Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Thoughts on 1.64

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Commander - The Great War >> RE: Thoughts on 1.64 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 6/21/2015 5:03:35 AM   
TripleCP

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 5/28/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

I get a kick out of Sweden!!! Sweden "does get a RR point" to start with, but there are no railroads in Sweden, however Sweden does have a port, but "no transport points" to start with, seems kind of strange...


Maybe I'll declare war on them, too. I wonder how long it'll take them to get to Belgrade?

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 31
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 6/21/2015 10:45:03 AM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TripleCP

Yeah, multiplayer offers an altogether different experience, but I don't accept the implicit argument many game makers seem to be making these days that SP is just for learning the ropes before moving on to the "real game" by playing MP. I think it was EA that did a survey a few years ago that found around 85% of their customers never even play MP. Based on some of the AARs, as the game stands now I'd need to agree to some house rules to really enjoy it (such as no disbanding of Small Garrisons).


For one: One of the main developers here only plays the game in SP, so your thoughts and concerns he pays particular attention to and has also indicated for the next version that SGs will have no upkeep costs what-so-ever, making disbanding SGs senseless, unless for some tactical/operational reason would a player disband an SG.

I'll say this: The MP community here has been very active, many participating for the first time. I've looked to other games to play MP, but felt they were a nightmare to do logistically, real grognard stuff, everyone's wants and needs vary, to which I respect.


quote:

ORIGINAL: TripleCP


quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

I get a kick out of Sweden!!! Sweden "does get a RR point" to start with, but there are no railroads in Sweden, however Sweden does have a port, but "no transport points" to start with, seems kind of strange...


Maybe I'll declare war on them, too. I wonder how long it'll take them to get to Belgrade?

One of the beauties of MP here is: You can actually exchange game information with a willing opponent, which you would never get from the AI. In recent matches opponents have attacked Denmark and Sweden, resulting unprecedented view of those countries that I'd never get versus the AI..

(in reply to TripleCP)
Post #: 32
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 6/23/2015 7:47:13 AM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmiralSarek

To solve the Turkey problem, can sea hexes be modified to be territorial waters, you need to declare war to move in to them, just like land hexes.

Admiral

To be specific: I believe you are referring to the Bosporus Straits in particular. Or should the Dardanelles sea hexes to it's west be included also?

I'm almost in agreement with Kirk in putting a port to the Black Sea side of Constantinople since reading up on Kiylos, where Admiral Souchon gathered his fleet to raid Russian ports, as described at this site: http://www.turkeyswar.com/navy/navalops.html . Plus I would be for keeping the current Constantinople port as it is, as a result Constantinople would be the only city on the map with 2 ports, unless Kirk decided to create another city/port (called Kiylos) one hex just to the north-northwest of Constantinople.

Secondly: included in the above article, it describes the presence of German submarines in Turkish waters, as quoted below:
quote:

German Submarines

Two important developments during the latter half of 1915 had a significant impact on Turkish naval efforts in the Black Sea. First, German submarines arrived in Turkey. A total of 13 German submarines have been active in Turkish waters during the war and some of them have undertaken successful operations against the Russians in the Black Sea. The first sortie by a German submarine into the Black Sea was made by UB-7 on July 5, and this marked the beginning of a new phase of the war in the Black Sea. Second, on October 6, 1915, Bulgaria joined the Central Powers, the Bulgarian Navy was given under the command of Admiral Souchon as Varna became a base for Central Powers’ naval efforts in the Black Sea.


Of course it mentions Varna as a port (that's another corundum).

This is on my wish list: That a German sub fleet be deployed at Constantinople at some point in 1915. After-all the French get fleets deployed (turn 4 or 5) at North Africa (NO cost) and the English get fleets deployed for the Gallipoli campaign (turn 23) (at No cost), So why not have German sub fleets to Turkey get the same treatment? What's fair is fair!!! Why should Germany PAY for the building of a sub fleet (and pay for it's upkeep while in the shipyard), that would be deployed 4 turns later at Cuxhaven , then spend upkeep on this fleet on it's journey to Turkey, where-as the French and English get all this for FREE? And GEE! How about the ANSACS who get teleported to Cairo! and you guessed it---For FREE!!!! and let's not forget the Canadian infantry that get teleported to England, you guessed it again----FOR FREE!!!! But somehow the Germans get the SHAFT!!!!!

