GS v1.05 (pre-release) incremental manual patch

[rkr1958]

We're making available an incremental beta patch that incorporates the changes listed in the change log below. This patch will NOT invalidate saved games; which means that you can load and play existing games with it (if you wish). The version number for this patch is GS v1.03c. Our beta versions will be indicated by a letter that follows the version number, so the link below is for GS v1.03 beta version c. Any necessary tweaks or updates in a future beta version will be designated by higher letters (i.e., GS v1.03d, v1.03e, v1.03f and so forth). So the higher the letter the more recent the beta version. If you wish to apply this incremental beta version you must manually apply it over GS v1.02 and you apply it at your own risk. If you don't fell comfortable with manually applying this beta version, or you don't care about implementing the changes below, then please stick with the official version GS v1.02. When GS v1.03 if finally (and officially) released is will not carry a letter designator at the end.

New messages indicating that the Azores are now American have only been added to the English version. You still should be able to play this beta version with other languages; however, the message above will be blank.

Link: REMOVED.

GS v1.03 (beta) incremental change log.

1-23-2010.

1. Fixed an issue with the message_spa.txt file (i.e., Spainish language version) that caused CEaW - GS to bomb.

2. The hex 1SW of Istanbul is designated as a sea hex, but the map tile shows it as a costal hex.
This hex was kept as a sea hex and the map tile was changed such that it contains more sea than land.

2-9-2010

3. Updated the scenarios so Persia starts with only 2 garrisons instead of 3.

4. Updated the map and scenarios so the Azores airbase is controlled by Portugal

5. Changed the code so Persia won’t receive any reinforcements each year. This should take care of
late game Persian units invading Italy etc.

6. Changed the code so the Azores airbase is changed to US control when Portugal is DoW’ed regardless
of which side makes the DoW. A message about this is shown as well.

7. Changed the code so the Azores will be leased to the Allies on August 11th 1943. A message about this
is shown.

8. Changed the code so Russian units in Allied controlled territory and vice versa will get one supply level
less than normal (but never lower than 1).

9. Changed the code so Russian units in Allied controlled territory and vice versa will max get supply level 3.

2-10-2010

11. Fixed a minor bug where the game didn't update the ownership of the transportation loops
until the end of the turn. That meant the Allies in the 1943 and 1944 scenarios could move
through the Kiel canal on the first turn even though they don't control Kiel.
Added a test at the start of the game to set ownership of these canals.
So the canal message comes immediatel before you can move any units.

[rkr1958]

GS version 1.03d beta (incremental) update.

Link: REMOVED.

This is an incremental update and must manually be applied (i.e., copied) over the top of a GS v1.02 install. You apply this update at your own risk. If you do not feel comfortable applying it or do not wish to implement the changes below then please stay with GS v1.02 or whichever version you have installed.

This update will NOT invalidate saved games. That is, you can load and play games started with a previous version. However; no map changes will be applied including the Azores ownership. But, decreased supply of western allied units in Russian controlled hexes and Russian units in western allied controlled hexes will. And, the reduction in the number of free Persian units produced will be too.

Change Log.

2-14-2010.

11. Redrew the Ostwall fortifications making them less formidable and more historically accurate.

12. Hexes 1xSE and 2xSE of Breslau were changed to German control so that almost all of Oder is within Germany.

13. Updated the map, scenarios and graphics to add the Warthe river in Poland.

14. Changed the Italian armor images and moved up these images and added the panther at the top level.

[tetsuo]

Nice updates. Thanks for all the great work.

[rkr1958]

GS version 1.03e beta (incremental) update.

Link: REMOVED (see 1.03f beta below).

This is an incremental update and must manually be applied (i.e., copied) over the top of a GS v1.02 install. You apply this update at your own risk. If you do not feel comfortable applying it or do not wish to implement the changes below then please stay with GS v1.02 or whichever version you have installed.

This update will NOT invalidate saved games. That is, you can load and play games started with a previous version.

2-19-2010.

15. Added tooltip for the unit country owner so it shows the organization upgrade value from tech 0. The country name is colorized if upgrades are available that will increase the organization. (1-4 = Bronze, 5-9 = Gold, 10+ = Yellow) . In addition all colored icons and text are hidden unless the unit you click on is on the same side as you. So no more spying upon enemy units for info about their upgrades.








Developer's Note: This update is brought to you by Borger and Paul who have been working very hard. This is a very nice update and adds some nice functionality.

[schwerpunkt]

This is truly great stuff guys! This significantly enhances the "chrome" and user friendliness of the game.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Just a comment. The yellow color indicates an increase of 3+, not just 3.

The organzation value shown as the tooltip for the country name is used to calculate the max efficiency the unit has.

The formula is like this:

Max efficiency = 60 + organization value + 2* leader value from a leader within 8 hexes

So if the color of the country name changes then you know that if you upgrade the unit you also increase the max efficiency (via higher organization).

These changes are particularly importan to get an indication of how upgrades received by Germany affect Axis minor power units. No longer do you upgrade a unit from 1 to 4 only to see that it didn't affect any of the important values (ground attack, ground defense, survivability).

[trulster]

Excellent upgrade, improving interface and removing the spying on enemy tech!

BTW, an earlier version introduced rainbow colours of all the different nations on the world map. Maybe I am alone in preferring the simpler red/blue scheme of the original, which made it a lot easier to see where new enemy units are spotted. Now some of the colours are close enough that you need to scroll across the map to make sure nothing new is spotted. Opinions?

[massina_nz]

Yeah, I prefered the old red v blue colour scheme. I sometimes find it hard to sopt the light blues and yellows. But I now always use [page-up] and [page-down] keys at the end of my turn to cycle through all my 'available' units. So I seldom get caught out.

[tetsuo]

Hi. I have fixed some little translation mistakes (I'm spanish) in the message_spa.txt file.

You can download the file here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZFQWLAMR

[rkr1958]

GS version 1.03f beta (incremental) update.

Link: Removed. (See latest beta patch below).

This is an incremental update and must manually be applied (i.e., copied) over the top of a GS v1.02 install. You apply this update at your own risk. If you do not feel comfortable applying it or do not wish to implement the changes below then please stay with GS v1.02 or whichever version you have installed.

This update will NOT invalidate saved games. However; players will get the checksum error detailed in change item 20 below.

Note: This incremental update includes all "beta" changes listed in this thread and since the release of GS v1.02.

Changes since last release.

2-25-2010

16. Fixed the code such that axis units in Syria, Iraq and Persia are not counted in the Med supply limits if Ankara, Turkey is axis controlled.
17. Removed hard coded North Africa supply rules ports and placed them in the general.txt file. No new ports were added but did add the slots to include additional ports. It’s now possible to have up to 5 Libyan ports and 12 African ports. Also, the impact of Malta and Gibraltar on North Africa Supply was added to the file.
18. Also fixed several issues in the North Africa Supply code where country numbers were hardcoded (0 instead of Global.GERMANY etc.).
19. Added some values in general.txt where players can decide the state of each of the countries in Africa and the Middle East. 0 = country never affected by Axis Med supply, 1 = country always affected by Axis Med supply & 2 = country affected by Axis Med supply unless Ankara (Turkey) is Axis controlled. The following values were set for each country: 0: Turkey, 1: Free France, Vichy France, Libya and Egypt and 2: Syria, Iraq and Persia . So now units in Syria, Iraq and Persia won’t be affected by Med supply if the Axis have control of Turkey. This simulates that the Axis can use the Turkish rail network to send supply to the nearest countries. Note that Egypt, Libya, Vichy France and Free France were NOT added because they’re further away from Turkey.
20. Because of the change to the general.txt file, this update will produce a checksum failure if applied to existing games. However; this will not affected the saved game and if both players apply the change will only happen once.

[Lynz]

Right, prepared to have a go. I have downloaded the zip file into a folder on my desktop. I understand I select all, copy and then paste it into the correct folder.

I just want to ensure I'm putting it into the correct folder. Is it: Program Files > Slitherine > Military History Commander > Europe at War GOLD > CEaW > Grand Strategy?

I note while the other folders are the same, there is no file named CEAW. class in the current version.

Thank you. Just want to be sure. You really need to paste an idiot's guide to things

Lindsay.

[rkr1958]

Right, prepared to have a go. I have downloaded the zip file into a folder on my desktop. I understand I select all, copy and then paste it into the correct folder.

I just want to ensure I'm putting it into the correct folder. Is it: Program Files > Slitherine > Military History Commander > Europe at War GOLD > CEaW > Grand Strategy?

I note while the other folders are the same, there is no file named CEAW. class in the current version.

Thank you. Just want to be sure. You really need to paste an idiot's guide to things

Lindsay.

[rkr1958]

GS version 1.03g beta (incremental) update.

