RE: 1.05.59 rule changes?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: 1.05.59 rule changes?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 2:22:25 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

This version was not intended for release yet. The download was not intended to be enabled.

If you downloaded this, please do not use it.

A correct version will be uploaded and announced later today.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to zxr8421)

Post #: 31

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 2:23:45 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

Which of the changes in this patch will effect present games. I know, I think, that data changes will not apply but what about other things?

At present the game I am playing is only at turn 5, would a re-start be the best option?

Probaly have little effect, but Flaviusx would be one to ask.

It will mainly effect games past March 1942 from what I see.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to bdtj1815)

Post #: 32

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 2:25:06 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

This version was not intended for release yet. The download was not intended to be enabled.

If you downloaded this, please do not use it.

A correct version will be uploaded and announced later today.

Regards,

- Erik

Good remove the freaking A-bomb P.

1. New Rule - During any Snow turns between December 1941 and April 1942 (inclusive),
and any blizzard turns in March or April 1942, German attack CV factors are divided by
1.5. Any missed check (admin or combat skill) causes the attack CV to be further divided
by 2. The displayed on counter attack CV will be divided by 1.5 during these turns.

You guys are better then this lol

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 33

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 2:25:45 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Pelton - IMO you won't be happy with WitE until the Axis can stomp all over Russia, they can build oodles of everything, have no historical limitations, have flying Panzers that can travels 1000's of miles continuously away from Railheads etc. My suggestion is you use the editor to make your version of the game and be happy with it.

Again this is a personal attack not based on truth but a lie you made up. standard Mo for you.

I have have said more then once that the Russians need a tweak for 1942.

See I like talking about the game and not making up fairytales.

This patch is a nerf not a tweak.

Pelton

How is it a personal attack Pelton?

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 34

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 2:29:39 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

1. New Rule - During any Snow turns between December 1941 and April 1942 (inclusive),
and any blizzard turns in March or April 1942, German attack CV factors are divided by
1.5. Any missed check (admin or combat skill) causes the attack CV to be further divided
by 2. The displayed on counter attack CV will be divided by 1.5 during these turns.

Is an amazing huge German nerf beat down. A russian fanboys dream come true.

1942 now goes back to the WWI on the eastern front as it was before 1.05.

Pelton, you are exaggerating massively here! I for once am happy to see March Madness gone (if indeed, this will stop it). German �ber offensives in March 1942 were utterly unrealistic. And dividing combat value with 1.5 isn't the end of the world. The Germans will probably still be able to run more successful offensives in March 1942 that would be realistic. I am rather thinking this might be too little to stop March Madness, but we'll see when we play.

< Message edited by Tarhunnas -- 2/3/2012 2:30:05 PM >

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 35

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 2:38:51 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

1. New Rule - During any Snow turns between December 1941 and April 1942 (inclusive),
and any blizzard turns in March or April 1942, German attack CV factors are divided by
1.5. Any missed check (admin or combat skill) causes the attack CV to be further divided
by 2. The displayed on counter attack CV will be divided by 1.5 during these turns.

Is an amazing huge German nerf beat down. A russian fanboys dream come true.

1942 now goes back to the WWI on the eastern front as it was before 1.05.

Pelton, you are exaggerating massively here! I for once am happy to see March Madness gone (if indeed, this will stop it). German �ber offensives in March 1942 were utterly unrealistic. And dividing combat value with 1.5 isn't the end of the world. The Germans will probably still be able to run more successful offensives in March 1942 that would be realistic. I am rather thinking this might be too little to stop March Madness, but we'll see when we play.

How?

1. Russians recieve 120k per turn in replasements. yes or no?
2. Combat rations from 1942 on are bad for germans 2.5 to 1 in the vast majority of cases. yes or no?
3. pocketing units will be very very hard if possible at all vs a equal russian player. yes or no?

So we have I beleive 14 turns of a growing Russian OOB. Standard OOB is 5.5 million after blizzard all things being equal.

This means russian OOB in most cases 7+ million which is more then 1.25 million more then we are seeing in 1.05 games.

