Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch

[operating]

Many things happening here, a lot of changes, too many to try to get into one post. My first impression: Is the game is superior than anything before this patch. Now that it's beta, there are some issues. The game played great until the 16th turn (SP), then the AI slowed down to a crawl, roughly an hour, turn 17 was no better. Never experienced that before with my Dell set up for gaming, 12 giga ram. Other than that, do not have any complaints, will post more, been playing all day, pretty wore out from all the action, Hands down beats anything to date..!.[;)]

PS: Want to clear something up: The slow down during turn 16 & 17 may have been a background bug in my machine. For when I shut down, then started back up a couple of hours later, the game ran at normal speed.

[kirk23]

You are right there are a lot of changes to the game play,I'm sure you will have noticed,that Turkey gets some new toys to play with![:D]

[CB60]

Worriesome..since I'm playing this on a laptop. But so far this game rocks: 'Blood and Iron" meets 'beer and pretzels'!

[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

[operating]

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

[operating]

Hi Kirk!

Ever since CC1 has questioned entrenchment (in 1.52) had got me to pay closer attention to it (1.60 beta). Below are a couple of SS, one has the Turk Research Window, notice they have completed "concrete bunkers tech" (third in a series of entrenchments), yet the front line of Turk infantry (who have been located on the indicated hex(s) for about a year) only have an entrenchment level of "2", plus the desert terrain entrenchment level of 2 for a total of 4. Actually it should be at least an entrenchment level of 3 (or more), plus the terrain 2 for a total of "5" entrenchment points. The only time this varies is depending on the terrain. Noticed during the course of a SP game that some units start with an entrenchment level of "2", this never changes for the remainder of the game despite the accumulation of all entrenchment techs to the fullest. As a note; [these entrenchment point levels are far lower than previous patch versions, especially 1.20]. If you or others could explain why entrenchment is at a 2 instead of a 3 I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, Bob

[operating]

ORIGINAL: operating

Hi Kirk!

Ever since CC1 has questioned entrenchment (in 1.52) had got me to pay closer attention to it (1.60 beta). Below are a couple of SS, one has the Turk Research Window, notice they have completed "concrete bunkers tech" (third in a series of entrenchments), yet the front line of Turk infantry (who have been located on the indicated hex(s) for about a year) only have an entrenchment level of "2", plus the desert terrain entrenchment level of 2 for a total of 4. Actually it should be at least an entrenchment level of 3 (or more), plus the terrain 2 for a total of "5" entrenchment points. The only time this varies is depending on the terrain. Noticed during the course of a SP game that some units start with an entrenchment level of "2", this never changes for the remainder of the game despite the accumulation of all entrenchment techs to the fullest. As a note; [these entrenchment point levels are far lower than previous patch versions, especially 1.20]. If you or others could explain why entrenchment is at a 2 instead of a 3 I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, Bob

[operating]

Kirk,

While I am at it: Also, noticed that when an enemy entrenched hex has been captured, the previous entrenchment levels "totally evaporate" all too often. With the entrenchment levels (points) being set so low this should not be the case, typically on the Western front. I could be wrong, for I think in some cases the "entrenchment graffito" is displayed, however, there is no value to them, much like CC1 pointed out in the case of sand dune type hexes in the Sinai, that also had this graffito of no value.

Just an observation, Bob

[pacwar]

A couple quick impressions...I am playing as the Central powers and it is June 1915 and I am pushing on the western front, having taken Brussels and Antwerp. The revised naval sequence is different...the dreadnought's are tough, and the revised British troop availability is making itself felt, causing the French problems keeping the front stabilized. In the east the Russians are a mess...I have taken Warsaw and am about to break through....I expect Russia will be out of the war by the end of the year. The Austrians defeated the Serbs by January, 1915 and have redeployed to resist the Italians, who just declared war and reinforce their forces in southern Russia. The Mideast is stable and I can cause the British to divert resources to defend Egypt. The Germans and Austrians have plenty of production points despite raising lots of units, something they didn't enjoy in the previous versions of the game. One possible glitch, even now in June, 1915 the Germans are at 100% population, despite being down to 98% in late 1914. Does the population number now reflect the maturing and recruitment of younger cohorts?

[operating]

pacwar,

In this version as well as other later versions, Russian surrender does not happen quickly, a great # of Russian cities and multiple Capitals need to be captured before the Russians sue for peace. After several Russian surrender offers, I was able to completely subjugate the entire Russian countryside (check out SS below). Doing so offered up a huge cache of PP to finance needed CP Management upgrade costs, plus goodies, whereas, in prior versions captured Russian cities did not yield PP.

Bob

[operating]

Hello Kirk!,

The Commanders' issue has greatly improved, however this one has slipped through the cracks. Italian Flight Commander Agriri in a SP game failed to deploy on first turn available (turn 32), but finally was deployable 15 turns later on turn 47. Could you please look into this.....

Thanks, Bob

[operating]

ORIGINAL: operating

Hello Kirk!,

The Commanders' issue has greatly improved, however this one has slipped through the cracks. Italian Flight Commander Agriri in a SP game failed to deploy on first turn available (turn 32), but finally was deployable 15 turns later on turn 47. Could you please look into this.....

