Panzer General Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Was wondering if there's any kind of timeframe on this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Hi Panzer General, Noting concrete at the moment as we are still collecting notes on fixes and improvements. Hope this helps, Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4th Bn 66th Reg Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I would like to put some votes in for the following changes for the next version of the game. 1. Widen the English Channel some so the axis or allies can't put an artillery unit on the coast and shoot artillery rounds across the channel. That is doable in artillery units today, RAP rounds, but not at that time. In my current game, my allied artillery will be at 5 experience before I conduct D-day. I can also pretty much level Caen in the current game with artillery before I attack. 2. Make Kumning a supply center in China. 3. I would like an option for Italy not to be forced into the war from the allies withdrawing units from the current garrison cities. Most of the time this is used by the allies as a way to attack and sink as much of the Italian Navy as possible. To make matters worse the axis have to suffer increased US mobilization as a result of this. I think the timing of when Italy declares war should be left up to the Axis player. So maybe mobilization goes to 90-95%, the axis player could then decide when to declare war. Of course, if the allies want to, they can declare war on Italy. I think this was meant to be positive for the axis, but in fact, this script is now a liability for the axis. 4. Please redo the game manual with the up to date decision options and scripts. I still don't really know what the allied option to employ the SOE really does for them? Plus I think it has taken me five games to figure out what really happens with that French Fort decision. 5. I think that the game should add a decision by the axis to seize Vichy France in November of 1942. At that time there could be some random chance that the Germans could have seized some French ships. Keep in mind that the French scuttled over 77 ships including 3 battleships and 7 cruisers at Toulon. It was entirely possible that some of those ships could have been captured by the Germans. 6. Fix the weather bug that makes Southern Russia the French Riviera for dive bombing axis planes. 7. Put a US garrison unit in Alaska at the beginning of the war. The US was well aware of the Japanese threat to Alaska and had positioned over 35000 naval, air, and army units there before the war started. Also note that the Alaskan highway was completed by the end of 1942, so I am not sure that having no strategic redeployment to Alaska is that accurate. 8. There is a game option where Stilwell is sent to China to command Chinese forces. If the allies say no he is suppose to show up in the US. This doesn't seem to be happening. 9. Something probably should be done about axis diplomacy strategy against the US. At the very least, US mobilization should be advanced monthly after the summer of 1941. I will have to think of some other things to change and will put them in later. Cheers, Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkizziah Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 ideas... Fix bug that allows Germany to assign Norways mines to Sweden, even if Allies occupy the mines and are in supply. Agree with Scott on Diplomacy to Majors...maybe double costs or cut effectiveness in half, might be enough. Would like to see surface naval units have a recon mode... if in recon, movement cut if half, but detection of enemy surface ships increased to 3 tiles.... maybe increased to 5-6 tiles if the intel R&D reaches level 1. (seems unrealistic for a naval unit to sit in one position for 4 weeks (one turn), without some sort of recon operations. Airlift option by Strategic bombers... important historical airlifts are ignored by our game... still subject to weather, escorts, etc. Italian surrender seems suspect...even if conquering the world...they still surrender with Rome falling. Consider making Allied control of Rome a large per turn decrease in Italian NM.... so that Italy surrenders if Allies can hold for 4-5 turns, etc. Lastly, for now, would like to see option to fortify coastal hexes, at a MPP cost and time to complete etc. Currently the one DE to fortify the west wall is funky. ... would be a realistic decision that all countries faced to spend resources to build elaborate defenses. Just having 1 or 2 engineers running around seems unrealistic. Love game... just looking for more to challenge each play of the game. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CATS2010 Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 As we are talking about fixes and improvements, I have discovered a way of handicapping the UK and almost ensuring an Axis victory. It requires Germany to invade the UK, taking London and, after the UK government transfers to Manchester, taking Glasgow. This results in the British convoys being cut. Then you surround Manchester but never take it. With the AI as your opposition, the UK government never relocates to Australia or Canada and seems to have little income. Not sure if you can do the same thing with a live opponent. Perhaps the Decision Event when triggered, needs to take effect next turn regardless of whether Manchester is taken or not. Another thing I noticed which seems a little odd, is that when the US drops its first A-bomb on Hiroshima all Japans convoys get blocked for months, when there are multiple other ports that Japan could use. Maybe it would be better to have alternate ports that convoys could go to if the primary port is destroyed. This should apply to the UK, US, Germany and USSR as well. If it's easier, convoys from different countries could use different ports. i.e. convoys from Canada use Glasgow, Australia uses Liverpool etc. If I think of anything else I will add it here. Thanks for a great game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4th Bn 66th Reg Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Here are some other things that would be great fixes to an updated game: 1. Do something to make the use of anti-tank units more viable. In the current game version no one really uses anti tank units like they were used in the war. I think the attack and defense values of these units should be changed and actual anti tank unit icons changed in the game. 2. I am all for having good anti aircraft defenses, but the level three anti-air defense on tanks is a little ridiculous. Defense value should be lowered. 3. Engineer units were used not only for building fortifications, but were used widely in assaults on fortifications, river crossings, and beach invasions. I would like to see more engineer units that could be used for these things as well as for digging fortifications. 4. Parachute units are elite infantry units in every country and were used by both sides in World War 2 to defend or reinforce attacks as a strategic reserve. The attack and defend values of these units should be increased. They should also get some ability to lower the entrenchment of defending units. 5. The Mech infantry units in this game are in general easier to destroy than the army unit counters. This should not be the case. Just some thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CATS2010 Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Here is another possible improvement: After the axis defeats Canada, it needs to immediately garrison Vancouver or the USA invades and occupies the west coast of Canada. Presently one can only operate units from say Quebec as far as Edmonton and then use the East Canada to West Canada loop to transfer to Calgary and finally operate from there to Vancouver. Why shouldn't it be possible to operate directly from Quebec to Vancouver? After all, it's permitted to operate from say Brest to Vladivostock which is twice the distance. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4th Bn 66th Reg Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I would put the following in for additional changes to the game: 1. Ability to cancel convoys in the event that axis or allies lose control of a convoy route. Currently the convoys keep going even if a convoy route is controlled by an enemy. Totally unrealistic that either side would continue to send convoys through an area controlled by the enemy. Plus subs get too much experience attacking the convoys. 2. Game still needs to figure out a way to make the battle of the Atlantic more realistic. It is too easy for the allies to knock out axis subs. Most experienced allied players don't even put research toward anti sub efforts for the allies, as it isn't necessary. Maybe axis subs should get a higher percentage chance of evasion if under attack. Current percentage chance for axis sub evasion is too low. At least make the allies have to put some effort towards the Battle of the Atlantic. 3. Ports of Antwerp and Amsterdam should not be able to be captured by the allies and immediately be used to unload troops by transport. Ports should be reduced to 0 upon capture like the rest of the ports in France. It took the allies months to get those ports into the use after they were captured in WW2. No reason that should not be the case in this game. 4. Supply in Egypt should be greater than it is currently is for the allies. Too easy for the axis to take Egypt in this current version of the game. The British should not have lower supply in Egypt than the axis forces outside of El Alamein. That is ridiculous and slants the game more towards the axis. 5. Current version of the game makes the following technologies useless or never used. Anti-tank weapons, rockets, and artillery. Skilled allied players make anti-submarine tech almost useless. I think that some thought should be put in, to make these technologies more relevant in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlape3 Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Seems like the whole thing is on the back burner with the heat turned way down.:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Hi Gentlemen, Unfortunately this is on the back burner for now as other projects are just eating up all of our time. Probably not the news many would be hoping for but I thought I could at least provide some official feedback on this for now. Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 "Other projects eating up all of our time" sounds like news I was hoping for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer General Posted December 26, 2014 Author Share Posted December 26, 2014 As I said to Hubert via PM, they have our money, so screw us and forget fixes for these bugs. Last time I'll ever purchase a Battlefront product. And I'll wager I'm not alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CATS2010 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Hi, If AoD ever comes off the back burner, I have one more small fix for you. I have found I can't invade the Maldives as there is nothing to land on! I only noticed the anomaly when the UK surrendered while the USA had a ship in the port of Addu Atoll. When I sunk it, the port remained allied. I sent a landing craft to it but couldn't land. Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlape3 Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Any one want to start a pool on when we will see more than just a hot fix for AOD? My guess is this thread will over a year old before AOD 1.04 sees the light of day, if ever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefield Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Most things that are proposed here for a version 1.04 can be easily modified using the provided editor. This is especially true for issues of script execution and unit balancing techniques. Many wishes for change in terms of game engine are not entirely new, and should already be included in the development of the new Strategic Command. Faced with a rather small developers staff, this approach also appears useful than a simultaneous laboring at the old game system. Before the well awaited enthronement of a SC2 successor, I have long hoped for a timely merging of the many standalone variants of our favorite game in a final "Gold", "Deluxe" or "Grand Strategy" version. This would have two mutually supportive effects: A reunion of the faithful and creative game community as at the beginning of the game series and a much easier maintenance of one complete final version by the developers. In view of a superb strategy game over the years, this is only a small downer. Cheers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts