COMMANDER THE GREAT WAR AND ITS FUTURE.

[kirk23]

German Fighter Ace Boelcke[;)]

[kirk23]

Von Hindenburg,Scheer & Boelcke new art

[kirk23]

Some more new German commander additions.[:)]

[operating]

When is this patch with all the new Commanders going to be released? or are you just being a tease?[:)]

[kirk23]

At the moment it is just at the tease stage, I have still a lot to do, speaking off which, Austria now have another General.[:D]

General Von Bohm-Ermolli joins the game.[:)]

You can always look on the bright side, what is in the game at the present time via the new 1.6.2 patch, is just scratching the surface yet,as to the games true potential,speaking personally here,I have mountains of new stuff to add to the game yet.[;)]

[kirk23]

New art for Austrian General Von Hotzendorf,Admiral Haus + Fighter Ace Von Fernburgg.

[kirk23]

British General Sir Stanley Maude new art.

[operating]

Good morning Kirk,

Question: Can you leave directions to where I can find lua files? C/?/?/? Found them once before, but forgot how it was done, plus this post may be of help to others.

Thanks, Bob

[kirk23]

ORIGINAL: operating

Good morning Kirk,

Question: Can you leave directions to where I can find lua files? C/?/?/? Found them once before, but forgot how it was done, plus this post may be of help to others.

Thanks, Bob

Good morning to you Bob, even thou it is the middle of the afternoon here in bonny Scotland.[:D]


The default directory that CTGW gets installed to is: C/Program files/Slitherine/Commander The Great War (see photo highlighted in red)left click on the (DATA) file to access the lua scripts.[;)]

[Meteor2]

I just finished a game with the latest patch.
Enjoying the game much, but a few observation I would like to share.
Playing as CP, it seems (in this one game), that the Entente-AI is a little bit confused about strategic goals.
1. Even when German troops are deep in France and Russia, the AI decides, that invading Turkey (as Russia) and defending Serbia (as France)
is far more important and shifts troops to this locations. So Paris and Leningrad fell.
2. Portuguese troops are defending Italy. Strange...
3. Italian troops racing east to help Serbia, but unaware of an encirclement from the north. So 6 Italian armies lost in that swing.
And the Swiss border was not complete any more after German troops passed in the west. Swiss and France territory was unified then.
And (you know that already, I think) some event messages were not "correct" and programming left-overs were seen...

But: An interesting game. Please continue the good work.[;)]

[euroaron]

i played the game with patch 1.6.2 with both sides, and found it too easy even on privileged level, the ai acts silly, and there are some issues risen about... (see below)

commanders: this totally should be revised. for example: germany has two aces - and the AHM has three? and both have two admirals... balance, balance.

air strategy: ai air force does not care of enemy planes listens to only ground forces. never attacks enemy air force within range. this is a big mistake! but at least ai the planes coordinate the strikes and do not divide their power...

sea strategy: ai fleets operates without any visible strategy, transport included. i mean, EA transports in lamanche are excorted, that is ok, but they are not supported, so EA ships by ai never attack CP ground forces even if they are in range - why? other EA transports, for example french and british garrisons and infantries shipping to albania to help the serbian army, are also escorted, but even if the escorting forces are bigger than the total AHM sea force and the clash is in the ionian sea (neutral zone), they do not strike back. in general EA sea forces let their shores undefended, do not create real and effective blockades, but france and britain send submarines in the baltic sea(! and ?) that russia supports only with the submarine, moreover they leave CP convoys sail away many times even if there is a EA cruiser in the hex next to it... ah, yeah, the CP convoys from norway are totally ignored by EA, that is the most beautiful. but CP sea forces are worse! the turkish fleet does not do anything, the AHM ditto, while the german ships cruise in the north sea and the la manche lonely(!), easy to sink them one by one. german submarines look to be ok but i do not get it why they go in the mediterranean...

ground strategy: this is the strongest edge of the game, very good job, except one thing! if the sea is controlled by the enemy, the ai ignores this fact: neither sends fleet to regain the control, nor keeps the units away of the shore. valuable units like artillery and fighter park on the beach waiting for the bombardment... annoying. ah yeah, i almost forgot it. russia do not care about AHM, if krakow, lemberg and przemysl have been taken and no more CP units are in sight in the south then russian forces do not move toward budapest or vienna to help the serbian brothers and knock AHM out of the war, but face to germany... not lol.