(in reply to AdmiralSarek)
Post #: 33
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 6/23/2015 6:33:28 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2845
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
Submarine fleet for Turkey 1915 I can do that for you Rob!!

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 34
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 6/23/2015 7:44:36 PM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Submarine fleet for Turkey 1915 I can do that for you Rob!!

All-Right! You just made my exclusive Christmas card mailing list...

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 35
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 6/25/2015 11:21:18 AM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Submarine fleet for Turkey 1915 I can do that for you Rob!!


Not sure when German sub fleet arrived in the Eastern Med or Turkey in 1915? or, where (on the map) it attacked the Russian fleet in July 1915? So to me, an educated guess would be on a turn sometime before July 1915, perhaps May or June. Have to question if this sub fleet was in the area at the time of the Gallipoli landings? It would be an interesting AAR history read if it was present. Have to do a research about naval action on or about the time of the Gallipoli Campaign. The more I get into The Great War, the more I realize what I don't know about The Great War.

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 36
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 6/26/2015 3:39:15 AM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
Hi Kirk!

This site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_operations_in_the_Dardanelles_Campaign has provided some more food for thought as to when German submarines arrived in the Eastern Med/Turkey. Will include excerpts from the site in quotes below:

One of these quotes indicates the presence of German subs in March 1915, which could mean they were deployed there before March 1915....

quote:

Further attempts[edit]

Keyes remained a firm supporter of naval action, and on 23 September submitted a further proposal to pass through the Dardanelles to de Robeck. De Robeck disliked the plan, but nonetheless passed it to the Admiralty. Risk to ships had increased since March, due to the presence of German submarines in the Mediterranean and the Sea of Marmara, where the British ships would be inviting targets if the plan succeeded. On the other hand, minesweeping was now better equipped and some of the ships had nets or mine bumpers which it was hoped would improve their chances against mines. The Ottoman Empire now had better supply routes from Germany whereas demands on the navy for more ships to support the attempt had to be added to continuing commitments of ships for the land action, and the ongoing campaign at Salonica attempting to support Serbia


quote:

The first French submarine to enter the Sea of Marmara was Turquoise. However, it was forced to turn back and, on 30 October, when attempting to pass back through the straits, ran aground beneath a fort and was captured intact. The crew of twenty-five were taken prisoner and documents detailing planned Allied operations were discovered. This included a scheduled rendezvous with HMS E20 on 6 November. The rendezvous was kept by the German U-boat U-14 which torpedoed and sank E20 killing all but nine of the crew. Turquoise was salvaged and incorporated (but not commissioned) into the Ottoman Navy as the Onbasi Müstecip, named after the gunner who had forced the French commander to surrender.

The Allied submarine campaign in the Sea of Marmara was the one significant success of the Gallipoli Campaign, forcing the Ottomans to abandon it as a transport route. Between April and December 1915, a total of nine British and four French submarines sank one battleship, one destroyer, five gunboats, eleven troop transports, forty-four supply ships, and 148 sailing vessels at a cost of eight Allied submarines which were sunk in the strait or in the Sea of Marmara.[28]

In 1993, a coal mining operation revealed the wreck of the German submarine UB-46 near the Kemerburgaz coast. After carrying out missions in Black Sea, on its way back, UB-46 hit a mine near Karaburun and sank with all hands. It is now on display at Besiktas Naval Museum in Istanbul.[29]


quote:

Also on 27 April, a kite-balloon ship had spotted an Ottoman transport ship moving near the Narrows. Queen Elizabeth, stationed off Gaba Tepe, had fired across the peninsula, at a range of over ten mi (8.7 nmi; 16 km), and sank the transport with her third shot. For much of the campaign, the Ottomans transported troops via rail, though other supplies continued to be transported by ship on the Sea of Marmara and Dardanelles.

It quickly became evident that the battle for Gallipoli would not be a swift or easy operation. At Helles, which was initially the main battlefield, a series of costly battles only managed to edge the front line closer to Krithia. Through the early battles, the Royal Navy continued to provide support via bombardments. However, in May three battleships were torpedoed: Goliath in Morto Bay on 12 May; Triumph off Anzac on 25 May; and Majestic off W Beach on 27 May. Goliath was sunk by the Ottoman torpedo boat Muâvenet-i Millîye while the other two were sunk by U-21.

