czert2
Brigadier General
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 1:33 am

few bugs

Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:18 am

1. and realy annoing one, i play as CP and managed to get italy on my side by mid 1916, only do dicover that one region next to france borders (with forts saint miichel and mauriene), gran paradiso (alpine, no road) is not accesable, which is not ok, since tehere are placed italian units - alpini nord, under command of domenico grandi with 2 alpine divs, which makes them effecivey dead units as i cant move them out, and by disbanding i will lose commander too (unit can be rebuild, general not). How to fix it by myself (even for new game).

others are related to ai, which is not good.

2. please, make imposible for ai to send any non-japan units (including generals) to japan, they are just sitting here doing absolutely nothing, while at same time japan is safe from any invasion. While at same time ai fail to capture any undefended german help teritories in pacific. And make pacific generaly way less important for allied (british) naval combat units so it will use them on europe, where they are needed, not at pacific where they are generaly usless as japan can handle virtualy any german ships here (if not allready sun or fled to europe).

3.improve ai for handling merchant boxes, britain is manytimes suffrening alligment lose because it lack enough tranport/merchant elements here (so make more tranports simply fixed here) , in my mid 1916 game, britain allready have 100% rebel aligmentg, mainly due to this. Losing 3 - 5 % alligment every turn due to lack of imports was crucial in this (and no i didnt send any submarine or combat ship there to sunk tranports).

4. improve ai in handling rebelions. as cp i funded rebelion at maroco, as early as posible, and ai still didnt supresed rebelion to this day, it just sended units to japan of any other unnecesary location. So pls, improve ai here of make more units fixed at these scripted uprising regions.

czert2
Brigadier General
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 1:33 am

Re: few bugs

Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:18 am

and few more bugs :
1. pls make possible "forced automatic" upgrade, i mean if your ships squadron is bond to shipyard due to building missing ship, and upgrade is posible for rest of ships, lets make them they will be new/better model too. (at cost of replacement), since in my central powers game i have some subs sqadrons from all 3 possible subs (4th sub tech not researched), which is after all unrealisic, since in time subs were constantly upgraded with new models, even if old sub was not lost (was simply downgarded to training duty from combat duty simply because outdated or due to wear).
2. related to previous, CP can research new subs...but only germans can have use from them ??? turkey/austria/italy (if managed to join CP) are all forced to use same early war subs, even if better are researched. Yes, i know there was not much tech sharing between powers related to subs,( still they were improved during time), , BUT that is not true for airplanes,best planes were shared amog all allies (e.q us were using french palnes for thiers air corps), in game all minors (dutch, belgium, portugal) are using old 1914 figters, even if later models are avaivable, and if italy is joined CP, it is using 1914 model too.
3. shipbuilding, i find realy interesing that turkey do have dreadnghout plans, listed avaivable for build, but actualy it have no place to build them at all, not posible to build them at izmit, constantinople or any other place, even if all naval base/shipyards are free and doing absolutely nothing (no new ship building or even repairing).

epaminondas
Captain
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:35 pm

Re: few bugs

Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:54 am

czert2 wrote:and few more bugs :

3. shipbuilding, i find realy interesing that turkey do have dreadnghout plans, listed avaivable for build, but actualy it have no place to build them at all, not posible to build them at izmit, constantinople or any other place, even if all naval base/shipyards are free and doing absolutely nothing (no new ship building or even repairing).


Nice get. Both of your points are historically accurate (i.e. the Ottomans did have plans available yet lacked the construction capacity to act on them) but since their combined result is zero why bother to include that function?

czert2
Brigadier General
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 1:33 am

Re: few bugs

Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:31 am

Yes, i know that this game is "short term" game meaning that any naval buildup (except relative fast build of subs) will have limited effect in game, and building any surface ship after 1916 is efectively just wasting of resources, but why not to allow player to build dreadnghouts for turkey, if he wanted it ? even if it will be less historicaly accurate.
and concerning inability to build certain units, it allways wondered me why certain nations, like mexico or persia, cant build own supply units, after all these stated did have regular armies, unlike afghanistan or arabia.

and i will love to see more options in game, like option to improve railroad capacity (build new trains), similiar that we have in RUS.

epaminondas
Captain
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:35 pm

Re: few bugs

Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:44 pm

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood your point.

In order to turn out dreadnoughts Turkey would have needed slips big enough to accommodate the builds, rolling mills able to produce large armour plates of sufficient thickness to clad them, turreted artillery mounts capable of supporting their big guns, the high velocity big guns themselves, and steam turbines powerful enough to propel them. It didn't have any of these. Though the armour requirements might have been achievable within a reasonable timeframe, the infrastructure improvements required to bring the rest online (even if they could have been financed) would have taken considerably longer than the build time of the ships themselves.

I guess you could work in some kind technology or equipment transfer from Germany or Austria-Hungary, but the difficulties these nations encountered in getting additional big ships built for themselves during war time suggest that this wasn't really a prospect.

czert2
Brigadier General
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 1:33 am

Re: few bugs

Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:26 pm

well, speaking directly in game terms, all you need to build dreadnghouts is shipyard (on map facility) + some extra naval build capacity. Turkey do have shipyard at izmail, but lack that extra nb, while constaninople naval base nicely provide needed exra naval capacity it simply lack needed shipyard there.
just look at gerany and stetin - you can build dreads there (because port here is biger than lvl 1, unlike as in izmail case), if you dont build/repair anything else there. But were here dreads build historicaly, or only at wilhemshafen (and mayby kiel).
And yes, i fully agree with you that if otomans wanted in reality to build dreads, they will need to put extra effort for it, but why not provide player with ALTERNATIVE ? just to give player some freedom in way how he want to play this game.
and concerning technology needed to build dreads, well regarding armor plates, it is more of technology proces than machinery related, so relative easy to solve, building of big enoug slips is just matter of manpower and resources invested in existing ones, so most easily to solve, building of big enoug guns will be biggest problem, if they lacked big enough machinery. for propuslion, well, if you can build it for heavy cruiser, you can build it for dread too, they were not much bigger, just increased in number (say 6 turbines instead of 4).


