CEAW GS 4.0?

[captkiwi]

I know I've been away for a while, but where is CEAW 3.2?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

GS v3.2 was part of the beta, but the changes introduced are so big so we figured it was better to name the next public version GS v4.0.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Just to make it clear. GS v3.2 was never published except within the beta group. GS v4.0 would have been the same as the beta GS v3.20 lima. So regular players will be upgrading from GS v3.1 to GS v4.0 when GS v4.0 is released.

We're in the final testing of GS v4.0 at the moment. We made some changes to commanders and want to test the balance for that properly.

[captkiwi]

Ok, thanks Stauffenberg... can't wait until GS 4.0.

[glaude1955]

Do you have news for the release of version 4.0?

Regards
Yves

[glaude1955]

No news ?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

We have changed the air unit OOB's for the 1939 scenarios and testing it now.

Germany starts with an extra fighter unit
Italy starts with a 5 step fighter in Libya similar to what UK has in Egypt
The Canadian fighter is removed and replaced by an extra UK fighter in England
France starts with a bomber at 5 steps
USA and USSR both start with an extra fighter
Some minor powers have got their air units altered (Sweden and Spain).

This was done after some OOB research.

[glaude1955]

Hi Stauffenberg,
Thank you for all the good news.
Have you an idea (even imprecise) about the date of availability of this important update?

Regards

Yves

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Not really because it depends on Slitherine's capacity to make the installer. That usually takes a few months. With luck we finish beta testing before Christmas. Testing takes longer than we would like because it's a turn based game and there are only so many turns you can make per day.

GS v4.0 seems pretty bug free at the moment so the main things now is to double check that the game balance is still good. Every now and then we find a minor issue we fix in a patch, but nothing game stopping.

[glaude1955]

thank you for the clarification.
I wish you good luck for your tests

Regards
Yves

[glaude1955]

Not really because it depends on Slitherine's capacity to make the installer.

No need installer, just make the new files available, the user can install them himself (not difficult) by using if necessary JSGME.

Regards

Yves

[Diplomaticus]

One question about the Middle East: When Iraq is activated, in addition to the corps appearing in/near Basra, there are 3 British garrison units around the country. Also, when Persia is activated, there are 4 more Persian gars. I'm wondering whether or not these should be tweaked? The 4 Persian units, in particular, seem odd: didn't the Brits and Soviets more or less conquer Persia? Why would the Persian army then join the Allies? Did Persian units ever leave the country and join the general conflict?

I'm pointing this out because in earlier versions of the game it was possible for the Axis to make a play for the Middle Eastern oil fields, but it seems that this option is pretty much taken away by all the units appearing in Iraq/Persia. Were these units added (maybe in 2.1?) only due to play balance issues, or is there real historical justification for all of those gar? Should we consider limiting at least the Persian gar so that they can't be sent all over the Med, used to garrison Egypt, etc.? That, at least, must surely be ahistorical.

[pk867]

There are only 2 Persian GARS in the game.

[Diplomaticus]

There are only 2 Persian GARS in the game.

I am running 3.1, so maybe my information is already out of date. But I did run a quick hotseat to check on this, and in 3.1 there were 4 Persian gar. I'm glad to hear that the number was reduced.

I did a little reading on the subject, and the Persians put up little resistance to the Russo-British takeover, and while their Lend-Lease route was strategically important, they played no other military role, according to my sources.

[Ardaeshir]

There are only 2 Persian GARS in the game.

I am running 3.1, so maybe my information is already out of date. But I did run a quick hotseat to check on this, and in 3.1 there were 4 Persian gar. I'm glad to hear that the number was reduced.

I did a little reading on the subject, and the Persians put up little resistance to the Russo-British takeover, and while their Lend-Lease route was strategically important, they played no other military role, according to my sources.

I would second this notion.

One other thing I would like to inquire about - did the Vichy France surrender rules been tweaked in 4.0?