Link: REMOVED. (See latest beta patch below).

This is an incremental update and must manually be applied (i.e., copied) over the top of a GS v1.02 install. You apply this update at your own risk. If you do not feel comfortable applying it or do not wish to implement the changes below then please stay with GS v1.02 or whichever version you have installed.

This update will NOT invalidate saved game; but, this update will cause a checksum error the first time a saved game started with a previous version is loaded by a player.

IMPORTANT: This update should only be applied to existing games either before activation of any of Hungary, Romania or Finland (i.e., before activation of any of these three countries) or after activation of all three of these countries.

Note: This incremental update includes all "beta" changes listed in this thread and since the release of GS v1.02.

Changes since last release.

3-9-2010
21. Fixed a bug where if Italy surrenders after Germany and without Rome being allied controlled that the victory conditions stated an axis minor victory. Conditions are now change to the allied victory is the conquest is prior to May 1945 and a stalemate if in May 1945.

3-11-2010
22. Fixed the bug about the Copenhagen port changing to the owner of Malmo if Sweden is captured.
23. Changed the code so Finland will activate for the Germans on the turn USSR activates. The Finnish units can't move on the first turn, though. Finland can still activate by themselves in spring 1941 and be ready for Barbarossa. This change is intended to prevent Finland from being wiped out early in case of an early German attack upon USSR. Then USSR can DoW Finland after having lots of units in the north and crush Finland before the Germans can get to Leningrad.
24. Added the Hungarian fighter to the game. This includes unit image files too.
25. Changed the code so that the strength of the Hungarian fighter, Finnish fighter and Romanian fighter is defined in the general.txt. All of these three fighters are set to 5 now, but this can be changed. If players want the status quo then they can set the Finnish and Romanian fighters at 10 and the Hungarian at 0 (means no spawn). All fighters spawn adjacent to the primary capital similar to Axis minor power reinforcements.
26. Made a change so that USA will get 100% war effort + tech bonus as long as the Axis player controls a hex in Canada or USA. This simulates the emergency situation USA would be in if the Axis would land at the US doorstep. It simulates that production intended for the west is sent to the east instead. This change should make it even less likely that the Axis will land in Canada or USA.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I changed the rules slightly so there is a chance for one tech that would give a spectacular result.
With normal research you get a tech progress of 2 and that’s multipled with the number of labs, focus and tech difficulty.

With the random research I made the following probabilities:
40%: 1
20%: 1.5
20%: 2
10%: 3
5%: 5
5%: 10 (will be flagged as great progress)

This gives an average progress of 2.15.

The old system had:
87%: 1
10%: 8
3%: 15

I think the new system is better because you have to be very unlucky to get lots of 1’s. It’s only 40% per turn instead of 87%.
You won’t often get a great result, but enough for random research to be exciting.

With random research it means you can’t predict when you will get the new techs and that’s a good thing. I think it’s possible
to play with random research the way I designed it. I don’t think we need “full” research. i. e. the old system, because the
new random research will give enough uncertainty for the players to enjoy the random research. At the same time we
reduce the frustration of having one tech lagging too much behind because you always got below 87%.

This will be available in the new incremental file from Ronnie very soon.

[ncali]

I changed the rules slightly so there is a chance for one tech that would give a spectacular result.
With normal research you get a tech progress of 2 and that’s multipled with the number of labs, focus and tech difficulty.

With the random research I made the following probabilities:
40%: 1
20%: 1.5
20%: 2
10%: 3
5%: 5
5%: 10 (will be flagged as great progress)

This gives an average progress of 2.15.

The old system had:
87%: 1
10%: 8
3%: 15

I think the new system is better because you have to be very unlucky to get lots of 1’s. It’s only 40% per turn instead of 87%.
You won’t often get a great result, but enough for random research to be exciting.

With random research it means you can’t predict when you will get the new techs and that’s a good thing. I think it’s possible
to play with random research the way I designed it. I don’t think we need “full” research. i. e. the old system, because the
new random research will give enough uncertainty for the players to enjoy the random research. At the same time we
reduce the frustration of having one tech lagging too much behind because you always got below 87%.

This will be available in the new incremental file from Ronnie very soon.

I like this as well - I see you modified it a little from the suggestion in the "Millions of Russians" thread. I think I'd maybe change the numbers a little so it's a just a little closer to an average progress of 2 instead of 2.15 (although I wouldn't take it all the way down to 2 for the reasons you gave). Maybe have it be 5% to get a "4" progress instead of a "5" progress and/or modify the 5% for great progress from "10" to "8." Also, does 1.5 progress round up or down (or is it not calculated as a whole number)?

