Looking for playtesters

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Case
Have you tried re-downloading the file and saving it under a different name?

I would, but my comp automatically unzips it the very second it finishes downloading, so I can't stop it (unless someone can point my lazy ass to how to deactivate the automatic unzipping, I just don't care enough to find it ).

[EZRhino]

I have the same problem, its something to do with winzip. Just right click and save target as'.

[Darius871]

Just to update, thanks Arthedain, that worked perfectly (and any other time I have that problem, it isn't the first).

Scen's looking excellent; I can't wait for a PBEM.

[Boco]

Looks excellent indeed! If it's not duplicating someone else's effort, I'll send you a list of typos/corrections on Sunday. Do you want any feedback on the tech tree? If so, I'll take a look at that as well. Since I'm easily overwhelmed as a player, I'd want to do that before testing, anyway.

Still amazed at your ability to sift through EA without a readme!

[Darius871]

Initial impressions:

- Maybe too much starting gold for France; they have twice as much as Britain.

- I understand the rationale with railroads in the readme, but I'm still worried about them. If a player doesn't have the time or units necessary to pillage his railroads, Sverdlovsk is effectively moments away from Minsk, and Bordeaux from Strasbourg. With a 1/8 multiplier, units can still move a reasonable amount between friendly cities but still be limited on the attack. That's realistic anyway since forces did take time to get to the front anyway. After being in some good games that were ruined by Xin-esque wipeouts, I really don't trust railroads in any situation.

- You can build SS Structural and Apollo Program with the Heavy Armor tech, SS Module with Sloped Armor, and SS Component with Terror Bombing. Guessing you've found this though, along with the settler designations.

- Not a big deal, but fortresses haven't been renamed 'stackable' yet.

- Spellings like Genevre and Svestapol make sense to me, but I've never heard the spellings Monsul, Bagdad, and Bengzhani. Are these common?

- A lot of cities (Freiburg and Tambov for instance, among others) aren't visible to other players at the start of the game.

- What does the 'Imp.' before medium armor stand for?

- Why does this hella-cool scorched earth thing only happen in Switzerland?

- Are Maginot Line bunkers supposed to be this easy to beat? It was a failure because it could be bypassed; the line itself was actually pretty strong. In the game each segment can be defeated with just veteran artillery, even the segment on hills.

Anyway, these are just nitpicks; altogether it's golden. Graphics , unit balance , tech tree . Civ balance, we'll see.

[Darius871]

Oh yeah, after enough hours of watching my engineers never complete roads, I realized grasslands and plains have a move cost of 86!

[Case]

Thanks Darius

Originally posted by Darius871
- Maybe too much starting gold for France; they have twice as much as Britain.

OK, I'll fix that.

With a 1/8 multiplier, units can still move a reasonable amount between friendly cities but still be limited on the attack. That's realistic anyway since forces did take time to get to the front anyway. After being in some good games that were ruined by Xin-esque wipeouts, I really don't trust railroads in any situation.

I'm slowly coming to that conclusion as well. The kicker however is that it didn't take more then a few days for a first rate nation to move major units from one side of the country to the other...

You can build SS Structural and Apollo Program with the Heavy Armor tech, SS Module with Sloped Armor, and SS Component with Terror Bombing. Guessing you've found this though, along with the settler designations.

Thanks now fixed (thanks to Henrik spotting it within 24 hours of getting the files).

- Spellings like Genevre and Svestapol make sense to me, but I've never heard the spellings Monsul, Bagdad, and Bengzhani. Are these common?

Urm, yes. Everybody who sucks at spelling call those cities by those names

A lot of cities (Freiburg and Tambov for instance, among others) aren't visible to other players at the start of the game.

That's now fixed as well.

What does the 'Imp.' before medium armor stand for?

Improved. (think the Sherman Firefly, T-34/85 and late model Pz IV)

Why does this hella-cool scorched earth thing only happen in Switzerland?

Because the Swiss are the only ones who wired their their entire country for detenation (seriously!) I did have it for Sweden and the major Russian cities, but the effect wasn't convincing (and it would make attacking the Russian cities extreamly expensive).

Are Maginot Line bunkers supposed to be this easy to beat? It was a failure because it could be bypassed; the line itself was actually pretty strong. In the game each segment can be defeated with just veteran artillery, even the segment on hills.

The Maginot Line should be pretty tough - I need to fix it's stats.

Oh yeah, after enough hours of watching my engineers never complete roads, I realized grasslands and plains have a move cost of 86!

Due to a quirk in the civ engine, that move cost actually translates as something like 1 1/3 movement points. However, if it means that new roads can't be built then it's not worth it.

Anyway, these are just nitpicks; altogether it's golden. Graphics , unit balance , tech tree . Civ balance, we'll see.

I'm pleased to hear that!

