Turn 5 as the Germans I get a release message for a Corp thats been moving but there is no release time for 5Res Corps or part of 5Corps
Is there an error?
Generally I have noticed when playing the CP in the (I think 5) smaller versions of the Marne that there are the odd erroneous messages for release of units that were in the main scenario but not the cut down version.
As an aside the previous scenario ( a lost oppertunity) was very good and one village was taken recaptured and finally taken 7 times. The AI can be very tough until worn down
Have I mentioned this is an excellent game?
Mike
Ah, yes, I fixed most of these small issues in the latest update, my guess is that you started the scenario before the update so you are still seeing them. :(
However, in some cases there are instances (by design) of a corps getting a very low % of release, then having a 100% release at a later date to make sure they get released by a certain point. If the unit was released already then you will see the message and it will look odd. There is no way around that though. As for the other things that were fixed in the update, lets just say that over four years the releases can get a little, well, error prone but I think most of that has been fixed. If someone notices any more of these in v1.1 then let me know.
Actually, giving it a more detailed look, it appears as though the scenario you mention still has a few erroneous releases in it in v1.1, and they appear to be carry overs from the main Marne scenario. I will fix that in the next version, they have no real effect on the scenario other than causing confusion.
In regards to the V.RK and part of the V.AK that never get released, this is by design. These forces were historically acting as a covering force in case the French sortied out of Verdun. Since the human knows this will not happen, in my view it was best to restrict these units and leave them as fixed, or else they will be committed somewhere else as you probably want to do. :) Of course anyone can create an alternate version where there are no fixes if they like - that is, if they want less restrictions.
Anyway, thanks for pointing it out.
I started after the patch but note the points made which make sense and are fine.
One thing I would like to hear your thoughts on is as follows
It is very hard to hit artillery with artillery but there was as I understand it a lot of CB fire in particular by Indirect Fire
I wonder therefore
a) Is it possible to modify this so that Indirect Fire causes more losses to artillery and
b) would that in your view be correct or desireable?
Mike
(08-19-2010, 10:06 PM)Mike Bowen Wrote: [ -> ]It is very hard to hit artillery with artillery but there was as I understand it a lot of CB fire in particular by Indirect Fire
I wonder therefore
a) Is it possible to modify this so that Indirect Fire causes more losses to artillery and
b) would that in your view be correct or desireable?
In my experience the fieldguns can pick off and disrupt guns with their fire, albeit it requires quite a bit of it (which is not unreasonable since the required volume there of depends on the state and quality of both units), but I assume you are talking about the howitzers (indirect fire). If that is the case, yes, counter battery by indirect fire was historically effective but not for actually destroying the enemy, rather it was effective at suppressing enemy artillery (making them take cover and stop shooting). Regardless, this suppressive and effective counter battery was something that evolved as the war progressed, and several artillery related improvements are planned in the series to represent this.
In other words, it is felt that for 1914 the current is perfectly adaquate, but for 1916+ it certainly requires the planned changes I hinted at above (the details of which I will not discuss here). So, rest assured that artillery will (or should) evolve appropriately in the series, including effective counter battery fire.