BULGARIA...?

[operating]

Once again both Serbia and Belgium have surrendered, Entente used gas first, the Gallipoli invasion was repulsed, captured 10 Russian cities, sank dreadnaughts from; England, France, Russia and Italy, killed off 1107 Entente aircraft, 1200 Russians, captured all of Egypt by June 1916 and yet : WHERE IS BULGARIA? (picking it's friggin nose RED). Edited by moderator

Warning, communicate in a normal and polite manner or risk a ban.

[operating]

At least someone made an attempt at explaining a reason why Bulgaria is not doing a DOW, where others that "should be" doing the explaining, DON'T.

Thank you [:)]

Robotron wrote:
As far as I can see by looking at the code:

starting with gameturn#20 the game performs a check for every neutral faction by adding up the production values of all cities of an alliance and the cities of the neutral faction and then adding 50 to the result. If one alliance's total value is greater than the other one's, neutral factions whose alignment (a value between 0 and 100) is leaning toward that alliance (< 50 for CP and >50 for Entente) further gravitate towards "the winning team".

Casualities, manpower, morale and total unit strength don't seem to play a role in the calculation.

Thanks Robotron!

That formula needs to be reconfigured. Presently in SP that makes sense, but in MP it does not fly. The reason being that the AI does not disband SGs, where in MP most if not all players disband most if not all SGs, giving nations like Russia a huge positive PP increase (-1 PP upkeep per SG), most English, French and Italian SGs as well get canned to increase PP, to sum it up: The number of Entente SGs far outnumber the CP SGs, so for all practical purposes CP is way in the hole PP wise, unless CP has an exceptional MP match with capturing cities, then again these captured cities (for the most part) take forever to regenerate PP, especially if they were fought over resulting in major damage to said city.

Matter-o-fact, if in SP it is easier to have alliance gains using the same disbanding as described above to gain an unfair advantage over the AI, that's why the above formula is a "joke"! Who in their right mind is going to leave 2 English garrisons at 2 PP upkeep cost each for perhaps years at a time in North America and Greenland? Disband them! Of course it's going to save England a ton of PP over the long run. Now if the game chose to prevent disbanding, then perhaps neutrals such as Bulgaria would react differently... Or the reality is: Change the above formula or remove it all together and set historical dates to when nations entered the war to be in effect, if CTGW was to be PC (politically correct), pure chaos otherwise. One of the best diplomatic setups for WWI is in the game SCWWI where a player can buy diplomat points.

Dumbfounded, Bob

[operating]

Sure I can find stuff in the lua files, however I have "no clue" what it means? I have to ask the average member that owns this game, if they even know where the lua files are? And can they understand the language? I'm willing to bet: Not many! So I politely pray upon the powers to be to be helpful to the membership for information that is not in the game manual or read me first stuff.

Thank you[:)]

function CheckFactionDOWBalance(faction)

if game.date.year == 1914 and game.turn < 20 then
return true
end

allianceStrength = {}
allianceStrength[1] = 0
allianceStrength[2] = 0
for f in game.factions do
if f.alliance.id ~= 0 then
allianceStrength[f.alliance.id] = allianceStrength[f.alliance.id] + GetFactionEconomicStrength(f)
end
end

if faction.luaData.alignment > 50 and allianceStrength[1] + GetFactionEconomicStrength(faction) + 50 >= allianceStrength[2] then
return true
end
if faction.luaData.alignment < 50 and allianceStrength[2] + GetFactionEconomicStrength(faction) + 50 >= allianceStrength[1] then
return true
end
return false
end

[operating]

Where it was announced today that the owner in not going to make any changes to the balance or features of the game, the only logical way Bulgaria is going to be able to enter the war, is if Entente makes a DOW on Bulgaria, unless by some fluke CP get's an PP advantage in MP... Highly unlikely against an experienced player... Bulgaria historically entered Oct. 11th, 1915...