The reason I'm asking is that in 3.1 we had a situation wher ethe Allied player invaded Spain, then advanced through France. At one point both Lyon and Marseilles were captured by the Allies, but the Vichy garrisons in North Africa were still there. This seems to be really ahistorical. I think there should be some simple rule for example: "Vichy units disband if the US is at war with the Axis and one of Paris, Marseilles or Lyon is not under Axis control".

[pk867]

You are saying the Axis player could not move the Vichy units in North Africa?

Spain would have joined the Axis once DoW'ed. Germany could rail units into Spain for defense.

I do not understand why this is a problem or situation.

We need more information if this is a bug. No one has mentioned this.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

There is no difference in GS v4.0. Since Vichy France doesn't have a capital then their forces will never surrender. They won't get replaced so you wear them down by destroying their units.

I don't see this as a real problem since the Allies will most likely also invade in French North Africa if they attack Spain and later France. Vichy garrisons in North Africa can't do much more than just remain there.

I don't buy the argument about this or that being not historical. The Allies invading Spain is also ahistorical. A strategic game needs to allow for ahistorical things to happen. Otherwise it's not a strategic game.

You can probably find lots of situations where the game code won't respond as we expected to some ahistorical events. E. g. anticipating the US reaction to a German invasion of Canada. We don't know how Vichy France would have responded to the Allies invading southern France. What we do know is that the Vichy Forces made some opposition when the Allies invaded in North Africa. They crumbled very fast, though. When you invade Vichy France the forces there spawn at reduced strength and morale so they are very easy to capture. Knowing that then it should be simple for the Allied player to also land a few units near Casablanca, Oran, Algiers and Tunis when the main force attacks southern France.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't understand that a few Persian garrisons would be a reason to not invade Iraq as the Germans. If you invade then you have enough forces to kill everything the Allies can muster. The Persian garrisons are meant to protect the Persian cities so the Axis just can't move into them unopposed. The Allied player can, of course, rail these units elsewhere in the Middle East, but what good can they do? They're very bad for attacks so all they can do is to hold a city for awhile.

It's certainly possible to limit the areas where you can use units from minor powers, but we don't have such rules for any other power. E. g. Finnish units should only be used in Finland, Norway and USSR. Hungarian, Romanian and Bulgarian unit should only be used on the Balkans and USSR. Most minor powers would not allow their own country to be emptied. So it would be normal that a majority of their forces would have to remain within their own borders.

But again I repeat that this is a strategic game where we're allowed to do ahistorical things. Use of minor power units is one example where we don't interfere with player's choice. I think most players are opposed to having lots of limitations to how they can play. It's ok to have OOB limitations, but not limitations to where you decide to fight and when you DOW countries.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

A short status report regarding GS v4.0.

At the moment we don't have any known bugs that we need to fix. New bugs haven't been reported for more than a month.

According to the testers GS v4.0 seems to be pretty balanced. So we're now discussing whether we will release GS v4.0 now or if even more testing is needed. There won't be any new functionality added to GS v4.0. All we can do now is to tweak some settings in different txt files if we feel that's required.

Soon we will tell Slitherine that they can make a new installer and we will have to wait for a release window. GS v4.0 will not have the highest priority since they're working on releasing new game titles at the moment. Based on prior experiences I would say it takes about 2 months until a new version is ready via the installer.

Would there be an interest for some players to download GS v4.0 via a ZIP file until the installer is up (similar to the beta testers)? If so we can hear with Slitherine if they could accept such a solution pending the installer to be released. The downside with the ZIP version is that if something goes wrong then there is not much help you can get. You need to get back to GS v3.1 by yourself and so on.

[glaude1955]

Would there be an interest for some players to download GS v4.0 via a ZIP file until the installer is up (similar to the beta testers)? If so we can hear with Slitherine if they could accept such a solution pending the installer to be released. The downside with the ZIP version is that if something goes wrong then there is not much help you can get. You need to get back to GS v3.1 by yourself and so on.

Good idea.
With JSGME, it is not difficult to install new files and to remove these files if necessary.
JSGME is a wonderful tool and it is very easy to use it.

Yves