[rkr1958]

Also, does 1.5 progress round up or down (or is it not calculated as a whole number)?

Good point. If it truncates or rounds then I suggest that

With the random research I made the following probabilities:
40%: 1
20%: 1.5
20%: 2
10%: 3
5%: 5
5%: 10 (will be flagged as great progress)

be modified to:

50%: 1
30%: 2
10%: 3
5%: 5
5%: 10 (will be flagged as great progress)

This would still give an expected progress of 2.15 with 0.5 probability of getting 1. However; there would be a 0.5 probability of getting a 3.3 (on average half the time).

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The numbers used are double precision (1D, 1.5D, 2D, 3D) etc. So fractions are kept. Should I change it anyway. I think it's a bit better to not have 50% with the lowest score (the lousy result). With my data you have only 20% chance of this score and 20% chance of a slightly better score, but still lower than normal (1.5D instead of 2D).

The main reason I keep the random research slightly higher than 2 is that with this method you could waste a bit more progress that with the other system. Let's say you get a 10 (great progress) multiplied with the number of labs, tech difficulty etc. That means you could have a number progress of maybe 30 or so. If you were already at maybe 90 it means you waste the extra 20 because you don't carry over progress to the next level. With the normal research you usually advance in the area of 5-10 points so you waste less points.

Bottom line is that some of the better than 2D results won't be used because you're already close to the next level. Therefore I believe that a slightly higher than 2 expected result will yield close to 2 "real" result.

[rkr1958]

The numbers used are double precision (1D, 1.5D, 2D, 3D) etc. So fractions are kept. Should I change it anyway. I think it's a bit better to not have 50% with the lowest score (the lousy result). With my data you have only 20% chance of this score and 20% chance of a slightly better score, but still lower than normal (1.5D instead of 2D).

The main reason I keep the random research slightly higher than 2 is that with this method you could waste a bit more progress that with the other system. Let's say you get a 10 (great progress) multiplied with the number of labs, tech difficulty etc. That means you could have a number progress of maybe 30 or so. If you were already at maybe 90 it means you waste the extra 20 because you don't carry over progress to the next level. With the normal research you usually advance in the area of 5-10 points so you waste less points.

Bottom line is that some of the better than 2D results won't be used because you're already close to the next level. Therefore I believe that a slightly higher than 2 expected result will yield close to 2 "real" result.

In that case, I'd say keep it the way you proposed initially. Should random research now be the default?

The more I think about it the more I like having random research as you proposed as the default. I think this would add some, but NOT too much, variability to the game such that every game research wise would play out a little differently even if a player used the same research strategy.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I can change random research to default if you like to. Then I need to change a few more files and send to you for the next beta version.

I will do that at the same time as I make the changes to the Russian Barbarossa setup that's proposed. I haven't seen the results of the votes yet so I will see the outcome of that before I make the changes. I hope to send you all the updated files so you can send out a new beta version later this evening.

Right now my computer is occupied by my wife so I need to wait for her to get to bed before I can make the changes.

[ncali]

The numbers used are double precision (1D, 1.5D, 2D, 3D) etc. So fractions are kept. Should I change it anyway. I think it's a bit better to not have 50% with the lowest score (the lousy result). With my data you have only 20% chance of this score and 20% chance of a slightly better score, but still lower than normal (1.5D instead of 2D).

The main reason I keep the random research slightly higher than 2 is that with this method you could waste a bit more progress that with the other system. Let's say you get a 10 (great progress) multiplied with the number of labs, tech difficulty etc. That means you could have a number progress of maybe 30 or so. If you were already at maybe 90 it means you waste the extra 20 because you don't carry over progress to the next level. With the normal research you usually advance in the area of 5-10 points so you waste less points.

Bottom line is that some of the better than 2D results won't be used because you're already close to the next level. Therefore I believe that a slightly higher than 2 expected result will yield close to 2 "real" result.

This sounds good to me. I still wonder if it shouldn't be a little closer to 2.05-2.10 since there is about an 80% chance per turn that progress will be at the same speed or slower than standard research so wasting points won't occur too much more often than in standard research. Another possibility would be to just carry over research progress that is not needed to make a tech advance to contribute towards the next tech level. But this is a minor point. Overall, I very much like the change!