balance: the overall balance of the game is good, yet it can always be optimised. the biggest mistake is the deployment of the russian forces, where the corridor to ukraine is undefended: if the CP sends for example 4 cavalry and 2 garrisons there and keeps their support open (not a big deal), then the kiev and odessa line can be conquered in 1914, and russia collapse in the summer of 1915 - the ai is unable the manage the wide open front and this situation with the fast moving forces in the vast space. moreover, i would give even more ships to britain and little more to italy and france. other balancing issue is the sea transport points. why for AHM, germany, russia, turkey? did they have at all? there, there.

invasions: it is all about anzac. i do not say gallipoli must be performed, but there is the large undefended turkish shore, the huge anzac force, the ports of egypt, the british transport points, even some british ships (or are recommended to be added in this region) - and nothing happens. as a human player i do at least two invasions that can take turkish forces away of the other, more important fronts...

diplomacy: this is also good, but one power is missing: persia. this minor power "joined" EA in the same time as turkey and fact that this front was everything but really active it should be represented in the game. extra point that britain could send forces to persia through the persian gulf. the position of the ottoman empire was very bad after all, no doubt.

disbanding units: any PP or MP recovery of disbanding a unit should be banned. on account of the impotence of EP fleet germany can get a massive advantage if transforms the fleet to ground or air forces. turkey, russia, france and italy ditto, britain has no point to do this. usa, question mark. this kind of transformation is ridiculous.

unit stat: some of them have to be revised. i agree that playability has to be considered, but some units are really op - airship, bomber, sub, railgun and ships. they are easy to produce so some of them should be slowed down little bit (sub to 8, airship to 8, bomber to 8, fighter to 6). the strategy attack values have also to be rewritten with the regarding developments - this is important because the air and the sea forces can ruin the whole enemy economy in turns, like current wars? no way, man! an airship has to be expensive to produce and upkeep with attack values close to zero, but better movement and los 7, and done.

hunger: that should be somehow put in the game. the granaries were depleted in every war countries to 1916 and the hungry people's morale started to fall. the rationing event in the game concerns only to britain, though germany and AHM introduced their systems as well. i do not know almost anything about the russian, serbian and turkish conditions, but it is sure that they suffered too. of course there is some events in the game, like mutiny of the french army or the german fleet, but this can be thought on, i say.

i am not a noob, i made a mod about some of those above considered and pissed blood to win it with the CP (EA is a different story, they won the war after all), yet because of the poor performance of the ai in the air and the sea and the overall strategy, i am not happy.

[kirk23]

ORIGINAL: euroaron

i played the game with patch 1.6.2 with both sides, and found it too easy even on privileged level, the ai acts silly, and there are some issues risen about... (see below)

commanders: this totally should be revised. for example: germany has two aces - and the AHM has three? and both have two admirals... balance, balance.

air strategy: ai air force does not care of enemy planes listens to only ground forces. never attacks enemy air force within range. this is a big mistake! but at least ai the planes coordinate the strikes and do not divide their power...

sea strategy: ai fleets operates without any visible strategy, transport included. i mean, EA transports in lamanche are excorted, that is ok, but they are not supported, so EA ships by ai never attack CP ground forces even if they are in range - why? other EA transports, for example french and british garrisons and infantries shipping to albania to help the serbian army, are also escorted, but even if the escorting forces are bigger than the total AHM sea force and the clash is in the ionian sea (neutral zone), they do not strike back. in general EA sea forces let their shores undefended, do not create real and effective blockades, but france and britain send submarines in the baltic sea(! and ?) that russia supports only with the submarine, moreover they leave CP convoys sail away many times even if there is a EA cruiser in the hex next to it... ah, yeah, the CP convoys from norway are totally ignored by EA, that is the most beautiful. but CP sea forces are worse! the turkish fleet does not do anything, the AHM ditto, while the german ships cruise in the north sea and the la manche lonely(!), easy to sink them one by one. german submarines look to be ok but i do not get it why they go in the mediterranean...

ground strategy: this is the strongest edge of the game, very good job, except one thing! if the sea is controlled by the enemy, the ai ignores this fact: neither sends fleet to regain the control, nor keeps the units away of the shore. valuable units like artillery and fighter park on the beach waiting for the bombardment... annoying. ah yeah, i almost forgot it. russia do not care about AHM, if krakow, lemberg and przemysl have been taken and no more CP units are in sight in the south then russian forces do not move toward budapest or vienna to help the serbian brothers and KO AHM out of the war, but face to germany... not lol.

balance: the overall balance of the game is good, yet it can always be optimised. the biggest mistake is the deployment of the russian forces, where the corridor to ukraine is undefended: if the CP sends for example 4 cavalry and 2 garrisons there and keeps their support open (not a big deal), then the kiev and odessa line can be conquered in 1914, and russia collapse in the summer of 1915 - the ai is unable the manage the wide open front and the this situation with the fast moving forces in the vast space. moreover, i would give even more ships to britain and little more to italy and france. other balancing issue is the sea transport points. why for AHM, germany, russia, turkey? did they have at all? there, there.

invasions: it is all about anzac. i do not say gallipoli must be performed, but there is the large undefended turkish shore, the huge anzac force, the ports of egypt, the british transport points, even some british ships (or are recommended to be added in this region) - and nothing happens. as a human player i do at least two invasions that can take turkish forces away of the other, more important fronts...

diplomacy: this is also good, but one power is missing: persia. this minor power "joined" EA in the same time as turkey and fact that this front was everything but really active it should be represented in the game. extra point that britain could send forces to persia through the persian gulf. the position of the ottoman empire was very bad after all, no doubt.

disbanding units: any PP or MP recovery of disbanding a unit should be banned. on account of the impotence of EP fleet germany can get a massive advantage if transforms the fleet to ground or air forces. turkey, russia, france and italy ditto, britain has no point to do this. usa, question mark. this kind of transformation is ridiculous.

unit stat: some of them have to be revised. i agree that playability has to be considered, but some units are really op - airship, bomber, sub, railgun and ships. they are easy to produce so some of them should be slowed down little bit (sub to 8, airship to 8, bomber to 8, fighter to 6). strategy attack values have also to be rewrite with the regarding developments - this is important because the air and the sea forces can ruin the whole enemy economy in turns, like current wars? no way, man! an airship has to be expensive to produce and upkeep with attack values close to zero, but better movement and los 7, and done.

hunger: that should be somehow put in the game. the granaries were depleted in every war countries to 1916 and the hungry people's morale started to fall. the rationing event in the game concerns only to britain, though germany and AHM were also introduce their systems. i do not know almost anything about the russian, serb and turkish conditions, but it is sure that they suffered too. of course there is some events in the game, like mutiny of the french army or the german fleet, but this can be thought on, i say.

i am not a noob, i made a mod about some of those above considered and pissed blood to win it with the CP (EA is a different story, they won the war after all), yet because of the poor performance of the ai in the air and the sea and the overall strategy, i am not happy.

Very interesting reading,as to the AI I'm in total agreement,it gets a pass mark for land strategy in most cases,but could do better,in many areas. The naval AI sucks big time,always has done since the game was released 2 years ago,and the Air warfare has its good points,and yet again it could be a lot better. I wish I could do more for the AI, but it is not an area, of the game I know how to alter,if I did I would send it to school on how to use strategy effectively.[;)]

[kirk23]

Many moons ago there was a discussion on the forum, regarding the naming off Garrison & Infantry units in the game. So I would like to know what gamers think off renaming these land units in the game.

Garrison units renamed Brigade, an all new unit called Division added, plus Infantry has been renamed Corps. This is only for discussion at this stage, but I have to admit personally I'm for renaming these units.[;)]

I'm going on holiday for a week tomorrow,so you guys have plenty of time to let me know if you like this idea or not? It will require a lot of new art work, but I would be more than happy to do that on my return.[:)]

Any gamers who prefer to use Nato symbol graphics,will be pleased to note,that Brigades will have 1 star, Divisions will be represented by 2 stars, and Corps will have 3 star Nato graphics.

[DanielHerr]

Only problem - the production screen is now out of room. Unit tiles will have to be resized.

[kirk23]

ORIGINAL: DanielHerr

Only problem - the production screen is now out of room. Unit tiles will have to be resized.

Production screen is not out of room, since the game was released,there have been 2 spare positions. I have allocated these spare positions too the Division land unit, and the last spare position too Destroyers.There is space for sixteen units types,they are now all allocated.[;)]

All unit tile graphics sizes are unchanged,the unit sizes in game are not effected.


