Guys, just some quick notes:
I think you added a bug in the Finnish specialisation tree. "Scrambling" does not have a prerequisite (like pilot rotation), yet it tells me I cant acquire it because I have not bought the previous tech.
Also, the game still has serious memory leakage in large battles. My machine is up to the task, but during long and large battles (around 20 turns), I need to quit and restart the game to restore performance, animations get really choppy. Shouldnt happen with 8gigs of RAM, SSD, 4gigs graphics.
Also, the Stug and Panzer IV J are now the same price for the Finns. I am not that sure, but I remember that Stugs were cheaper last time I played, I think 160, not 200. That made sense since they were the cheap but efficient AT unit back then. Is that an accident, a design decision or am I totally mistaken?
BTW, Raate and Suomussalmi still make OOB shine. This game is best when you set up the missions around these supply dynamics. More of these, please. (Afrikakorps would be a natural candidate. *fingers crossed*)
Winter War Specialisations Bug, other things
Moderators: Order of Battle Moderators, The Artistocrats
Re: Winter War Specialisations Bug, other things
The only bug I noticed in Winter War was in the last mission where you have to take that town before the Soviets. I managed to get the town way before them but I still failed the objective. Didn't matter in the end anyway.
I also remember some long AI thinking issues sometimes, but never an endless thinking-loop like often with the first game versions in the past. I think it's usually with bomber planes. Maybe the game still needs too long to assess every single hex in the flight radius. Similar long thinking times could happen with long-range artillery.
I also remember some long AI thinking issues sometimes, but never an endless thinking-loop like often with the first game versions in the past. I think it's usually with bomber planes. Maybe the game still needs too long to assess every single hex in the flight radius. Similar long thinking times could happen with long-range artillery.
Re: Winter War Specialisations Bug, other things
Finished the campaign now, second playthrough. With more practice than the last time, it was substantially easier.Horst wrote:The only bug I noticed in Winter War was in the last mission where you have to take that town before the Soviets. I managed to get the town way before them but I still failed the objective. Didn't matter in the end anyway.
I also remember some long AI thinking issues sometimes, but never an endless thinking-loop like often with the first game versions in the past. I think it's usually with bomber planes. Maybe the game still needs too long to assess every single hex in the flight radius. Similar long thinking times could happen with long-range artillery.
However, the old bugs I reported back then are still there:
1) Soviets flying Stukas in the last mission. This is a bug, right? Has to be.
2) Soviet Stukas landing on my airfield and thus blocking it for my fighters / bombers even though there are still slots available. This should be fixed.
3) Ivalo as a trigger for substantial prestige still does not work (see above). I think this has been reported numerous times in these forums.
4) Drowning in credits at the end. As in all campaigns, you are starving for money almost all the time (which is okay, mostly). But in the last mission,
I am really comfortable and have no problems at all. This feels somewhat anticlimatic, more like a tutorial. This makes the last mission kind of boring and puts the interesting and challenging stuff in the middle. I dont mind difficulty going up and down, but the last missions in all campaigns I played were way too easy compared to the previous ones. Yes, that includes Moscow in the Blitzkrieg DLC as well.
@devs: This is still fun, but with several patches between the reports, shouldnt these bugs be fixed by now? Especially the minor ones
Re: Winter War Specialisations Bug, other things
Another thing: I have been very slowly replaying the Rising Sun campaign and the US campaign over the last few months.
I think with some hindsight, I can now put a little bit of precise thought behind my vague feelings of disappointment. This also underlines why Winter War and especially Blitzkrieg were such an improvement (and why I never picked up Morning Sun and Marines):
1. Some scenarios had a great dramatic feel, like US Bataan defense. US Midway was also pretty epic.
2. However, others were truly Slogkrieg (never thought that about Blitzkrieg). You get 100 turns to conquer Melbourne and there is literally no twist to the scenario, just straightforward disembark, obliterate Geelong, get through two defense lines, knock out the turtle tank, done. Was done after 55 turns and glad it was over. The same applies to the Okinawa and Tokyo missions. They are just really long missions without the need to carefully think out a tactical approach and a specific unit mix. This was done a lot better in Winter War and Blitzkrieg. Using Skitroops and Paratroopers just right was a necessity to win. Supply dynamics mattered there, but were mostly an afterthought in the original.
3. Breaking missions: In Midway, I was lucky enough to knock out all US carriers in ten turns. After that, the rest of the fleet retreated faster than I could destroy them with planes and ships. Map was empty around turn 20-ish. I then waited several turns all alone in the sea to win.
4. As Ivalo in Winter War, some triggers are not working properly: when assaulting New Zealand, I knocked out the US fleet in 10 turns, but never got the secondary goal achievement.
5. Useless specialisations: Basic Training for all three branches is useful, also drop tanks and the German tank specialisations. Same goes for the US, Higgins Boats is also useful. Everything else is kinda "meh".
6. Useless units: Those superheavy tanks or battleships or atomic bombers or stationary AT/AA, strategic bombers or submarines or some fighter variants were all in the unit roster, but were never needed. Go with infantry without transport, some arty, light AT and you are golden. Fleet needs destroyers, some cruisers, two to three carriers, done. And I always thought you dont have to think carefully about using them in a specific way, at least not in most missions. Guadalcanal as Japanese only works with Marines, for example. For all others, it was mostly repeat gameplay: Move up arty, bomb, flank, win. Yeah, I could move up the difficulty level, but super strong AI units do not make this more interesting, boring mission design stays boring then.
7. Wobbly difficulty, no real progression: Both campaigns actually get easier. In the end, you drown in credits, superior units, endless time to win. The only thing that changes is scenarios get unbelievably long and boring. As I wrote above, Bataan defense and Guadalcanal defense were both an exception because you dramatically struggled to hold the Japanese back by using arty and the terrain to your advantage. And they were both rather short.
I think OoB has improved markedly over the last DLCs and is shaping up to be a great game. However, please drop those unbelievably long missions and spend more time on mission design. I dont mean that you should force players into playing missons just the right way you intended to, but I think each mission should be shorter (around 30 turns at most) and have a tactical twist necessary to win it. For example, use paratroopers to seize deployment areas so your enemy cannot reinforce, cut off supply, use a specific unit combination and so on. Also, use more photo events that actually are a twist in the mission, as in mission goals changed in Moscow. That was pretty much great. Additionally, keep the short tactical briefing you have right now, but maybe add in a historical briefing before that. Just a few lines with a photo, done. Adds to immersion.
Phew, just needed to get that off my chest.
I think with some hindsight, I can now put a little bit of precise thought behind my vague feelings of disappointment. This also underlines why Winter War and especially Blitzkrieg were such an improvement (and why I never picked up Morning Sun and Marines):
1. Some scenarios had a great dramatic feel, like US Bataan defense. US Midway was also pretty epic.
2. However, others were truly Slogkrieg (never thought that about Blitzkrieg). You get 100 turns to conquer Melbourne and there is literally no twist to the scenario, just straightforward disembark, obliterate Geelong, get through two defense lines, knock out the turtle tank, done. Was done after 55 turns and glad it was over. The same applies to the Okinawa and Tokyo missions. They are just really long missions without the need to carefully think out a tactical approach and a specific unit mix. This was done a lot better in Winter War and Blitzkrieg. Using Skitroops and Paratroopers just right was a necessity to win. Supply dynamics mattered there, but were mostly an afterthought in the original.
3. Breaking missions: In Midway, I was lucky enough to knock out all US carriers in ten turns. After that, the rest of the fleet retreated faster than I could destroy them with planes and ships. Map was empty around turn 20-ish. I then waited several turns all alone in the sea to win.
4. As Ivalo in Winter War, some triggers are not working properly: when assaulting New Zealand, I knocked out the US fleet in 10 turns, but never got the secondary goal achievement.
5. Useless specialisations: Basic Training for all three branches is useful, also drop tanks and the German tank specialisations. Same goes for the US, Higgins Boats is also useful. Everything else is kinda "meh".
6. Useless units: Those superheavy tanks or battleships or atomic bombers or stationary AT/AA, strategic bombers or submarines or some fighter variants were all in the unit roster, but were never needed. Go with infantry without transport, some arty, light AT and you are golden. Fleet needs destroyers, some cruisers, two to three carriers, done. And I always thought you dont have to think carefully about using them in a specific way, at least not in most missions. Guadalcanal as Japanese only works with Marines, for example. For all others, it was mostly repeat gameplay: Move up arty, bomb, flank, win. Yeah, I could move up the difficulty level, but super strong AI units do not make this more interesting, boring mission design stays boring then.
7. Wobbly difficulty, no real progression: Both campaigns actually get easier. In the end, you drown in credits, superior units, endless time to win. The only thing that changes is scenarios get unbelievably long and boring. As I wrote above, Bataan defense and Guadalcanal defense were both an exception because you dramatically struggled to hold the Japanese back by using arty and the terrain to your advantage. And they were both rather short.
I think OoB has improved markedly over the last DLCs and is shaping up to be a great game. However, please drop those unbelievably long missions and spend more time on mission design. I dont mean that you should force players into playing missons just the right way you intended to, but I think each mission should be shorter (around 30 turns at most) and have a tactical twist necessary to win it. For example, use paratroopers to seize deployment areas so your enemy cannot reinforce, cut off supply, use a specific unit combination and so on. Also, use more photo events that actually are a twist in the mission, as in mission goals changed in Moscow. That was pretty much great. Additionally, keep the short tactical briefing you have right now, but maybe add in a historical briefing before that. Just a few lines with a photo, done. Adds to immersion.
Phew, just needed to get that off my chest.