Slitherine

nehi wrote:
btw. what about refilling units, isnt it unrealistic cheap in 1.6x? in 1.5x it was connected to purchase value of unit so it wasnt such pointless, if u lost 1 or 3 fighters, because it was quite expensive to replace it

losses in 1.66 cost just manpower and 1pp, loss of 3 costs 1pp as lost of just 1

This is also an area that has gotten my attention .

Well this is caused by the lowering of the repair discount factor from 0.7 to 0.1 in v.166. making repairs much less expensive. If the factor is set back to 0.7 you will have to pay almost three times more resources for repairs.

I guess this was changed to support the weak AI which would run out of pp much earlier with the factor set to 0.7.

I'll have a test game with repair discount set to 0.7 and then report back.

i dont think it has to be same as it was in 1.5x, it was really expensive, i remember i was never repairing tanks, because it was such wasting of pps

but a bit more than now, with some proportioning, would be fine i guess, next strategic dimension as used to be

No, I just finished an AAR where class II tanks (cost 60 PP or more and 6 or more turns to produce) at 7 strength can be repaired to a 10 strength for just 1 PP in just one turn, I find that utterly ridiculous...! Same goes for Russian bombers and anything else out there that flies, utterly ridiculous.. Yet a damaged dreadnaught at strength 7 takes 3 one PP turns to get fully repaired (which almost seems normal to me), although it is paying 2 PP upkeep per turn.

If you guys are curious about experimenting with different repair discounts you can just open the file "game_repair.lua" in any editor.

Right at the top it should read:
Change that "0.1" to whatever you like, default value in older versions was 0.7

Personally, all my games are MP here, most are with complete strangers. If I was to just play SP your suggestion would be OK, the thing is I have no problems within SP, it's MP that is the problem... Thanks for pointing out the file...

If I remember correctly if you're the one hosting the game it will be enough if you alone make any changes to the scripts. At least that was what nehi had reported earlier in this thread: he once joined a game that was modded although he never changed anything about his own installation of the game. Worth a try at least.

Robotron wrote:If I remember correctly if you're the one hosting the game it will be enough if you alone make any changes to the scripts. At least that was what nehi had reported earlier in this thread: he once joined a game that was modded although he never changed anything about his own installation of the game.

yep, it was before ive tried first mod on my own, quite surprising

small garrisons completely removed, cities production reduced etc. it was all this madness or realism mod i guess

All this "garrison thing" is the one that bothers me more not only in this title but in all Commander series titles. I honestly think that it keeps these games from being really good strategy games. Garrisons simply cannot have that much importance in a strategic level wargame.

Regarding CTGW, I really believe that those so called "small garrisons" should be removed from the game. And for the proper garrison units, it should be found a way to keep those units stuck on their main role, that is, a territorial and static role. Right now we see garrisons joining offensives and being strategically transferred (rail moves) as if they were first line combatant units.

So I wonder if it could be made that garrisons are only possible to be railed from city hex to another city hex, banning to rail garrisons to adjacent hexes. Reasons for that could be that garrisons were not supposed to have an operational deployment like corps or army sized units would definitely had. Garrisons instead were deployed to guard a city and it would be on this type of "terrain" and only on that type where they would perform better.

I'll just rename garrisons to "reserve corps" and small garrisons to "garrisons" then.

Job done!

nehi wrote:

Robotron wrote:If I remember correctly if you're the one hosting the game it will be enough if you alone make any changes to the scripts. At least that was what nehi had reported earlier in this thread: he once joined a game that was modded although he never changed anything about his own installation of the game.

yep, it was before ive tried first mod on my own, quite surprising

small garrisons completely removed, cities production reduced etc. it was all this madness or realism mod i guess

If what you say is true, that's pretty awesome.. I gather you inform your opponent before a match starts about the changes made to "your" game data that will mirror into their data as well. It would be like a mod without being a mod. Is that correct?

Well, the hosting player will have to apply that mod for it to take effect: so partially: yes. It should go without saying that informing an opponent beforehand about any changes applied to the game should be mandatory for any gentleman though.

operating wrote: If what you say is true, that's pretty awesome.. I gather you inform your opponent before a match starts about the changes made to "your" game data that will mirror into their data as well. It would be like a mod without being a mod. Is that correct?

but robotrons mod is huge (lots of new graphics etc), that one was just cosmetics or maybe it wasnt even complete (ive played just like 5 turns, then my opponent went silent, as its common habit in ctgw mp), it needs to be tested if its fully shareable, im bit afraid it can be shared just partially when modded at this scale

btw. the best way to mod your game is to copy whole folder with your game, rename it to potzblitz or whatever, then mod it and have both ctgws vanilla and moded separately, even steam game is fully moveable, i used to have it on usb as im changing pcs all the time

Spent the last few days browsing ancient CTGW threads and collected some old ideas and suggestions concerning the naval game.