[CSSS]

Bulgaria was very important to the central powers southern war it was the Bulgaria entry that sealed Serbia's fate provided vital rail transport to
Asia minor, helped out flank the Romanians, and stretched the Russian front to a breaking point. So Bulgarian entry WAS important!

[operating]

Bulgaria entered the war for more than what this game's formula about production would have you (the player) believe, thus hamstringing the march to war with false data... IMO...

[Robotron]

In my opinion CTGW isn't meant to be an accurate reflection of WW1 but rather an easy-to-get-into "light" wargame much in the vain of PanzerGeneral or Axis & Allies.

If you and your opponents don't agree on using a mod there's not much to be gained by questioning it's historical accuracy.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: Robotron

In my opinion CTGW isn't meant to be an accurate reflection of WW1 but rather an easy-to-get-into "light" wargame much in the vain of PanzerGeneral or Axis & Allies.

If you and your opponents don't agree on using a mod there's not much to be gained by questioning it's historical accuracy.

Granted, the game is not a detailed reflection of WW I, however the war events could better represented to give the game a feeling of WW I, that is why the production model that prevents Bulgaria from entering the war should be adjusted or eliminated. I had hoped that modders could fit that into their mod packages. It's quite unrealistic that Bulgaria does not enter the war in this game than historically. Once again: If playing CP in SP there is a higher probability that Bulgaria will enter than when in MP by far. To me: The average player has no idea as to why, or why not, a neutral enters the war, the formula is buried in the scripts, it's not laid out, like in a paragraph of a manual to explain the effects from production gains and losses, other than the player has less to use or more to use. So if you want to make any adjustments to your mod, so be it, the flaw in the game will remain and that's there is all to it. It's not your fault that the game has some poor designs in it's development, nor were they addressed when they should have, as pointed out by many customers other than myself.

[Robotron]

Well, to circumvent Bulgaria staying out of the war I have included a special event in my personal mod that will trigger when either

a) Serbian morale has dropped below a value somewhere between 30 to 40 (out of a starting 130) and Nis has been captured by CPs and the event "Macedonian Donation" has been played.

or

b) trigger with a slowly increasing chance at the start of every turn once Romania enters the war and there are no russian units on either german or AH hexes.

Works for me.

[operating]

Well now you are starting to make sense![:)]&nbsp; Although the Donation is a Entente decision to exorcise, that puts them in control of Bulgaria (if it get's into the game or not).&nbsp; If I read the lua right on that, the Donation can "only happen" 1 turn ahead of Bulgaria's entering (as it is now).&nbsp; It's a one time deal, a transport has to be right next to the city for it to happen, if a transport is next to Salonika after Bulgaria enters, the Donation will not happen.&nbsp; I've&nbsp; tried it in other matches and did not work for me (boy, was I pissed)...&nbsp;How about:&nbsp; When Nis get's captured it starts a Bulgarian countdown to war?&nbsp; I have had on rare occasions (in MP) where Bulgaria entered in July 1915, only because a new player did not disband his SGs sufficiently and lost a number of Entente cities, I'm sure next time he would not make the same mistakes...[;)]&nbsp;&nbsp;

[kirk23]

I have been away from the game for a while, but earlier this week, I started Modding in earnest again, and the good news is I fixed the problem off Bulgaria not Joining the war, they do now, no more going red and freezing on turn count down.

I have also altered how fighters interact with the game, I have removed all their abilities, that allow them to attack land forces,IE: Garrison,Infantry etc! Until you research armed-fighter, they are only good for recon missions. After you research armed-fighter, they can then attack other aircraft only,they have absolutely no effect on any ground units.

[DanielHerr]

Kirk, according to Wikipedia, fighter were capable of ground attack in WW1.

While the earliest use of military aircraft was for observation and directing of artillery, strafing was frequently practiced in World War I. Trenches and supply columns were routinely attacked from the air in the second half of the war. Strafing with machine guns was used when precision was needed (facing small targets), but non-strafing attack methods (primarily small bombs) were preferred for larger targets, area targets, or when low-altitude flying was too risky.

