MAJOR NW issues

[Tamas]

Did nothing unusual for any sort of war exhausting to occur. What are the parameters for it to occur? LOL, hard to believe after 5 months of fighting Germany and A-H would be exhausted? Especially since they were doing well and the fighting was historical. Like I said (and you saw in the saved game file) Germany's NW was 40 before the interphase hit.

Only thing odd was the *ghost* siege that happen in Metz with no armies showing and Germany vs Germany? But that only start a turn before the interphase, so I don't know what to say.

Who's an expert on the board game and can shed some light as to when 'War Exhausting' would be checked?

The only oddity I saw was your enthusiasm for political choices of sending expeditionary forces left and right. But of course that should have nothing to do with War Exhaustion.

It's check, IIRC (and with all those rules, I might not) it should not trigger until 1916 the earliest. So I do say it is probably a bug, just notice that it is a bug of one event triggering because of some oddity. I honestly had not received this event so early in the game, ever. And I mostly play Central Powers. But Calvinus is on the issue already.

[calvinus]

Found the bug in War Weariness checks... Fixed. Now going to investigate on the Metz siege Germany vs Germany bug.

[calvinus]

It's check, IIRC (and with all those rules, I might not) it should not trigger until 1916 the earliest. So I do say it is probably a bug, just notice that it is a bug of one event triggering because of some oddity. I honestly had not received this event so early in the game, ever. And I mostly play Central Powers. But Calvinus is on the issue already.

Tamas is right. Bug fixed. Next patch.

[soundoff]

Don't get me wrong. I understand your frustration. I'm just open to the idea that AGEOD made an HONEST mistake in releasing WWI when they did and weren't being incompentent, devious or dishonest.

Under different circumstances I'd agree with you but in another thread Phil stated that to delay release would have risked the company being sued for breach of contract(s) so personally I'm not so sure it was an HONEST mistake. A necessary one maybe....but thats not exactly the same is it?

[abulbulian]

Calvinus is our hero again! Only thing better would be if I could take him home with me!

Can I asked what you found that I did to expose this bug? Like to know why I am so special .

[calvinus]

The bug was that the check for 1916 year was not properly done. It was wrongly overrided in case of major land battle lost... But the 1916 year is always a constraint, even in case of major battles lost!

[abulbulian]

I didn't realize I lost a major battle in 1914, but then again I'm not clear on what qualifies as a major battle vs minor battle. I did take Warsaw, Belgrade, and some French cities. So I wonder what major battle I lost?

[Tamas]

As for the heated comments here: I will not go and say that paying customers should not complain. In my view they buy the right to be satisfied or dissatisfied with a product when they pay the money for it.

I do ask for a bit of understanding for the scope of this project, for what a detailed simulation has been attempted, and for the most, delivered, here. And what a gargantuan task has been this for the small team involved.
And especially the enthusiasm Calvinus and the rest of the team has showed toward this game. This especially, should convince you that there was no ill intent toward the customers.

For bugs like this which surfaced, please bear in mind. Just for the initial game, there are 4 countries with a MINIMUM of 4 Warplans per country, with about 10 options to choose. Thats just 4*4*10 STARTING situations, assuming none of the countries select two options. Then comes diplomacy with its inter-related system, the actual battles, the events. Easily, there are thousands of possible outcomes for even the first year of the war. We did what we could do pre-release, but the amount of bugs found HAD to multiply with the addition of new players, simply because out of those thousands of possibilities, more was "generated" and tried.

[Tamas]

I didn't realize I lost a major battle in 1914, but then again I'm not clear on what qualifies as a major battle vs minor battle. I did take Warsaw, Belgrade, and some French cities. So I wonder what major battle I lost?

A major battle is when you have 4 units at EACH side at the START. Then both sides of the battle screen are used.

I did lose some major battles during my tests (ugliest is when France goes with the warplan which allows him to shuffle armies around, I go Schlieffen, and I end up in a battle against a joint British-French force near Brussels, with reinforcements coming in from the neighborhood :niark , but it looks like I always passed the buggily-applied war exhaustion check.

[calvinus]

Metz issue seems a display problem (not worring). Your enemies are the besieging forces of France, but a bug shows wrong infos on the screen. Fixing it very quickly!

[06 Maestro]

Metz issue seems a display problem (not worring). Your enemies are the besieging forces of France, but a bug shows wrong infos on the screen. Fixing it very quickly!

Excellent-this explains an oddity I had seen twice. The French dive out the German forces in Metz, I counter attack with German forces and surround the French, the French then attack into the province to the north east and leave Metz empty. It looks like the siege is over, but soon I receive a message that Metz had fallen.

Tis a good thing to have this fixed. I could have save Metz-but on the other hand, if the Germans get a plus 3NW for recapturing the place the way the French do for Lille, perhaps its better to let it fall.

[calvinus]

Metz bug FIXED! Next patch...

[Franciscus]

As for the heated comments here: I will not go and say that paying customers should not complain. In my view they buy the right to be satisfied or dissatisfied with a product when they pay the money for it.

I do ask for a bit of understanding for the scope of this project, for what a detailed simulation has been attempted, and for the most, delivered, here. And what a gargantuan task has been this for the small team involved.
And especially the enthusiasm Calvinus and the rest of the team has showed toward this game. This especially, should convince you that there was no ill intent toward the customers.

For bugs like this which surfaced, please bear in mind. Just for the initial game, there are 4 countries with a MINIMUM of 4 Warplans per country, with about 10 options to choose. Thats just 4*4*10 STARTING situations, assuming none of the countries select two options. Then comes diplomacy with its inter-related system, the actual battles, the events. Easily, there are thousands of possible outcomes for even the first year of the war. We did what we could do pre-release, but the amount of bugs found HAD to multiply with the addition of new players, simply because out of those thousands of possibilities, more was "generated" and tried.

That' why I think that maybe the business model of AGEOD should change. Either enlisting a real beta team, or, preferably, go the way of the paying-beta, as M&B, or Stardock. As it is it is not working well...

[tgb1]

As for the heated comments here: I will not go and say that paying customers should not complain. In my view they buy the right to be satisfied or dissatisfied with a product when they pay the money for it.

I do ask for a bit of understanding for the scope of this project, for what a detailed simulation has been attempted, and for the most, delivered, here. And what a gargantuan task has been this for the small team involved.
And especially the enthusiasm Calvinus and the rest of the team has showed toward this game. This especially, should convince you that there was no ill intent toward the customers.

For bugs like this which surfaced, please bear in mind. Just for the initial game, there are 4 countries with a MINIMUM of 4 Warplans per country, with about 10 options to choose. Thats just 4*4*10 STARTING situations, assuming none of the countries select two options. Then comes diplomacy with its inter-related system, the actual battles, the events. Easily, there are thousands of possible outcomes for even the first year of the war. We did what we could do pre-release, but the amount of bugs found HAD to multiply with the addition of new players, simply because out of those thousands of possibilities, more was "generated" and tried.

Like I said, I understand the scope of the project and the size of the team, and I, for one, would have been content to wait another 3-6 months to purchase a game that worked as designed, and pay you for it at that time.

Instead, you chose to take our money TODAY, and STILL make us wait for the game to be properly tested and finished.

Inexcusable.

[soundoff]

That' why I think that maybe the business model of AGEOD should change. Either enlisting a real beta team, or, preferably, go the way of the paying-beta, as M&B, or Stardock. As it is it is not working well...

+1 particularly as almost a month after release its up to what 6 or 7 official patches (brilliant support at one level) but.....and its a big but.....even once the game is stabilised....how long before its balanced? or is the game properly balanced already?

[Tamas]

+1 particularly as almost a month after release its up to what 6 or 7 official patches (brilliant support at one level) but.....and its a big but.....even once the game is stabilised....how long before its balanced? or is the game properly balanced already?

Well in terms of balance, don't forget, the game has existed as a boardgame for several years now.

[soundoff]

Well in terms of balance, don't forget, the game has existed as a boardgame for several years now.

So as you saying Tamas that once the 'bugs' are ironed out that a player will automatically get a first class experience against the AI without further tweaking...for as I understand it playing the boardgame against yourself is not how it was designed.....then again I may be wide of the mark.

[06 Maestro]

[quote="soundoff"]

I have only played up to June of '15 so far. At this point I can say it appears well balanced-and the AI is intelligent enough.
One area that will bear considerable attention is how and what causes NW to change. I am just now noticing the effects of cities changing hands-its not what one would anticipate. Not to say that those are wrong-yet, but it will bear considerable watching.

[calvinus]

Just to make you happy on other aspects... new features with 1.05:

- The original boardgame rule for trenches level has been introduced: trenches level on the Eastern Front is now 1 point
less than the Western Front
- Trenches level is now displayed also in land battles & sieges windows
- Nations flags are now displayed also on stacks when the NATO display mode is selected (square-like counters)
- Events can be discarded
- Events popup choice timer now can be set up to 10 minutes!
- The events pool on the bottom of the screen is now composed by 16 cards

[Tamas]

So as you saying Tamas that once the 'bugs' are ironed out that a player will automatically get a first class experience against the AI without further tweaking...for as I understand it playing the boardgame against yourself is not how it was designed.....then again I may be wide of the mark.

What I mean, is that game balance issues, like rate of gaining/losing NW in regards to fun and historicity, combat values, etc. has been through many testing due to their existence as a board game. Of course, every AI can be forever improved, but I think it is quite sufficient already.

[soundoff]

What I mean, is that game balance issues, like rate of gaining/losing NW in regards to fun and historicity, combat values, etc. has been through many testing due to their existence as a board game. Of course, every AI can be forever improved, but I think it is quite sufficient already.

So then you are saying the AI gives a first class experience already and that I'm not going to find that after a couple of games its easy to win against the AI......thats all I asked Fine and nice to know....for all my doubts and misgivings I think I'll go and purchase the game (upside down world and all)

[Tamas]

So then you are saying the AI gives a first class experience already and that I'm not going to find that after a couple of games its easy to win against the AI......thats all I asked Fine and nice to know....for all my doubts and misgivings I think I'll go and purchase the game (upside down world and all)

Every computer AI will be less of a challenge with continued play against it, as the human mind can learn its patterns and adapt to it.

The computer wargaming world, sadly, has been subject to sub-par AIs from most developers. AGEOD has been an exception, and WW1 also has a decent AI.
After you learn the game, I do suggest you up the difficulty, so the AI receives fog of war boost, but I am satisfied with the opposition it offers.
With the fog of war bonus, it can create some serious problems!

[WhoCares]

Well, one or two things have definatly to be fixed - the AIs tendency to mass most of its armies in a single region and the way the redeployment phase currently plays (at least in WEGO mode).
The already questionable first issue, along with the ability to react to the AI redeployment gives a huge edge to the player.

And that is disregarding that I think that the Redeployment phase should have some limitations in the amount of allowed movements - the unlimited teleporting of all Armies of a front seems to be excessive to me. Maybe with some increased transport capacity, ... But that would make it even more difficult for the AI

[Tamas]

And that is disregarding that I think that the Redeployment phase should have some limitations in the amount of allowed movements - the unlimited teleporting of all Armies of a front seems to be excessive to me.

Thats a boardgame feature and I like it.