Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

Now, let it be known, I will still bitch about turn 4 mud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Sorry I hurt your feeling, but I am tring to point out why the patch is simply a GHC nerf.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

Now, let it be known, I will still bitch about turn 4 mud.

My own view has always been that German players are insane for ever considering playing a grand campaign with random weather. Yes, you might get lucky later on with snow instead of blizzard turns and whatnot.

But that hardly makes up for mud in July.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Ketza makes my very point more clearly "Not complaining just pointing out the fact. I have already seen in most of my Soviet games Axis players throwing in the towel very early."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

Now, let it be known, I will still bitch about turn 4 mud.

My own view has always been that German players are insane for ever considering playing a grand campaign with random weather. Yes, you might get lucky later on with snow instead of blizzard turns and whatnot.

But that hardly makes up for mud in July.

Hey..I'm playing Pieter with random weather on. I believe it hurts the Soviets more so than the Germans. So you might get stalled as the Germans one turn during the summer in one or more zones. It could just as easily hit a zone affecting the Soviets rather than the Germans or not happen at all. Then in mud season it can be clear or snow, something the Soviets don't want to see, or you could end up with snow during the blizzard and all of Feb 42..again not good for the Soviets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Sorry I hurt your feeling, but I am tring to point out why the patch is simply a GHC nerf.

You didn't hurt my feelings any.

As for reaching historical lines in 41 as the Germans against an opponent of equal skill..sure you can, but it will be and should be a tough game.

Like I said before, it is no nerf. It changed an exploited game function to be more in line with what was originally intended. By the way, I'm interested in what "politics" you figure were the reason for this change. It was discussed on the tester forum and the game designers made their decision and was added to the beta patch at the last minute.

Knowing that this is a beta patch, things can and usually do change at times. These beta patches are released to let the public play them without having to wait for the official patch. Sometimes we get a few weeks, sometimes we only get a day or two when changes are made. Then consider there are only a few active testers now and they all have regular lives too, so getting in a turn every couple days in a pbem is about as much as can be expected.

Don't forget in this 1.04 beta patch there have been changes made to make the blizzard much more survivable by the Germans, Soviet armament points have been drastically cut, and the refit morale increase was removed from frontline units in refit.

So to say 1.04 is all a German nerf is incorrect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I think it is really a luck thing. If you get lucky or unlucky with the weather at a crucial turn, it can affect the whole campaign, for both sides. I am happy to play with random weather as the German, I have indeed done that in several campaigns, for example in my AAR http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2792361. In that campaign, random weather had no dramatic effects either way. However, I do think that random weather is a little too random. It would be very nice to have it a little less wild and crazy. For example, if there is to be mud in July or August, I think it should be some kind of "summer mud" with much less sever effects than the spring and autumn Rasputitsa.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Sabre21 The title of the thread is Patch 1.04.22 to much of a German nerf and not Patch 1.04 to much of a German nerf?

I been playing on-line games for 15yrs and have played in more then a few betas over the yrs so I have some clue whats going on behind the seens so to speak.

I am still tring to get someone to explain why HQ build-up has to happen 100 miles behind the front lines? When we do HQ build up a few 1000 trucks are sent to the units in question. Example V panzer corps has advanced 300 miles and can go another 100 with more fuel and supplies. So OKH sends 1000 trucks with extra fuel/ammo/supply.

What your saying with the current 1.04.22 is that the V corps has to retreat 100 miles.

Thats simply non-historical and not realistic at all. It was put in at the last sec and it shows.

I still haven't gotten an answer from anyone on this thread how thats historical or realistic. Just silance and talk of weather.

Just wanted to say thanks for the hard work, yes I have to agree many things in the past patchs have worked out to make the game more balanced ect. Thats what beta patchs are all about.


Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

You do realise, don't you, that WitE railheads advance about twice as fast as the historical ones?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I am still tring to get someone to explain why HQ build-up has to happen 100 miles behind the front lines? When we do HQ build up a few 1000 trucks are sent to the units in question. Example V panzer corps has advanced 300 miles and can go another 100 with more fuel and supplies. So OKH sends 1000 trucks with extra fuel/ammo/supply.

quote:

I don't know about that, I was pretty sure the numbers were balanced out to mimick historical rates of advance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

quote:

I don't know about that, I was pretty sure the numbers were balanced out to mimick historical rates of advance.

I’m really not buying this, I’m afraid.

Even the primitive original WitE delineated a 1942 start Axis rail net which followed 3 or 4 main routes, none of which reached the frontline and with none of the sidelines converted. The impeccably researched OCS game ‘Case Blue’ has the following net converted by 12 May 1942 for its Kharkov scenario-

To just west of Belgorod.
Kharkov, and a line just to the south of Kharkov towards Lozovaya.
About half way between Krasnograd running SE to Lozovaya.
From SW to just SW of Lozovaya
One line running from the south, presumably from Gorlovka to Kramatorskaya and Artemovsk.

With a maximum OCS system conversion rate of 8 x 5km hexes per week, that’s 25 miles a week, 2.5 WitE hexes, right? That half hex of course creates a problem for WitE, if it were to agree with OCS values, but you can even convert 4 hexes in a good week, when terrain isn’t getting in the way and you don't have to move to your first conversion hex. That’s aside from the Baltic zone.

My current German opponent has left most of the OCS given historical railheads of May 1942 way behind by December 1941. Naturally, I’ve done the same.

The problem is three fold. As you point out, there is no distinction between single and double track. You could add the lack of distinction between port capacities to that. But also the FBDs just move too fast. On top of that, you have all the road building units working on rail track instead of doing their real job- maintaining, repairing and replacing the abysmal Russian roads which lamentably, didn’t make it onto the WitE map.

Add the state of the roads, ports and rail together and you have the closest point this game gets to being broken, in my view. It looks to me like constraints of one kind or another forced an unsatisfactory compromise on this aspect of the game. Not for the first time, I express my sincere hope that at some point, when more immediate problems are resolved, it be returned to and given the attention it deserves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

What Flavio said. There was no nerf. The area down south is pretty much unaffected due to the proximity of the Rumanian border and that supply base. Pieter and myself are currently playing a pbem with me as the Germans. We are on turn 3 so far. Pieter by the way is a very experienced Soviet player. I would rate him in the top 3 Soviet testers we have. None the less, and despite checkerboarding, on T3 I am 50 miles north of Pskov, at the river bend in the center, and sitting on the outskirts of Kiev and Odessa with Tarnopol, Proskurov and Vinnitsa in my possesion. I have yet to use Hq-build-up although I am in position with 6 different panzer corps, 2 in each army group capable of using it next turn if I choose to do so.

There was no nerf? Lol do you think we are that stupid to beleive that fairytale? 100% of the changes were 100% to nerf the GHC, thats the facts jack. EVERYTHING in this patch was to nerf the GHC, there was nothing in the patch to address a single SHC issue other then positives.

Yes yes your at them positions big deal any average GHC player can get to them, now you are stuck. Barely in reach of your supply heads that move 3 or 4 hexs a turn, in other words your out of options other then the boring small breakthoughs.

North: The normal right hook in the north is 100% not possible. It will take way to long to move railheads past the lake, which gives the SHC way to many turns to stop you. In other words your now stuck with the historical BORING seige of Leningrad.

Center: Your at the land bridge big deal again, your waiting on the railheads, PLUS the south is 100% not safe, there is noway the GHC can get close to the normal historical Nov 1941 lines. Which means you will be facing atleast 20+ more units. The normal Marsh incirclement is 100% not doable by turn 5-7 now. So in other words the center is now BORING, you got to wait on railheads or waste 100"s of tanks tring to pound out a few hexs a turn for very little space. The historical lines of Nov 1941 are clearly not doable vs a good SHC player.