The German army was the first to introduce a class of aircraft specially designed for strafing, the ground-attack aircraft. Planes built specifically for strafing include the German World War I Junkers J.I, which was armored to protect it from ground-based gunfire. The Junkers J.I. had two downward-facing machine guns that were used for strafing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafing#World_War_I

[nehi]

absolutely no effect on any ground units

absolutely boring game with impenetrable trenches, good job

[operating]

ORIGINAL: DanielHerr

Kirk, according to Wikipedia, fighter were capable of ground attack in WW1.

While the earliest use of military aircraft was for observation and directing of artillery, strafing was frequently practiced in World War I. Trenches and supply columns were routinely attacked from the air in the second half of the war. Strafing with machine guns was used when precision was needed (facing small targets), but non-strafing attack methods (primarily small bombs) were preferred for larger targets, area targets, or when low-altitude flying was too risky.

The German army was the first to introduce a class of aircraft specially designed for strafing, the ground-attack aircraft. Planes built specifically for strafing include the German World War I Junkers J.I, which was armored to protect it from ground-based gunfire. The Junkers J.I. had two downward-facing machine guns that were used for strafing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafing#World_War_I

Daniel,

Maybe you did not read Kirk's post thoroughly: He indicates that fighters would have combat affect once they attained "armed aircraft" status.

Bob

[DanielHerr]

After you research armed-fighter, they can then attack other aircraft only, they have absolutely no effect on any ground units.

I dont think I misread.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: nehi

absolutely no effect on any ground units

absolutely boring game with impenetrable trenches, good job

I'm almost ready to come out of retirement. There's more than one way to skin a cat and make it meow...[:)]

[operating]

ORIGINAL: DanielHerr

After you research armed-fighter, they can then attack other aircraft only, they have absolutely no effect on any ground units.

I dont think I misread.

Without putting a fighter icon SS up here, I'm pretty sure a fighter's stats would show a bomb capacity, although it does not actually use bomb ammo, but would indicate an effect when used on ground units, be it that they are entrenched or not. In this latest discussion: The thought occurred to me, that armed aircraft did not just mean machine guns to attack other aircraft, but also to throw or drop small bombs onto the ground..[;)]


PS: Whoops! Kirk said no effect on ground units, my bad.[:(] He should rethink that option a little more...[&:]

[nehi]

There's more than one way to skin a cat and make it meow

dont think so, cp only chance to win the war is to win it fast

without air support, they cant penetrate trenches, then they cant win it at all

as entente i can imagine just 2 other ways, both scary boring

to wait for tanks or spam blimps to break cp economy

(if someone dont trust me i recommend him to try "all this madness" mod as cp and dont use aicraft, aicraft there is nerfed and it makes huge impact on my blitzkrieg, in vanila 14 turns, in atm 24+ to win vs ai, without any aicraft support it wont be only next additional 10 turns, dont mention ai is poor opponent)

[operating]

My mindset is on the game as it is today (v 1.66) (which I have not played yet). Should Kirk complete a mod, I can only hope it is included within the main menu of this game, as indicated sometime before (makes it real easy to load and play). About the trench thing: Russians take forever to develop a decent trench and even if they do it takes awhile to form a line/front, if at all... Yes, spamming blimps is a game killer, a slow death at first then accelerates as more blimps are added, never mind bombers, especially the Russian ones. I don't think we played a game you as Entente, Lord forbid, it would be a disaster for me, for I would be still chipping off the "rust" as we go.. Of course I'd love to do another AAR regardless...

[nehi]

I don't think we played a game you as Entente

we did, u werent able to take nothin in the east, thats about how russians cant make fast line of defense (just 2 or 3 players took me warsaw, but at cost they left wf = unevitable loss)

1.66 was just a hotfix, no real changes