After all, players do have option to chose from 4 warplans , insted of only historical start up. why give players freedom there but deny them elsewhere ?

and when speaking about alterntives, this game have potencial for them, but fail to deliver them. just look at bulgaria, player only have option reconize bulgarian wargoals as cp, and thats all, it totaly lack any option for entete to recognize bulgarian wargolas too (but with way smaller effect since they shold offer bulgaria waay less land than cp).
one of resons why entete failed to help serbia in time, was because they hoped they can bring bulgaria to war on side of entete (which was doomed to fail because cp simply can give more), and in end hey decide to land expedition forces at salonika, not only to late but in small effect.
Imagine if they decided to land expedition forces at albania, or at worst negtiate arms and supply transport over albania to serbia, shortly after war started, not after 14 months delay and on salonika. suppling expedition troops at albania will be way easier for entete than on greek salonika.
but in game albania is "insvisible" state, you cant event make diplomacy with him.
and same historical alternative is not here for romania, only entete can recognize roms wargoals, not cp, which did have nice bargain token too (they should offer way less austrian territory than entete, but cp should offer as very nice bonus bessarabia (moldova) to romania.
again, this option is lacking.
and if you think more about it, you will find more and more alternatives/options lacking.

epaminondas
Captain
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:35 pm

Re: few bugs

Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:42 am

There's definitely a tension between the actual historical situation and the way it's represented in game terms and I accept that that's unavoidable. But in translating from the first to the second I'd argue that we should take care in avoiding "fantastory".

As far as history takes us, German dreadnought construction did involve yards other than those at Wilhelmshaven and Kiel. Bremen, Danzig, Hamburg, and Stettin also contributed - so the game's limitations in this regard are not strictly historical. On the Turkish side of the coin, however, I believe the game properly represents the historical situation. The building of dreadnoughts at Izmet was made impossible not merely because of the underdevelopment of facilities but by the limiting topography of the port itself. To launch a hull that will top out at around 20,000 tons requires access to a "pond" of sufficient length, breadth, and depth to accommodate that bulk without obstructing other port operations, and Izmet couldn't provide that. Germany's Schichau company had experienced this same problem with its original yards in Elbing in the 1890s and could only solve it by building new facilities in Danzig. Constantinople, on the other hand, met the topographical criteria quite comfortably but was still in the process of modernising facilities that had been woefully neglected for decades.

On the practical points you note, the technology of rolling consistent quality armour plate is founded in the machinery available for that purpose so you can't really have one without the other. Your point on the building of sufficiently large slips is well made, but the necessary manpower and resources have to come from somewhere so should require the sacrifice of other production capabilities. Additionally, since this re-direction of resources is still going to take between one and two years to bear fruit, if it were to be included as an alternative I figure it would have to as a "startup" option rather than something that could be "Hey Prestoed" into play at a moment's notice. Finally, even the earliest dreadnoughts were indeed much larger (around twice the size) of the heavy (i.e. armoured) cruisers of the day and no heavy cruisers on either side employed turbine propulsion but used triple expansion engines instead - though in fairness I should mention that this was true of the first two classes of German dreads also.

All that out of the way, I'm all for your basic idea of building a broad choice of alternative pathways for players to follow. It's just that in this case the pathway would have to begin at the door into the game rather than in the kitchen when we're deciding what to have for dinner.

czert2
Brigadier General
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 1:33 am

Re: few bugs

Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:07 am

your point about not big enoug lake at izmit is realy interesing.
but i dont see any problem with allowing player - of any nation - with posibility to do ahistoricaly big navy buildup, he will simply lose on land, due to spend resources.
and to be honest, navy have very little use in this game, especialy for cp.
cp dont need to do naval transports, and extra resources from baltic trade are allways nice, but not criticaly needed, unlike trading for britain.
but what i see as more limiting is simply lack of options, look at albania, in game it is "forbiden land", you cant interact with it at all. but in reality albania was battleground, and some albanians joined entete to help tem.
and as writen earlier, just imagine if in game it is here posibility that entete send early help for serbia via albania, instead of to late via greece.
and there are other missing things, like option to improve railroad pool, build other factories than just ammo.
and i will like to play more scenarios like booth balkan wars and other post great war conflicts.

epaminondas
Captain
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:35 pm

Re: few bugs

Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:37 pm

Yep, I'd sign up for all of those and I think all of them could be managed within the confines of the game's mechanics. The only option that I'm objecting to is giving Turkey the possibility of building dreadnoughts during the course of the game as it stands, and that's because it was in fact impossible. If the game's timeframe was extended into the early twenties and Turkey was given a startup option of commencing dreadnought building in, say, late 1917 at the cost of limited production points up until then, then I think your argument would hold up pretty well. But time wounds all things, and I'm afraid that with the current time limit the wound to Turkish naval ambitions is fatal.

Return to “Help improve EAW”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest