CAN WE EXPECT v1.2 soon??

[Theron21]

Can someone tell me if the new patch is coming soon plz???
cant stand 1.1 anymore Ive been playing 1.6c since the stupid 4 max fighter stacking. How can you beat 24 Inf or anything for that matter with 4 divs?
Just tell me plz!!

 

[unmerged(21937)]

This has quite a little to do with Multiplayer. Also, the max 4 air wings in an air stack thing is obviously there to stay.

 

[Mithel]

I'm sure the max 4 air wings is here to stay and I think it's a great idea. You don't "beat" ground units with air power.

I doubt we'll see v1.2 soon (please prove me wrong Paradox), there is a lot to be fixed and apparently Paradox was on vacation last week.

I do think v1.2 is a multiplayer issue... v1.1 is "unplayable" for multiplayer.

 

[Orthank]

I'm sure the max 4 air wings is here to stay and I think it's a great idea. You don't "beat" ground units with air power.

I doubt we'll see v1.2 soon (please prove me wrong Paradox), there is a lot to be fixed and apparently Paradox was on vacation last week.

I do think v1.2 is a multiplayer issue... v1.1 is "unplayable" for multiplayer.

Max 4 air wing is only an increase in micromanagement, and less control, cause there still can be 12 airplanes attacking one province in the area - you just need three times more orders to do that. And those 12 airplanes are of course annihilating single ground unit.

 

[unmerged(14249)]

I do think v1.2 is a multiplayer issue... v1.1 is "unplayable" for multiplayer.

I'm in three 1.1 MP campaigns at the moment and we've played each of them for hours without any special problems - just the usual connection hiccups. So please don't say that it's unplayable. There's just room for improvement, as always...

Andrew

 

[unmerged(14249)]

Can someone tell me if the new patch is coming soon plz???
cant stand 1.1 anymore Ive been playing 1.6c since the stupid 4 max fighter stacking. How can you beat 24 Inf or anything for that matter with 4 divs?
Just tell me plz!!

You can order several formations of four aircraft to attack the same area at the same time with the same mission. They will combine forces if they target the same province. Just make sure that there are enough Air Generals or Marshalls in these formations so that you have good command of so many air units.

And don't wait for 1.2 as I don't expect this aspect of the game to change in that version, if ever.

Andrew

 

[Grosshaus]

Max 4 air wing is only an increase in micromanagement, and less control, cause there still can be 12 airplanes attacking one province in the area - you just need three times more orders to do that. And those 12 airplanes are of course annihilating single ground unit.

Yeah, it's a silly rule altogether.

 

[Mithel]

Sure it's silly but it's essential because of the game design. Get Johan to fix the combat system and we wouldn't need such rules.

 

[Brasidas]

How is it essential b/c of the game design? If it's purpose is to limit me to using four unit stacks, it has succeeded. Ditto for cutting the number of squadrons I can use to the number of generals I have times four.

But if it's purpose is to keep me from hitting a target with anything less than the capacity of an airmarshall, it fails. I just use four air groups, with one commander being a marshall.

 

[unmerged(35163)]

How is it essential b/c of the game design? If it's purpose is to limit me to using four unit stacks, it has succeeded. Ditto for cutting the number of squadrons I can use to the number of generals I have times four.

But if it's purpose is to keep me from hitting a target with anything less than the capacity of an airmarshall, it fails. I just use four air groups, with one commander being a marshall.

I think it is more so the A.I doesnt group all its air units into one stack. With v1.0 playing U.S the germans always kept all air units togethere in a stack of 26. Kinda stupid, wish they could program the A.I some stratagy and intelligence but instead they just make it so the A.I can only group into four.

 

[unmerged(31954)]

I'm in three 1.1 MP campaigns at the moment and we've played each of them for hours without any special problems - just the usual connection hiccups. So please don't say that it's unplayable. There's just room for improvement, as always...

Andrew

As has been said before, just because it is playable for you does not mean it is playable for everybody. Perhaps it is unplayable for him. Perhaps other people are more upset with "the usual connection hiccups." What are "the usual connection hiccups"? In my groups, "the usual connection hiccups" routinely cost us 45 minutes to an hour and a half out of a four or five hour session. Again, peoples' experiences differ, and the game is, in fact, unplayable for a lot of people.

 

[unmerged(8319)]

Just about anything is better than the stacking penalty introduced in HOI1 1.06c. The AI can still stack as many as it wants in that HOI1 version - and it does...32 fighters in one stack in my current game!!!

 

[unmerged(14249)]

As has been said before, just because it is playable for you does not mean it is playable for everybody. Perhaps it is unplayable for him. Perhaps other people are more upset with "the usual connection hiccups." What are "the usual connection hiccups"? In my groups, "the usual connection hiccups" routinely cost us 45 minutes to an hour and a half out of a four or five hour session. Again, peoples' experiences differ, and the game is, in fact, unplayable for a lot of people.

I suppose that Mithel has played the game for some time in multiplayer because he provides some useful timing figures on his web site.

As for the hiccups, I'd agree that a downtime of 20% is about what I experience with a new group. Once you eliminate the people with weak connections then you can currently expect a serviceability of about 95%, I'd say. Of course, it'd be better if it were 99% or more but you don't need this for the game to be playable.

Andrew

 

[Mithel]

Playable vs unplayable is purely a point of view. Nobody is saying it's completely bug free and I don't think any of us expect it to be completely bug free (after all the Internet is prone to problems all by itself irregardless of how good the code is).

Yes, I did controlled testing with a single friend to determine our figures.

Due to the fact we can't expect to run above "slow" that means for me a game will be somewhere around 12 sessions of four hours per session once per week. That is a three month investment in time for a single serious game.

Now over the course of three months we pray that Paradox will release a couple updates to fix some of the most glaring issues. (moddir not working properly, save games corrupting the game, slider management, random crashes) Couple that with the rapid improvements made by mods ("major" revision and improvement on a near weekly basis) and it makes little to no sense to even consider starting to play a game. But that's purely my opinion, others who can play 12 hours straight and multiple sessions per week or purely on a local LAN no doubt have a different opinion. As well as those looking for a less serious experience. As most of the oldtimers here know I'm more interested in a historically accurate simulation than playing a "game". As a "game" sure... it's playable.