Thanks, Bob

[pacwar]

Impressive...by August 1916 I hope to be at the same place...another oddity is the French deployment...they have now abandoned the Channel coast and for some unknown reason have deployed four of their last regular units on the Swiss border...the Italians are being rather uncharacteristically aggressive so maybe this is some new AI strategy...of course once I take Paris it won't matter.

[Tomokatu]

Operating noted:

Also, noticed that when an enemy entrenched hex has been captured, the previous entrenchment levels "totally evaporate" all too often.

On the Western Front particularly, the defensive effect of captured trenches WAS negated because the orientation was wrong. Trenches which defended against the East had little effect against attacks from the West. In the worst cases, captured German trenches with tunnels leading (westward) down to underground installations actually had the problem that shells from the new German positions further East dropped down the tunnel entrances, to the detriment of troops sheltering below.

Captured pillboxes had the entrances facing the wrong way, too and were vulnerable to fire.

Maybe reduction of entrenchment effects back to basic level 1 is the right choice.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: Tomokatu


Operating noted:

Also, noticed that when an enemy entrenched hex has been captured, the previous entrenchment levels "totally evaporate" all too often.

On the Western Front particularly, the defensive effect of captured trenches WAS negated because the orientation was wrong. Trenches which defended against the East had little effect against attacks from the West. In the worst cases, captured German trenches with tunnels leading (westward) down to underground installations actually had the problem that shells from the new German positions further East dropped down the tunnel entrances, to the detriment of troops sheltering below.

Captured pillboxes had the entrances facing the wrong way, too and were vulnerable to fire.

Maybe reduction of entrenchment effects back to basic level 1 is the right choice.

I see your point about practicality (never mentioned in manual). In game in the past: When an entrenched position was captured by whatever means, that entrenched hex drops 1 level of entrenchment to the captors. So far from what I have seen is a mountain hex only allows a 1 level of entrenchment, which to me does not seem to be right.

[operating]

HI Kirk!,

Question: At what point do green dot hexes go white?

In the below SS shows that CP has captured Antwerp. Should be said that now CP and Entente have negating control of mutual sea (water) hexes? When playing in SP or MP there is no way to judge from the map that is so, the map always shows that your opponent's sea hexes as always "white dots". The AI always knows what are green dot hexes, but the player does not. This information should be shared by both sides, regardless of it is SP or MP play. Certainly where there are not overlapping ownership sea hexes, there is no problem, Take Malta for instance. I fully understand when capturing an enemy port that once green dot hexes turn to white dots (actually they should stay green dot regardless of ownership, to the victor goes the spoils). Trying to get a consensus from the powers to be about this, especially concerning the English Channel.

Just thinking, Bob

[operating]

Hi Kirk!

Have some reservations about Serbia's PP, beginning in 1914. The first move by AH in SP is to bombard Cetinje with a dreadnaught (Serbs' loses 2 PP as a result), often that is the case in MP also. Next; AH infantry assaults a Serb garrison, many in MP do the same. After this the sum total of Serbia PP is "7", when Serbia starts it's turn 1. It's inevitable that Belgrade is assaulted, for each assault it loses PPs (Granted that in a few turns Serbia's PP goes from 85% to 100% upping it's PP by let's say 5 (+ or -) PP, however by then Serbia's PP is close to "0" or negative. A competent MP player knows continued assaults on Belgrade will knock it's original 13 PP score to "0" in no time, and perhaps capture while doing so. The only way for Serbia to repair or build new units is by selling it's one lab and or, disbanding it's only artillery unit, which would have to done immediately in order to survive past Oct.! Some report that they have defeated Serbia by Jan. 1915 and earlier, allowing them up to 5 months to prepare for Italy's entering. Personally I accept the challenge to keep Serbia relevant in SP, but in MP it is a rout, Serbia does not stand a chance of holding out for long. Please give some thought about increasing Serbia's PP by just a few points.

Serbian Campaign of World War I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date
28 July 1914 – 3 November 1918

Serbian campaign

The Serbian Campaign of World War I was fought from late July 1914, when Austria-Hungary invaded the Kingdom of Serbia at the outset of World War I, until the war's conclusion in November 1918. The front ranged from the Danube to southern Macedonia and back north again, involving forces from almost all of the combatants of the war.

The Serbian Army declined severely towards the end of the war, falling from about 420,000[2] at its peak to about 100,000 at the moment of liberation. The Kingdom of Serbia lost more than 1,100,000 inhabitants during the war (both army and civilian losses), which represented over 27% of its overall population and 60% of its male population.[5][6] According to estimates by the Yugoslav government (1924) Serbia had lost 265,164 soldiers, or 25% of all mobilized people. By comparison, France lost 16.8%, Germany 15.4%, Russia 11.5%, and Italy 10.3%.

[operating]

AI assaults and later assaults that chew up Serbian PP.

[operating]

And just what does the 21 mean for next turn?

[Tomokatu]

Operating worried:

So far from what I have seen is a mountain hex only allows a 1 level of entrenchment, which to me does not seem to be right.

The terrain (apart from having permanent snow) was precipitous.
Not only was it hard to dig entrenchments in THIS but as you can see, getting supplies of timber, wire and concrete to improve entrenchment was also a bit awkward.

I can understand Level 1 entrenchment maximum.