[fairline]

Case, can you post some screenshots. I'm dying to see what this looks like.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Case

I'm slowly coming to that conclusion as well. The kicker however is that it didn't take more then a few days for a first rate nation to move major units from one side of the country to the other...

Then again each turn represents what, a month? It takes a freighter here 8 turns (months) to cross the Mediterranean, when we know it only would have taken a matter of days. You can't try to recreate time periods realistically in scenarios, just do whatever works for playability and balance.

Originally posted by Case

Because the Swiss are the only ones who wired their their entire country for detenation (seriously!)

That kicks ass!

Originally posted by Case

Due to a quirk in the civ engine, that move cost actually translates as something like 1 1/3 movement points.

Yeah, I noticed that too, when my engineers ended up with 1/3 movement when they went on plains (meaning 1 2/3 cost). I almost reported that as a bug, but then looked at the terrain. For a while I thought we weren't supposed to build roads or something...

Originally posted by fairline
Case, can you post some screenshots. I'm dying to see what this looks like.

There's a few in the old thread:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=1208988#post1208988

[Henrik]

I was going to put this in my next mail (but you never replied to my last one so I never got around to writing it ) but I think you should get rid of the "neutral" units.

Rather I think you should allow the neutrals to build the same defencive units as everyone else. As it is now they are way to good, some nations, like Belgium and Poland should be possible to overrun surely?
As of now heay bombers are required en masse to destroy the often 8+ unit stacks of neutral imobiles.

As Darius says you should strengthen the maginot line I think, and make it 100%+ vs air or something (it perishes way to easily in bombing raids).

There are a few unit bugs around (apart from the Me 109s )

For instance medium bombers can attack other air units, making them easily the best interceptors around with their gigantic attack stats.

Also heavy bombers have way to high range allowances it seems (100+ moves)

The churchill tanks are settlers

I also personally dislike the current shield icon as I think it's hard to distinguish (sp?) but that's up to you ofcourse

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Henrik

I was going to put this in my next mail (but you never replied to my last one so I never got around to writing it ) but I think you should get rid of the "neutral" units.

Rather I think you should allow the neutrals to build the same defencive units as everyone else. As it is now they are way to good, some nations, like Belgium and Poland should be possible to overrun surely?
As of now heay bombers are required en masse to destroy the often 8+ unit stacks of neutral imobiles.

Personally I didn't mind the immobiles, and more specifically I see a lot of problems with the AI building regular units and moving them around, weakening its own defense.

I think it'd be enough just to make the units quite a bit weaker; it did get ridiculous watching the AI melt entire armies in Poland to no avail. It took me a loooooong time to take the Low Countries myself.

Originally posted by Henrik

There are a few unit bugs around (apart from the Me 109s )

The churchill tanks are settlers

Actually at least half a dozen of the units have the wrong designators; I was going to list them but I thought you meant the Me-109's as one example of many, and he was going through all of them.

[Henrik]

I suspected as much, and I think I reported some in my last mail.
But these where those I had taken down in my testers notes that I had not yet marked as sent.

[Case]

Originally posted by Henrik
I was going to put this in my next mail (but you never replied to my last one so I never got around to writing it )

Sorry

but I think you should get rid of the "neutral" units.

Rather I think you should allow the neutrals to build the same defencive units as everyone else. As it is now they are way to good, some nations, like Belgium and Poland should be possible to overrun surely?
As of now heay bombers are required en masse to destroy the often 8+ unit stacks of neutral imobiles.

For a number of reasons, I really don't want the neutrals to have any offencive capability whatsoever.
These reasons are:
1) The neutral countries weren't actually allied. As a result, it would be stuipid for Belgium to invade Germany following a German attack on Czekoslovakia.
2) I didn't want neutrals wandering around and bloking the roads
3) I've put a lot of effort into making the neutrals hapless, and don't want to unpick half the scenario to change this

My philospohy for the various neutrals is that they give the players some room to expand, but at a high price.

For instance medium bombers can attack other air units, making them easily the best interceptors around with their gigantic attack stats.

Also heavy bombers have way to high range allowances it seems (100+ moves)

Oops!

The churchill tanks are settlers

Fixed.

I also personally dislike the current shield icon as I think it's hard to distinguish (sp?) but that's up to you ofcourse

Yeah, it is a bit lacking. I just don't want to use either the actual shield image or Nemo's bullet.

[Boco]

Beer as Lux!

[Case]

Beer as Lux!

The nurses are meant to represent government services, which seems to have been what people wanted back in the 30s and 40s. I'll change the name from 'luxuries' to 'services' when I get around to doing the labels.txt.

BTW, the following units bit the dust today:

Patrol Aircraft: was replaced by Armoured Recon (2x visibility and diplomat (not spy) ability.

Churchill Tank: was replaced by Centurion tank. The Churchill sucked - what was I thinking when I included it?

U-Boat: replaced by Deisal-Electric Sub. German U-Boats were nothing special, while diesal-electric subs were revolutionary.