Allied troops transports[edit]

quote:

An other important aspect of the allied naval operations was transporting safely the many thousands of soldiers to and from the Dardanelles over the Mediterranean Sea. The major threats were attacks by German and Austrian-Hungarian submarines and mines. The only major loss during the Dardanelles Campaign was the sinking of the HMT Royal Edward on 13 August 1915. The ship sailed from Alexandria, Egypt to Gallipoli with 1,367 officers and men onboard and was torpedoed by SM UB-14 near the Dodecanese. 935 lives were lost.

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 37
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 6/26/2015 8:38:23 AM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
Often have read how German subs were shipped by rail to the Adriatic for deployment. What I question (and will research): Were all English subs built in England then sent to the Med. for deployment? If so, The Germans should be able to do the same thing... (from the production queue)

quote:

SM UB-45 was a Type UB II submarine or U-boat built for and operated by the German Imperial Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine) during World War I. UB-45 operated in the Mediterranean and the Black Seas, and was sunk by a mine in November 1916.

UB-45 was ordered in July 1915 and was laid down at the AG Weser shipyard in Bremen in September. UB-45 was about 37 metres (121 ft 5 in) in length and displaced between 270 and 305 metric tons (266 and 300 long tons), depending on whether surfaced or submerged. She was equipped to carry a complement of four torpedoes for her two bow torpedo tubes and had an 5-centimeter (2.0 in) deck gun. As part of a group of six submarines selected for Mediterranean service, UB-45 was broken into railcar-sized components and shipped to Pola where she was assembled and then launched and commissioned in May 1916.


(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 38
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 6/26/2015 9:10:43 AM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
Kirk, I know this is like "beating a dead horse" and originally in the game when it was first released: The deployment of a German submarine fleet before WW I even started, in the Mediterranean or Adriactic Seas. I question why this German sub fleet was removed in later versions, whereas, they should have stayed in the game (to my thinking correctly so)?

quote:

Campaigns[edit]

See also: Adriatic Campaign of World War I, Mediterranean U-boat Campaign (World War I) and Naval operations in the Dardanelles Campaign

In the Mediterranean Sea, the war began with most of the large, but elderly French fleet deployed on escort duty to protect convoys across the Mediterranean from the smaller, but newer Austrian fleet and cover against possible Italian entry into the war on Austria's side. Several British ships were also sent to Malta to reinforce the British Mediterranean Fleet. Germany also had a small presence in the Mediterranean with a few ships based at the Austrian naval base of Pola (in current day Croatia) and at the commencement of hostilities,

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 39
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 6/26/2015 10:06:55 AM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Often have read how German subs were shipped by rail to the Adriatic for deployment. What I question (and will research): Were all English subs built in England then sent to the Med. for deployment? If so, The Germans should be able to do the same thing... (from the production queue)

quote:

SM UB-45 was a Type UB II submarine or U-boat built for and operated by the German Imperial Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine) during World War I. UB-45 operated in the Mediterranean and the Black Seas, and was sunk by a mine in November 1916.

UB-45 was ordered in July 1915 and was laid down at the AG Weser shipyard in Bremen in September. UB-45 was about 37 metres (121 ft 5 in) in length and displaced between 270 and 305 metric tons (266 and 300 long tons), depending on whether surfaced or submerged. She was equipped to carry a complement of four torpedoes for her two bow torpedo tubes and had an 5-centimeter (2.0 in) deck gun. As part of a group of six submarines selected for Mediterranean service, UB-45 was broken into railcar-sized components and shipped to Pola where she was assembled and then launched and commissioned in May 1916.



To add to this post, I found this site about British K type submarines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine all were built in England (only using this as an example). Yet they can be deployed from the production queue to several ports around the CTGW map outside of Great Britain itself (teleported), whereas, the Germans are not allowed to do so to AH ports, as they did historically. So why should English subs get this advantage from the production queue? (was this a result of biased developers?)

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 40
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 6/26/2015 10:10:58 PM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
Kirk, I did not notice this till just now: That Italy is occupying a AH hex before Italy enters the war? I remember that hex being AH (in prior versions) and could be occupied by AH units before Italy enters. Is this a mistake in the current version? If so, could you please correct the present ownership of this hex. In it's present state, it is indicating Italy is already at war with AH ..

