version v1.317

[Stratego (dev)]

version v1.316 is published

[DreJaDe]

There's still a mistake on the Japanese grenade not having the new bonus...

I thought it was fixed already caused of how fast the sniper was done... Guess not.

[Stratego (dev)]

japan grenage(type 97 mine): fixed (60%->260%)

[DreJaDe]

Aoww dev version needs to be updated even when the new version was already downloaded.

[Stratego (dev)]

ok!

uos 5

[Stratego (dev)]

new changes uos already
-----------
New units/techs:
General Patton
Change:Yamato range changed: 7->6
Change:Littorio power changed to 28->38
Change:Changed Cruiser ranges on Furutaka and Algerie: 6->5
Change:Seaplane BV238 available from start Indiustry level
Change:P39 Aircobra (in all nations) is fighter only now (loses bombing ability)


please check if Patton ok, and if so all other generals go in in this version.

[DreJaDe]

I was thinking.
Them having "noncombat vehicles " makes then easy to kill. If it's possible, maybe "general" unit can have it's own category and snipers are the only one who will have bonus against it.

Also
P-39 aircobra should now be 5 turns due to removal of bombs.
US sea plane should be 6 turn as Jason said.

[Stratego (dev)]

I was thinking.
Them having "noncombat vehicles " makes then easy to kill. If it's possible, maybe "general" unit can have it's own category and snipers are the only one who will have bonus against it.

Also
P-39 aircobra should now be 5 turns due to removal of bombs.
US sea plane should be 6 turn as Jason said.

generals its own category to be harder to kill: i personally like it being same as other jeeps, but @Jasondunkel ?
us seaplane: ok modified to 6 turns.
p-39: @Jasondunkel ?

[Marine25]

Its nice to have it in game, but those general in jeep , it is better to make it just general without names, just general. Another thing is, it is also better to add those generals in foot and name them in specific name. If you agree

[Stratego (dev)]

Its nice to have it in game, but those general in jeep , it is better to make it just general without names, just general.

why?

Another thing is, it is also better to add those generals in foot and name them in specific name. If you agree

i think on foot unit is too slow to make , that is why i suggested a jeep form, u suggest foot form too? or only foot form? and will that better for some reason?

[Jasondunkel]

I was thinking.
Them having "noncombat vehicles " makes then easy to kill. If it's possible, maybe "general" unit can have it's own category and snipers are the only one who will have bonus against it.

Also
P-39 aircobra should now be 5 turns due to removal of bombs.
US sea plane should be 6 turn as Jason said.

generals its own category to be harder to kill: i personally like it being same as other jeeps, but @Jasondunkel ?
us seaplane: ok modified to 6 turns.
p-39: @Jasondunkel ?

yes the p-39 is than a fighterplane so it has 5 turns to build

[Jasondunkel]

I would suggest bringing a general into play for all types of weapons.
I wouldn't care if they were named or not.
In addition, these generals should give an extra bust in an aura area for this weapon type.

overall there shouldn't be too many generals in the game, maybe a maximum of 3 per weapon type and the production costs should increase per general.
E.g. the first general costs 4 rounds, the second then costs 10 rounds and the third then 18

the generals are then also in the corresponding vehicle of their branch of service
e.g. if we work with names after all, e.g. Yamamoto would then go to sea with a ship

[Stratego (dev)]

general for all weapons:
that would be too much generals, i thought to have about 2-3 generals per nation maximum. but tell me what you thought maybe not more, so example US, what generals you would put to US?

E.g. the first general costs 4 rounds, the second then costs 10 rounds and the third then 18
so u say it should lock and unlock the next generals?

Yamamoto:
on a ship! good!

is there any other you would put in some other vehicle? eg. maybe put in a light tank sone of them? was there any generals using a light tank IRL?

[Marine25]

Its nice to have it in game, but those general in jeep , it is better to make it just general without names, just general.

why?

