?

If you feel that upgrading units goes to fast then you can increase cost for the upgrade or you can make units that upgrade reduce readiness. Or my favourite - units that are to be upgraded may not move during the turn. If they have already moved then they may not be upgraded.

When a new advance was made the new equipment was not immediately available to everyone though - it took some time to produce and allocate it all. So to put some sort of restrictions on it per turn would add a layer of difficulty to the game which might be interesting. I mentioned before about increasing the number of logistical upgrade choices from 3 to 6 and two of the ideas "Industry" and "State Control" (i.e. efficiency) could be linked to this issue of production and distribution of technological advances. Something to consider at least, I would say.

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am not that fond of the idea to limiting the number of units you can upgrade per turn. I feel that this is something that a commander should be able to control and decide when and how units should be upgraded if he can afford to pay for the upgrade.

And what if someone do not upgrade any units one turn should he then be allowed to upgrade twice as many units next turn?

If you feel that upgrading units goes to fast then you can increase cost for the upgrade or you can make units that upgrade reduce readiness. Or my favourite - units that are to be upgraded may not move during the turn. If they have already moved then they may not be upgraded.

When a new advance was made the new equipment was not immediately available to everyone though - it took some time to produce and allocate it all. So to put some sort of restrictions on it per turn would add a layer of difficulty to the game which might be interesting. I mentioned before about increasing the number of logistical upgrade choices from 3 to 6 and two of the ideas "Industry" and "State Control" (i.e. efficiency) could be linked to this issue of production and distribution of technological advances. Something to consider at least, I would say.

Putting restrictions per turn on upgrades makes the game easier. Or that is my humble opinion anyway.

In my current pvp game, as CP, Germany can afford to upgrade one or two units per turn after repairs are done and then I build no new units. So if (when) I get a convoy through and have enough resources to upgrade more units then I would not be allowed to do so!?

As it is now, if one does not have a complete overflow of resources then prioritizing whether to repair, build and upgrade units is not always a easy task. But if you are only allowed to upgrade a certain number of units per turn then it becomes very easy. The upgrades must then have priority since there is a limit on the upgrades.

If all your nations can afford to upgrade all units at once then maybe you do not fight the enemy and are just dug in and wait for better odds? I would say that to much production for some nations is more troublesome. If you can't afford it all then the upgrade "problem" solves itself.

So if there is a limit on how many units to upgrade should there not be a limit on how many new units you are allowed to produce? Especially since they get the new, upgraded, weapons as well!

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

ORIGINAL: Orm

I like the names as is. If it is changed to 'division' and 'corps' then it sounds like there should be stacking in the game two divisions may stack in a hex. To me infantry units and garrison units has roughly the same number of men but the garrison unit has less able men and less equipment (machineguns and so on).

Garrison is just the wrong name for the smaller unit as it suggests soldiers are defending a fort or something like that - whereas in the game the garrison units are very mobile and are usually to be found in the trenches.

Garrison guard and defend inactive parts of the front and behind the lines. They dug in and defend. They garrison the trenches. I think that the word fits nice enough. They are not intended for active parts of the front or for attack purposes.

If they are renamed as a smaller type of unit, for example division, then I would find it ridiculous that two divisions could not stack in the same hex as a army could stack in.

Historically there has been plenty of weaker units of the same size as the standard formation so I see no trouble with that the different strength units have same size.

You could name them Heavy Infantry and Light Infantry, Infantry and Reserve Infantry, or something else that do not specify the size of the unit. But with that said I prefer the name as is. But I strenuously object to names that imply different sizes.