<EDIT>
Can't produce an earlier version that shows that hex occupied by AH...




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by operating -- 6/26/2015 11:35:57 PM >

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 41
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/1/2015 3:54:47 AM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
Noticed in the Management screen below that show the tallies for kills and losses there is a line for "vehicles" (highlighted by the cursor). There were a number of armored cars killed during the course of this match that just ended. These armored car losses should have registered in the vehicle category, perhaps tanks and armored trains should also register there losses in this category also. It's curious that no tallies ever show up there: So I have to ask why the category exists at all? or, Is this something that is going to be utilized at a later date?





Attachment (1)

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 42
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/4/2015 8:50:35 PM   
AdmiralSarek

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 1/31/2015
Status: offline
I think the Belgium surrendering event should be changed, either removed entirely or my preference only fire when the whole country is overrun.

I just had a game as the Allies where I was taking back Belgium, there was a Belgium unit in the Antwerp fortress (which shouldn't be a fortress) and then Belgium surrendered sending the whole BEF back to England. In the real war they never surrendered, why should they here? Especially when I was liberating the country.

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 43
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/9/2015 5:35:15 PM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
Kirk.

Admiral Serak, myself and a few other MP players have been talking amongst ourselves about the air game and how it seems unbalanced. The Admiral and I have been discussing "House Rules" concerning strategic air campaigns (we have not finished with the subject).

One of my concerns is: Balloons can travel the same distance and strike as airships, somehow that does not seem right?

Another is the use of balloons and airships in field attacks against ground units, there does not seem to be much history to that application, and more than anything: The frequency of these attacks in this game!

The Admiral has asked me: "What do I think about limiting strategic attacks to "1" per turn?" I am contemplating the idea, thus have not answered him about the proposal (of course I have been drugged using these attacks, it's hard to kick an addiction).

If you get the time; check out my latest posts in the Admiral Serak vs Operating AAR concerning kills/casualties, pay attention to the ratio of troop losses to air losses.

I'm struggling to think of a compromise that may be a solution about air power. (1) Should bomb loads cost more ammo (will reduce frequency of bombing runs). (2) Should air units cost more PP to produce? (thus a valued asset not to be flagrantly exposed). (3) Should an air unit "killed/casualty" count more towards MP, than ground units? (as it is now, there is hardly any consequences to a side's MP (or NM) for frequent use of air power losses).

More to come, Thanks, Bob

< Message edited by operating -- 7/9/2015 6:40:57 PM >

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 44
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/10/2015 3:00:22 AM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Kirk.

Admiral Serak, myself and a few other MP players have been talking amongst ourselves about the air game and how it seems unbalanced. The Admiral and I have been discussing "House Rules" concerning strategic air campaigns (we have not finished with the subject).

One of my concerns is: Balloons can travel the same distance and strike as airships, somehow that does not seem right?

Another is the use of balloons and airships in field attacks against ground units, there does not seem to be much history to that application, and more than anything: The frequency of these attacks in this game!

The Admiral has asked me: "What do I think about limiting strategic attacks to "1" per turn?" I am contemplating the idea, thus have not answered him about the proposal (of course I have been drugged using these attacks, it's hard to kick an addiction).

If you get the time; check out my latest posts in the Admiral Serak vs Operating AAR concerning kills/casualties, pay attention to the ratio of troop losses to air losses.

I'm struggling to think of a compromise that may be a solution about air power. (1) Should bomb loads cost more ammo (will reduce frequency of bombing runs). (2) Should air units cost more PP to produce? (thus a valued asset not to be flagrantly exposed). (3) Should an air unit "killed/casualty" count more towards MP, than ground units? (as it is now, there is hardly any consequences to a side's MP (or NM) for frequent use of air power losses).

More to come, Thanks, Bob


Another thought occurred to me that might curb the air war a little: Make it more expensive to repair fighters, balloons, bombers and airships (enough so as to slow down their use, or over use). 1 PP per plane lost in a unit, so if an air attack resulted in 3 losses to an attacker, it would cost 3 PP to repair that attacking unit, instead of 1 PP currently used to repair an air unit with 3 losses, the same could hold true for defending air units, I'm a little iffy on that aspect, but I think my suggestion or proposal would have an effect on the operational (deployment) aspect of the game..

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 45
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/14/2015 1:00:44 AM   
AdmiralSarek

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 1/31/2015
Status: offline
I think airships should cost 50 to produce, the same as bombers, not the current 30.
That would solve a lot of problems.

Also when one of your fighters gets attacked on the ground, and the unit is exhausted, another neighboring fighter should be used to intercept the attack ie a CAP. In the current situation you just pick on the weak enemy fighter with a bunch of zepplins from 1/2 a continent away and destroy it, much to easy.

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 46
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/16/2015 2:55:34 AM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmiralSarek

I think airships should cost 50 to produce, the same as bombers, not the current 30.
That would solve a lot of problems.

Also when one of your fighters gets attacked on the ground, and the unit is exhausted, another neighboring fighter should be used to intercept the attack ie a CAP. In the current situation you just pick on the weak enemy fighter with a bunch of zepplins from 1/2 a continent away and destroy it, much to easy.

What's funny: When the game was first released fighters cost 40 or 50 PP each, but many complained that was too expensive, that's how we ended up with 30 PP for a fighter today, that's another reason why I was suggesting other alternatives to dampen the fighter (not just the fighter but all air units), or as you say increase the cost. My feeling is this: Fighters (as well as other air units) seldom get efficiency losses for they don't really move during combat, wheras, most other units suffer efficiency losses for a number of reasons, so if a fighter loses a couple of strength points, it costs diddily-squat to repair that unit. It's not the initial cost of a unit that is a deterrent in over using air, it is the cheap maintenance and repair of the unit that is the crux to having over powering air power.

(in reply to AdmiralSarek)
Post #: 47
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/21/2015 9:13:10 PM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
Kirk, the next 2 SS always confound me. The first one has a class III German artillery specifications (red box), however, in the next SS: Is the specifications (red box) for a class II English artillery, which have exactly the same data. This does not make sense? I'll have to "assume" that the German artillery upgraded to chlorine gas, but there is no "icon" or anything else to indicate so. If the German artillery had upgraded to "Shell", I can't see the difference (data) between that and the class II English artillery, which either way confounds me. For the German artillery could be upgraded to a shell and be a class III, also it could be upgraded with just chlorine gas and still be a class III, if the German unit had both "shell" and "chlorine" it would be upgraded to a class IV. There should be an icon to show the difference between the 2 class III settings. But of course I really don't expect anyone would do anything about it, cause it would mean "work", which does not seem to be on the agenda of CTGW lately.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 48
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/21/2015 9:15:28 PM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
Class II English artillery:





Attachment (1)

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 49
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/22/2015 12:32:21 AM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
OK, I guessed right it was a poison gas upgrade to the German class III artillery. So instead of guessing: Why is there not an icon (that shows that the artillery unit is poison gas ready)? Enough with the charades!





Attachment (1)

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 50
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/22/2015 4:30:34 PM   
Kettengeist


Posts: 23
Joined: 1/14/2015
From: Germany
Status: offline
The more I read, the more I get the feeling that playing this game is wasting time. (Just a feeling.)

Even in version 1.64 seems to be many things that negatively affect on the gameplay . To be honest, most of them I haven't noticed or realized yet. (One reason might be my lack of experience with this game.)

The last weeks I've read a lot here and at slitherine forum. And I sadly must say that I think this game has been abandoned by its creators. Are these forums not the way to stay in contact with the gamers? I'm wondering, because I thought this is the place for constructive interchange. But response from the devs is very rare.

Just my 2 cents.

But now back to topic.


_____________________________

Best wishes,
Kettengeist

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 51
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/22/2015 5:19:04 PM   
lparkh


Posts: 426
Joined: 7/25/2004
Status: offline
I believe more active forum maybe at Slitherine.

(in reply to Kettengeist)
Post #: 52
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/22/2015 6:12:45 PM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kettengeist

The more I read, the more I get the feeling that playing this game is wasting time. (Just a feeling.)

Even in version 1.64 seems to be many things that negatively affect on the gameplay . To be honest, most of them I haven't noticed or realized yet. (One reason might be my lack of experience with this game.)