Because those generals are not specified. Example, Patton is always in foot in the time of Tank Battles, Gen. McArthur is always at the back of his soldier during battlefield, they can lead war in foot such as officer.

Another thing is, it is also better to add those generals in foot and name them in specific name. If you agree

i think on foot unit is too slow to make , that is why i suggested a jeep form, u suggest foot form too? or only foot form? and will that better for some reason?
[/quote]

I suggest the two forms in general, but general in jeep are just general while the foot form are the specified general, we can have two forms of general in every nation.(except US. US has two foot generals with one Vehicled General)

[Stratego (dev)]

I suggest the two forms in general, but general in jeep are just general while the foot form are the specified general, we can have two forms of general in every nation.(except US. US has two foot generals with one Vehicled General)

this one is not possible to make currently (engine not capable).

Patton is always in foot

others what u think?
shall we sacrifice fast movement to have foot generals?

[DreJaDe]

I suggest the two forms in general, but general in jeep are just general while the foot form are the specified general, we can have two forms of general in every nation.(except US. US has two foot generals with one Vehicled General)

this one is not possible to make currently (engine not capable).

Patton is always in foot

others what u think?
shall we sacrifice fast movement to have foot generals?

Generals always ride jeep. That's a common thing, it's fast, easy to unmount, easy to mount, easy to see everything.

The reason why they are seen on foot is because of propaganda and obviously, it would hurt their ass always sitting.

But...
We can always put a general on a car or smt. The problem that I have is that the transport on this game still doesn't drop 1 unit like how it is in AOS.

If that is done, I can agree with this since it would be a pain to make them.

Or, there can be an unmount/mount ability like the elven cavalry in AOF whenever there's a jeep, they can mount on it.

[Stratego (dev)]

ok so you vote for general being fast and drawn into a jeep.
-------------------------------------

tranport: ??

how "transport not dropping" fits into this topic?
the "general" in jeep is not a "transport" case. that is a single unit only the image is like a jeepand a general in it.

or u referring to something else?

[DreJaDe]

ok so you vote for general being fast and drawn into a jeep.
-------------------------------------

tranport: ??

how "transport not dropping" fits into this topic?
the "general" in jeep is not a "transport" case. that is a single unit only the image is like a jeepand a general in it.

or u referring to something else?

I mean that if the general is a foot unit. You can always just put it in transport trucks. That way, you can still move them fast.

The problem I have though why I don't want to agree with a foot general is because of I put a unit on truck transport, if the transport is killed, it wouldn't drop anything like in in AOS.

It might not look connected but its a big thing for me since generals are a big investment.

[Stratego (dev)]

i prefer fast generals, instead of using transports - that is a pain to use

[DreJaDe]

i prefer fast generals, instead of using transports - that is a pain to use

We've been already using the foot officer so we are already use to slow ones. Maybe that's the reason why they prefer foot ones.

Though, I do agree with you with one being fast.

[Marine25]

I also fast general, but like Officer they can be in foot. Or maybe like wat @drejade said, maybe we can make it mount and unmount unit

[Marine25]

And I think the image are too small Maybe We can change the image

[Marine25]

Please change the image of General Patton with this. I Resize it because the previous are too small

[Marine25]

Please change the image of General Patton with this. I Resize it because the previous are too small

[DreJaDe]

Please change the image of General Patton with this. I Resize it because the previous are too small

Way too big dude.

That's even bigger than the heavy tanks

[Marine25]

Thats okay dude I think, because the previous image is so small, I just resize it with those infantries

[Marine25]

Thats okay dude I think, because the previous image is so small, I just resize it with the same size of those infantries. Infantries are also bigger than tanks so maybe it can be good like this than the previous small image

[Marine25]

I have some of here, if stratego will agrre then I'll continue to resize the others

[Stratego (dev)]

ok... but... the jeep can not be bigger than other jeeps.

[Marine25]

Yes, but if we make the jeep small then the image of our General will be smaller