Production panel X,Y coordinate system unit tile locations.

local x = 0
local y = 0
--self.firstUnit = 0
for _, protoInfo in ipairs(faction.unit_prototypes) do
proto = game:GetUnitPrototype(protoInfo.prototype)
x = 0
if proto.name == "brigade" then
x = 278
y = 39
end
if proto.name == "division" then
x = 407
y = 39
end
if proto.name == "corps" then
x = 536
y = 39
end
if proto.name == "cavalry" then
x = 665
y = 39
end
if proto.name == "armouredcar" then
x = 278
y = 163
end
if proto.name == "artillery" then
x = 407
y = 163
end
if proto.name == "armouredtrain" then
x = 536
y = 163
end
if proto.name == "armour" then
x = 665
y = 163
end
if proto.name == "railgun" then
x = 278
y = 287
end
if proto.name == "fighter" then
x = 407
y = 287
end
if proto.name == "zeppelin" then
x = 536
y = 287
end
if proto.name == "bomber" then
x = 665
y = 287
end
if proto.name == "submarine" then
x = 278
y = 411
end
if proto.name == "destroyer" then
x = 407
y = 411
end
if proto.name == "lightcruiser" then
x = 536
y = 411
end
if proto.name == "dreadnought" then
x = 665
y = 411
end

[operating]

Kirk

Have got used to the name "Small Garrison" and when abbreviated to "SG" most everybody knows what you are referring to. If this unit was to have a name change, I would suggest "Home Guard" (HG) or "National Guard" (NG).

To me all units appear to be of Corps size in their specialty, often have seen in history where a garrison goes from a few hundred men to one hundred thousand men, so I had no problem with a garrison being called a garrison, but when you want to call a garrison a division, that tends to throw unit dimensions out of whack, ie.. My division attacked Joe's Corp (we all know that a corps has more components to it than a division) meaning: Meaning my 10,000 guys are attacking your 100,000 guys, that's what I mean about being out of proportion. But if my 100,000 man garrison is attacking your 100,000 man Corps, I seem to accept that perspective. Unless you want to say that a division has 100,000 men is attacking my corps with 100,000 men, but then why have the different descriptions? Just saying...

Bob

[kirk23]

Hi Bob,
I have just returned from my wee holiday today,I'm just playing catch up now on the forum. I thought that their might have been more interest, in the name changes for Garrison & Infantry, but I can see, I can save myself a great deal off unneeded additional work, by just leaving the units as they are. So that is what I will do. One thing I am tinkering with, is adding " OIL " as a strategic objective, especially for Germany.[;)]

[operating]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Hi Bob,
I have just returned from my wee holiday today,I'm just playing catch up now on the forum. I thought that their might have been more interest, in the name changes for Garrison & Infantry, but I can see, I can save myself a great deal off unneeded additional work, by just leaving the units as they are. So that is what I will do. One thing I am tinkering with, is adding " OIL " as a strategic objective, especially for Germany.[;)]

Welcome back Kirk!

If you have strategic objectives for one side, you may as well have strategic objectives for the other side too. "OIL" may be more of today's importance, but what seemed to be more important fuel of the Great War was "COAL", which was readily available in many countries of the period. Hey! I'm all for enhancing the game in every-which-way. How would a strategic objective be counted (PP is our only cash flow in the game)? Could strategic objectives have a political/diplomatic value? Could we be talking about "TRADE" in the game? A commerce with neutrals? OR, Would a strategic objective have an effect on NM? Could it have an effect on movement, plus or minus? You brought up a real interesting subject!

Stayed at home, Bob

[euroaron]

there were so called two important resources in ww1: coal, indeed, but practically none of the coal mines of the war countries were in danger, except some french ones occupied by the germans in 1914 that caused some cold days for the french people later on. the other one was the food. that was serious! serbian soldiers were starving in 1915, food was portioned in germany from 1916, ersatz foods appeared everywhere, and even england struggled from the lack of food. nevertheless the food, well, its lack of course, ruined only the morale, but not the combat skills of the armies.
my view is that the future presence of any physical resource than PP and MP would not give too much for the game experience, but would make it more complicated.
what, ammo? c'mon. you can buy cheap ww1 ammo in the internet... they did produce a lot!

[kirk23]

I'm adding more special historical events here is the Battle of Coronel,for loosing this battle Britian National Morale drops 5%