The last weeks I've read a lot here and at slitherine forum. And I sadly must say that I think this game has been abandoned by its creators. Are these forums not the way to stay in contact with the gamers? I'm wondering, because I thought this is the place for constructive interchange. But response from the devs is very rare.

Just my 2 cents.

But now back to topic.


Don't get me wrong: I love the game, it has progressed and improved so much since when it was first released and I tell ya, I give Kirk23 a lot of the credit for making things happen, he has been the glue that has kept the game, the forum and development together resulting in a really good experience, regardless there is more work to be done. Is the game at it's fullest potential? I don't think so! Could it be a polished gem? Yes! Besides that, there has been a sense of community here that I think many members have benefited from, it's a great thing to see members helping other members, for these members get their enthusiasm from "the powers to be", but when the powers to be are MIA, it's not only looks bad for them (justly so), it affects the forum, when there is a break in the link between customers and the owners. It tears at me when members make inquiries that only the developers can solve that go unanswered, I'm not just speaking for myself, for I ask a lot of questions and don't expect that they all be answered (really I do). I just hate this feeling of being in "Limbo" and I'm sure a lot of the members feel the same way, regardless if it is here, at the Slitherine CTGW forum or even the Steam CTGW forum.

<EDIT>
Oh Yeah! Forgot to mention the Lordz CTGW forum. Don't expect to get any help there either, after all this game is their baby..

< Message edited by operating -- 7/22/2015 7:43:24 PM >

(in reply to Kettengeist)
Post #: 53
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/23/2015 4:24:35 AM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lparkh

I believe more active forum maybe at Slitherine.

lparkh
Can you have this avatar over at the Slitherine forums?:





I did not think so! I read and post at Slitherine, also noticed there has been so much interest (pun) at that CTGW forum there, that nobody has posted an AAR there for almost a year, to be exact since 21 Aug 2014. If you think that forum is so interesting, Why don't you do an AAR there? Anything constructive would do. In the end, it's each to their own.

Bob

<EDIT>
Should say the last comment on a incomplete Slickwillie AAR (actually last dated screenshots were 30 Nov. 2012) was 21 Aug 2014.

The last AAR was done by Suprass on 13 Nov 2013, meaning for over 21 months to date there has never been another AAR at the Slitherine CTGW forum. This is not a sign of a "more active forum" as you say.

<EDIT>
Slitherine CTGW forum: 744 Topics 4854 posts
Matrix CTGW forum: 755 Topics 8569 Posts

Now, which one did you say is more active than the other? Do your homework...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by operating -- 7/23/2015 8:11:15 AM >

(in reply to lparkh)
Post #: 54
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/27/2015 10:55:07 AM   
Meteor2


Posts: 379
Joined: 7/20/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
Is there any possiblity to do something with the "strategic-AI" ?
As central powers, I have noticed several times, that the Entente-AI is focussing on defending Serbia with french, and britisch troops or north-east Italy with french, british and portugese troops, even if the home countries are are in absolute danger of being overrun.
The same is true for the turkish-russian border, where russian troops are deployed, even if Moskau or Petrograd is threatened.

Can something be done here?

Otherwise, a very entertaining game.

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 55
RE: Thoughts on 1.64 - 7/27/2015 2:36:50 PM   
operating


Posts: 3001
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

Is there any possiblity to do something with the "strategic-AI" ?
As central powers, I have noticed several times, that the Entente-AI is focussing on defending Serbia with french, and britisch troops or north-east Italy with french, british and portugese troops, even if the home countries are are in absolute danger of being overrun.
The same is true for the turkish-russian border, where russian troops are deployed, even if Moskau or Petrograd is threatened.

Can something be done here?

Otherwise, a very entertaining game.

I wish I could help you with your observations. What you are asking for has to reprogramed by the dev's or an enterprising soul who could create a MOD to suit your desires. Is there a lua file that will do as you say? I don't know? AI scripts have been altered in the past as the game has evolved, that being done by the dev's.
I'll tell you one thing: MP matches are not brain dead strategy wise, compared to the SP AI, also MP matches are a hell of a lot more entertaining (head to head) if you are a master of the war in SP.

(in reply to Meteor2)
Post #: 56
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Commander - The Great War >> RE: Thoughts on 1.64 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.148