1. fleets in ports should not cost maintenance
2. ship to ship combat should use ammo
3. ships spending turns in enemy homewaters should run the danger of getting randomly attacked by torpedo boats/coastal defenses
4. ships should be forced to return to ports after some turns or they lose their ability to replenish efficiency
5. convoys should be moved manually in multiplayer (not sure if this is already the case since I'm no multiplayer)
6. admirals should only be allowed to be attached to or detached from fleets in ports
7. light cruisers and submarines should have a "quick retreat" feature (like armoured cars) preventing them to be destroyed by superior enemies
8. there should be a small chance for battlecruisers or dreadnoughts to suffer a "magazine explosion" upon getting hit, destroying the unit
9. troop transports and convoys should be affected in some kind by bad weather during the winter season
10. troops in transports should lose strength if they have reached "red" efficiency status every turn they remain aboard
11. homewater range should be reduced to 2 or just 1 hex(es) around friendly ports (current radius is 3)

Opinions?

Robotron wrote:Spent the last few days browsing ancient CTGW threads and collected some old ideas and suggestions concerning the naval game.

1. fleets in ports should not cost maintenance
2. ship to ship combat should use ammo
3. ships spending turns in enemy homewaters should run the danger of getting randomly attacked by torpedo boats/coastal defenses
4. ships should be forced to return to ports after some turns or they lose their ability to replenish efficiency
5. convoys should be moved manually in multiplayer (not sure if this is already the case since I'm no multiplayer)
6. admirals should only be allowed to be attached to or detached from fleets in ports
7. light cruisers and submarines should have a "quick retreat" feature (like armoured cars) preventing them to be destroyed by superior enemies
8. there should be a small chance for battlecruisers or dreadnoughts to suffer a "magazine explosion" upon getting hit, destroying the unit
9. troop transports and convoys should be affected in some kind by bad weather during the winter season
10. troops in transports should lose strength if they have reached "red" efficiency status every turn they remain aboard
11. homewater range should be reduced to 2 or just 1 hex(es) around friendly ports (current radius is 3)

Opinions?

1. fine
2. undecided
3. sounds reasonable
4. interesting
5. dont think so, but some randomness in chosing way should be and especially when it starts (in vanilla i made time schedule tables for every scenario to catch ententes convoys just in time )
6. i dont like this one, i dont like any huge limitation of strategic/tactical options, 2 turns or whats it now without admiral is allready enough limitating
7. it can be
8. too random, i dont like that idea
9. it can be, and losing 1 point by it, if it happens
10. too harsh i guess, i dont think sea transporting is such exhausting
11. down to to 2, ok, less no

I agree with Nehi
1,2,3,4 ok
5 is going to lead to crazy circumvoluted convoy routes and absorb unnecessary playing time, really don't think it's agood idea
6, on the other hand, I totally agree with
7 I think this should be extended to naval combat as a whole, I feel it is too mechanical, once you spotted the unit it's straightforward bashing ( it mimics land combat too much). I would introduce randomness in the intensity of encounters, from quick skirmishes to big naval battles à la Jutland. Naval encounters too often degenerate into death matches where flettes mutually exterminate themselves. It should be more volatile.
8 not too crazy about that one -too "micro" and too penalizing if unlucky
9 why not. effectiveness, strength loss...whatever
10 Too harsh indeed
11 good idea

3 yes, but I wonder if that's not redundant with the green zone bonus (representing just that) Anyway, I would add vulnerability for ships performing coastal bombardment too ( with an increased chance of being hit if bombarding cities - and even more if bombarding forts: coastal batteries and all)

talking about naval, I confess it's not my WW1 field of speciality, but I'm a little puzzled by the subs initial set-up. I don't remember any significant impact of Russian, French or British subs in the war, or Austrian for all that matters (although, as I said, I'm no specialist). The med is swarming with french subs (did they really ounumber German subs by 50%?), and since they are not particularly useful, they are quickly redeployed to the Baltic, where they cause serious headaches to the the Germans once they venture out of their green zone. In addition, the ability for subs to recon for all Allied nations give them overrated value.
The German flet cannot really move out of the Baltic if it wants its Scandinavian convoys to arrive safely, and even with all naval resources deployed there it's difficult to protect them.

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just give the Germans one or two subs at start, and make subs a production choice for all other nations.

Robotron wrote:I'll just rename garrisons to "reserve corps" and small garrisons to "garrisons" then.

Job done!

That sounds like a good idea. Keeping in mind the numerous Reserve Corps that Germany fielded in WW1 and the real role that garrison units currently have in CTGW, it appears that this "new" type of unit could make things to make more sense regarding the type of units really involved in WW1, forgetting about this totally inaccurate naming of garrisons.

So apart from changing the name of garrisons to Reserve Corps, only thing to do would be to change the counters symbol. A blank square means a static (like garrisons) unit but a Reserve Corps is an infantry unit on its own right so the symbol in the counter should be infantry with a 'R' or a 'RES'. The guy that made the counters mod included in Potzblitz could modify the counters to represent these reserve units.

@Vokt: I'll contact satchel then whether he'd like to design the new counter or I will do it myself if I get no answer.

@nehi & Zombo: thank you for your comments, I mostly agree with you guys. Personally I find #6 quite logical and I'd like to have #10 too because I've read about strange tactics where people held troop transports in waiting for months to exploit gaps in the frontline or take coastal cities once they were left by the enemy.

I'll see what I can do to implement those features.

Made some Wiki search and apparently both France and Germany created lots of reserve corps units. French named their own reserve corps units as Groupe de Divisions de Réserve whilst Germans named theirs as Reserve-Korps.

BTW, does anyone know anything abouts subs?