South: Again your stuck doing gimp incirclements and waiting on railheads where u are now. The Nov 1941 lines are just not even close to doable vs a good SHC player. In other words Boring after turn 3-5.

You play tested to turn 3? I alrdy play tested vs myself to turn 7 now 2 times. I have a job 3 kids, their are no magic bullets for the SHC, its a basic defence, checher board and counter attack when possible.

The game needed some minor tweaks bro, but this is really way way over reaching.

Before the patch vs a good SHC player the South historical Nov 1941 lines were not doable to start with. Center was about right and the North, Leningrad was a good possiblity. So on balance the game was close to historical with a few what ifs, now its just a bore. There are no options after turn 4 other then very gimp pockets and grinding out a few hexs a turn, which will cause uber high losses, which will lead to a disaster for the average to beginner GHC player.

This patch will be a big turn off for many new comers to the game that want to play the GHC side.

Clearly this patch was not play tested at all, thats why your doing it after the fact. It was based more on politics of mismatchs and not what was needed to balance the game.

Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: kswanson1

I have to agree with your frustration. I want this game to be good – but it seems to be going all over the freakin’ place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rotfront

I'm not sure what the effect of the new 20MP rule will be for game balance, but I see why some people dont like it. The cut-off point is really quite arbitrary and constrains the freedom of choice. Another idea would be to let AP and truck costs rise exponentially with distance/MPs to railhead. For huge distances, the costs should then be punishing/prohibitive, but players could still decide to do it and take the costs, if they really see benefits outweigh costs. Just my 2 cents...

quote:

ORIGINAL: rotfront

I'm not sure what the effect of the new 20MP rule will be for game balance, but I see why some people dont like it. The cut-off point is really quite arbitrary and constrains the freedom of choice. Another idea would be to let AP and truck costs rise exponentially with distance/MPs to railhead. For huge distances, the costs should then be punishing/prohibitive, but players could still decide to do it and take the costs, if they really see benefits outweigh costs. Just my 2 cents...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: rotfront

I'm not sure what the effect of the new 20MP rule will be for game balance, but I see why some people dont like it. The cut-off point is really quite arbitrary and constrains the freedom of choice. Another idea would be to let AP and truck costs rise exponentially with distance/MPs to railhead. For huge distances, the costs should then be punishing/prohibitive, but players could still decide to do it and take the costs, if they really see benefits outweigh costs. Just my 2 cents...

That's a bad counterproposal. There comes a point where due to physical limitations using trucks for supply becomes self defeating; they consume as much supply moving it to the front as they bring in. It literally becomes impossible to keep supply going once you stretch out far enough. So distance has to be taken into consideration with a hard cap. The hard cap we've settled on may be too low, I leave that as an exercise for the reader. But some kind of cap is necessary, you cannot just stretch out to infinity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

James, I can predict exactly what would happen if we carried this proposal through: German players would recklessly burn through their truck and totally ignore logistical constraints.

If they somehow failed to win the game in 41, they'd resign.

This is just bad design.

You cannot march ad infinitum away from a railhead, period. Trucks will only get you so far. Jacking up the costs, even exponentially, will merely lead to gamey gambles as desicribed above which shouldn't be possible in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

James, I can predict exactly what would happen if we carried this proposal through: German players would recklessly burn through their truck and totally ignore logistical constraints.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If they somehow failed to win the game in 41, they'd resign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

This is just bad design.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
You cannot march ad infinitum away from a railhead, period. Trucks will only get you so far. Jacking up the costs, even exponentially, will merely lead to gamey gambles as desicribed above which shouldn't be possible in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Interestingly, I believe Dupuy showed that Gheghiz Khan has has the highest sustained march rates of any army in history (over long periods of time at least.) It's incredibly difficult to replicate his logistical achievements with industrial era military forces. Primitive logistics are surprisingly more robust in some cases.