That is a marvellous feature I did not know existed ;)
Thanks for letting me know :)
No, I don’t know the details of what the caliber fix means. I flagged it since he said it was a big issue, and since I am guessing combat calculations are important in this game. :-) Did you ask on the forums? (I looked but didn’t see it.)
I am following the patch notes closely waiting for the right time to dive in.
No, I wasn’t sure where to a find a thread that references that change.
It’s in the beta forum category, up top. I will ask the same question later, and report back.
That…was perfect
Thanks.
One answer, repeated here:
Armor thickness actually works as intended now. So using small arms (which are 20mm) against armor that’s thicker than 20mm results in massive penalties. And so on for all the weapon types.
Makes buggies with 50mm armor deadly against militia troops!
Original thread, might have more updates later:
Thanks for posting that. A later answer:
If Armor thickness in MM > the Weapon Callibre in MM, the attack suffers are penalty. Up to -90%.
Infantry small arms count as 20-40mm. Bullets vs 200mm armor operate at that -90% level.
After watching more of Das Tactics’ tutorials, I think it is possible to do well in this game with a surface level understanding of the systems. Understanding the level of detail like what is referenced above about caliber vs armor is not necessary. It is there for those who want to dig in, but you can get by without fully grasping it or micromanaging it. I watched the videos on model design and managing formations and was not able to digest all of it. But I don’t think I need to. In short, grasping the basics (his Rules of Thumb) is sufficient and you should not be scared off by the depth of this.
But, I say this as someone who not finished a complete game, so I could be totally wrong.
I am thinking about taking the plunge as well. I understand the concerns about graphics and GUI and obfuscated mechanics- but I used to be a grognard and appreciate that only a one man band can make something like this.
So one question only: how long does it generally take to complete a (winning) game?
So I started a new game with the new beta branch logistic changes. I haven’t got very far, but I’ll say the new system is a lot more intuitive. The big change is instead of a logistic source pushing points out equally to all roads, now the consumers of those points request as needed.
Screenie of the bottleneck overlay from early in a new game:
That thicker line going to the southwest is points going off to a second city, and the thin lines are going off to some mines and a few militia troops. In the previous version, all of the points from the central city would’ve been split evenly among all three outgoing roads, meaning the SE road would’ve had significant overcapacity, and the SW route would’ve had bottlenecks and lost points. To manage that would’ve required tweaking of traffic signs to throttle the overcapacity to the SE and push more to the SW.
With this change that sort of tweaking is done automatically. This should make the logistical system a lot more approachable I would think.
That sounds great. Does it render stop signs moot?
I think it reduces their necessity just to keep everyone fed. I imagine there will still be cases where you don’t have enough LPs along a route period and need to prioritize (like a military offensive).
Urg, this is a very tempting game. Has anyone who owns it played Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa, and can you compare the systems (both wargame and “RPG”) in those games?
If this has already happened, forgive me, it’s kind of a big thread at this point.
This may actually pull me back to a game I had decided to ditch.
Before, it just rankled me too deeply. The idea that there is a truck station, it’s ours rather than privately owned, and it has a supply of trucks. And each day, regardless of who or what needs to be transported, those trucks will fan out in equal portions at each intersection point including the station. Unless the president of the country personally intercedes. Each day. Honestly, it sounded like something from a person quite far out on the autism spectrum, who obsessed over arbitrary details.
This design change, assuming it moves from beta into the game, not only fixes my #1 complaint, but it very much reassures me that the goals of the game maker are compatible with what I consider to be balanced game design.
Game bought. I’m a sucker for games that do something original or ambitious, as lately it seems so many games are just small variations on a theme…
edit: How do you start a PBEM game? Can’t find it in matrix forums or in the manual…
edit: Ok, figured it out…it’s in the options after you’ve started a game…Hopefully I can twist my friend’s arm into playing this with me :)
That’s a good question! If I ever learn to play efficiently, I think I could win in 10-20 hours on a standard map. On a smaller map, maybe quicker. But I can’t tear myself away from my current epic game, which I’ve played stupidly, and is still absolutely engrossing to me.
I haven’t installed the beta branch, but this does look great. Thanks for that awesome screenshot!
It’s a one man team, but he definitely listens to his community. The inscrutability with the previous logistics system was the primary complaint he was hearing. It’s kind of amazing he was able to effect such a significant change in a relatively short amount of time. It still has its quirks of course, but this seems to address the biggest issue most people have; namely not knowing they needed to throttle their outgoing roads to keep their armies/cities supplied.
I meant to reply to this sooner; apologies for the delay. I liked DCB a lot, but I’m having more fun with Shadow Empire. There are obvious similarities: each is a hex-and-counter wargame mixed with cards representing decisions and individual personalities. The AI is surprisingly competent in both games, but then I didn’t play DCB enough to discover whatever weaknesses might have existed in it. The two UIs have similarities too: lots of tabs and menus, quirky decisions about what’s embedded where, but manageable if one reads the manual or just plays for a while.
But Shadow Empire is a more freewheeling game, with random maps and a crazy constellation of possible enemies, and scarce resources and a more demanding logistical system (although the latest beta patch apparently ameliorates that a lot). It’s less predictable, and that makes it more fun for me. Restarting is really interesting in Shadow Empire; it’s fresh and exciting. Restarting in DCB is another game with the same scenario.
The role-playing in DCB is, in some ways, better tuned, because the historical context constrains how wild things can get. In Shadow Empire, one game world can be radically different from the next, and the cards and role-playing can be less predictable. Sometimes that means you get a surplus of useless cards, or not enough of the ones you need; some of the events become less significant once your empire is big and prosperous. But I don’t mind any of that.
Don’t get me wrong, DCB is a great wargame, and I may not be done with it yet. But I’m finding Shadow Empire to be more fun. If 4X games aren’t your thing, you may not find it as enchanting. And you have to be prepared to learn Vic’s UI – and put up with a couple train wrecks in your first games, as you slowly get the hang of things.
Thank you!