Also now the russian player can sit back and build forts for 4 months.

How is this not a game changer?

I am simply doing the math.

By late June the Russian player will had a huge advantage, huge as per pre 1.05.

Also the Russian player doesn't have to waste AP's rebuilding lost units from pockets in march 42. Which means allot more rifle corps at the front also before summer.

Pelton

< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/3/2012 2:39:52 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 36

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 2:41:51 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

exaggerating massively here

tell me how I am massively exaggerating here?

How?

Based on the math and not personall attacks P

< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/3/2012 2:42:36 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 37

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 2:54:16 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/3/2012 2:56:14 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 38

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 2:55:03 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

1. Russians recieve 120k per turn in replasements. yes or no?

Yes. So what? Should they have less? I doubt it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

2. Combat rations from 1942 on are bad for germans 2.5 to 1 in the vast majority of cases. yes or no?

I agree with you there, but this has nothing to do with March Madness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

3. pocketing units will be very very hard if possible at all vs a equal russian player. yes or no?

So we have I beleive 14 turns of a growing Russian OOB. Standard OOB is 5.5 million after blizzard all things being equal.

This means russian OOB in most cases 7+ million which is more then 1.25 million more then we are seeing in 1.05 games.

Also now the russian player can sit back and build forts for 4 months.

There won't be many forts built in snow and mud. And they are not worth much nowadays anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

How is this not a game changer?

I am simply doing the math.

By late June the Russian player will had a huge advantage, huge as per pre 1.05.

Also the Russian player doesn't have to waste AP's rebuilding lost units from pockets in march 42. Which means allot more rifle corps at the front also before summer.

There should realistically be no large pockets in March 1942. If the game needs balancing, unrealistic pocketing in spring 1942 is not the way to accomplish that.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 39

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 2:56:34 PM

Baelfiin

Posts: 2978
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

Which of the changes in this patch will effect present games. I know, I think, that data changes will not apply but what about other things?

At present the game I am playing is only at turn 5, would a re-start be the best option?

If only on turn 5 I would restart, just so you have all of the data changes and yoou are only losing 5 turns of work.

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.

(in reply to bdtj1815)

Post #: 40

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 2:58:31 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

exaggerating massively here

tell me how I am massively exaggerating here?

How?

Based on the math and not personall attacks P

Dividing CV with 1.5 is not much. My guess is that the Germans will be able to attack to an unrealistic degree in March 1942 even with this change. My guess, mind you, I think we will have to try it out before we can express ourselves with certainty.

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 41

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 2:59:19 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

Pelton, although I agree with you that there's still room for improvement when it comes to losses/the size of the Soviet army, we can't really "balance it" with a one size fits all approach for the simple reason that all games will be different. There will be games where the Soviets are getting their behinds handed to them, and games where they won't. Likewise, there will be games where the Axis player manages to preserve his forces, and games where he won't.

As the combat system won't be overhauled for the moment, that means the oddities of the combat system (like retreat losses probably being too high for smaller attacks and too low for big ones and wildly fluctuating Soviet losses when attacking) will be there for the future, and they can't be balanced because the problem is with the combat system, not something that's easier to balance like replacements.

Still, the Soviets do need an ahistorically large army to get anywhere, and we're still waiting on numerous instances of the Soviets actually winning a game either at or before the historical end of the war in Europe, or later.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 42

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 3:07:13 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

1. Russians recieve 120k per turn in replasements. yes or no?

Yes. So what? Should they have less? I doubt it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

2. Combat rations from 1942 on are bad for germans 2.5 to 1 in the vast majority of cases. yes or no?

I agree with you there, but this has nothing to do with March Madness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

3. pocketing units will be very very hard if possible at all vs a equal russian player. yes or no?

So we have I beleive 14 turns of a growing Russian OOB. Standard OOB is 5.5 million after blizzard all things being equal.

This means russian OOB in most cases 7+ million which is more then 1.25 million more then we are seeing in 1.05 games.

Also now the russian player can sit back and build forts for 4 months.

There won't be many forts built in snow and mud. And they are not worth much nowadays anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

How is this not a game changer?

I am simply doing the math.

By late June the Russian player will had a huge advantage, huge as per pre 1.05.

Also the Russian player doesn't have to waste AP's rebuilding lost units from pockets in march 42. Which means allot more rifle corps at the front also before summer.

quote:

There should realistically be no large pockets in March 1942. If the game needs balancing, unrealistic pocketing in spring 1942 is not the way to accomplish that.

1. Not saying it should be changed it is what it is.
2. Sure it does. If you can't pocket units from 42 to 45 you are helping the russian player reduse your OOB. Katza and many other agree with this. Pockets during snow will not be possible.
3. The forts do mean allot during 42- to some wheres around January 44. Sure they mean nothing in 41 or from mid 44 to end. but they mean allot during 42 and 43 for both sides.

There should realistically be no large pockets in March 1942. If the game needs balancing, unrealistic pocketing in spring 1942 is not the way to accomplish that.

I agree but having an unrealistic WW I on the eastern front is no way to accomplish that also.

The only thing you disgree with me on is the forts.

The Red Horde will have an extra 1.5 million men at the front, allot more Rifle corp. and 4 months worth of forts.

yes or no?

It is the math.

1942 is back to WWI on the eastern front by design.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 43

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 3:15:45 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Pelton, although I agree with you that there's still room for improvement when it comes to losses/the size of the Soviet army, we can't really "balance it" with a one size fits all approach for the simple reason that all games will be different. There will be games where the Soviets are getting their behinds handed to them, and games where they won't. Likewise, there will be games where the Axis player manages to preserve his forces, and games where he won't.

As the combat system won't be overhauled for the moment, that means the oddities of the combat system (like retreat losses probably being too high for smaller attacks and too low for big ones and wildly fluctuating Soviet losses when attacking) will be there for the future, and they can't be balanced because the problem is with the combat system, not something that's easier to balance like replacements.

Still, the Soviets do need an ahistorically large army to get anywhere, and we're still waiting on numerous instances of the Soviets actually winning a game either at or before the historical end of the war in Europe, or later.

Pre 1.05 most games were static in 1942, which was a disaster to the player base and drove 100's of poeple away from the game, because it was hmm boring from 42 on in most cases.

We are now back to WWI on the eastern front. I know the engine is screwy and needs and over haul for sure, but to totally nerf the German side to make sure the red Horde is huge by June of 1942 is not helping anything.

Katza vs 76mm is going to be the best poeple can hope for all things being equal.

I beleive that tweaking morale for the russian side would have more then fixed the issue. This uber nerf to try and make up for a screwed up combat system will just turn more poeple off.

ALSO Kamil and myself are the only ones who are playing out a game were the german player knows he will lose.

It was started pre 1.05 and is totally a reflextion of what to expect from 1.06

I do not see or have seen a single AAR that is what you or 2by3 is looking for as far as the Russian player winning out.

So again Kamil and myself speak from personal exp unlike all of 2by3 or anyone esle for that matter on late war russian wins.

Pelton

< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/3/2012 3:21:26 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 44

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 3:21:02 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

Well, we will never know if 1942 would've been WWI on the Eastern Front if the Soviets used a more balanced disposition of their forces, keeping in mind that the Axis only successfully attacked and made significant advances in the areas where the Soviets were spread thin or could easily be pocketed due to faulty dispositions.

I agree that stalemates are boring, but that doesn't mean they're ahistorical per definition.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 45

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 3:21:57 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
We are now back to WWI on the eastern front. I know the engine is screwy and needs and over haul for sure, but to totally nerf the German side to make sure the red Horde is huge by June of 1942 is not helping anything.

Making statements like this is not going to help your case. Actually playing the public beta once it releases later today and giving us feedback based on play is the best way to influence the game. We don't see this as a "total nerf" and we think games will still be quite mobile in 1942, much more so than in the older versions.

The current beta contains a bug, there are no changes being made on the balance side in the correct beta being released later today.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 46

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 3:24:42 PM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

Pelton - how about playing with the patch before nerfing the whole thing?

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 47

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 3:30:36 PM

Commanderski

Posts: 927
Joined: 12/12/2010
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

The rule changers look impressive and it's obvious that Matrix and 2X3 put a lot of effort and thought into this.

I think that maybe we should wait until it's released and we actually use it before we make any criticisms.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 48

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 3:30:58 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
We are now back to WWI on the eastern front. I know the engine is screwy and needs and over haul for sure, but to totally nerf the German side to make sure the red Horde is huge by June of 1942 is not helping anything.

Making statements like this is not going to help your case. Actually playing the public beta once it releases later today and giving us feedback based on play is the best way to influence the game. We don't see this as a "total nerf" and we think games will still be quite mobile in 1942, much more so than in the older versions.

The current beta contains a bug, there are no changes being made on the balance side in the correct beta being released later today.

Regards,

- Erik

I played or am playing in 19 games and I have given allot of feed back which generally results in german nerf after german nerf.

This patch is nothing more then a nerf beat down.

I dont need to play test stuff everyone alrdy knows.

Kamil vs Pelton is what we are back to. The one and only game into 1944 where the German player will lose.

Thats all the play testing you guys should need.

If one of the guys drops out I start another game, but we both alrdy know what the results will be as we know with 1v1=2v1 months before it was changed.

Wasting the player bases time before 1v1=2v1 was nerfed drove off allot of poeple.

I dont see how wasting months play testing this is going to help 2by3 repution.

The Red Horde will have an extra 1.5 million men at the front, allot more Rifle corp. and 4 months worth of forts.

yes or no?

This patch by design is setting game back months.

Pelton

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 49

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 3:35:23 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Pelton - how about playing with the patch before nerfing the whole thing?

Ok P stop the lies can we?

I am only pointing out what ONE rule change has done.

I am fine with everything esle.

1v1=2v1 was a game changer.
Nerfing the old HQ build-ups was a game changer
There is a long list of changes that have helped balance the game.

This nerf is a game changer it effects everything after March of 1942 by design.

The Red Horde will have an extra 1.5 million men at the front, allot more Rifle corp. and 4 months worth of forts.

yes or no?

Pelton

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to paullus99)

Post #: 50

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 3:35:55 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commanderski

The rule changers look impressive and it's obvious that Matrix and 2X3 put a lot of effort and thought into this.

I think that maybe we should wait until it's released and we actually use it before we make any criticisms.

The Red Horde will have an extra 1.5 million men at the front, allot more Rifle corp. and 4 months worth of forts.

yes or no?

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Commanderski)

Post #: 51

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 3:37:14 PM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

Pelton - and you've tested this? I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you, it isn't worth my time. I'm going to dive back into the game and see some results with my own eyes - something that you're not even bothering to do.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 52

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 3:38:02 PM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

quote:

The Red Horde will have an extra 1.5 million men at the front, allot more Rifle corp. and 4 months worth of forts.

You conveniently ignore the fact that the axis have more men and more divisions in 1944/45 due to avoiding Stalingrad-like losses. (Look at the axis OOB in the Oloren/terje AAR -3.2m Germans in April 1945 and 7k AFVs)

There is zero evidence that having 1.5m more men in the OOB is getting the soviets into Berlin before 1st May 1945. The Axis are capturing Moscow far more often.

I do agree that 1943 can become a WW1 slugfest, but this is due to neither side being able to create conditions for successful mobile warfare - the Axis know that a Citadel re-dux is doomed, and the Red Army isn't quite able to tip the front into mobile attack/defence. I am really not sure this is due to the game structure/mechanics, but rather axis hindsight, and Soviet inexperience of building the right army and using it in a more focused manner. There are signs of some Soviet players "turning the corner", and we may start seeing unstoppable Soviet juggernauts being created in 1943, rather than 1944 onwards, which is all we have seen in AARs to date.

As the game has evolved, several hurdles have been met and needed to be overcome: Firstly the Blizzard which was fixed in 1.04, then the 1942 Wall of level 4 forts, which was fixed with 1.05, but with the by-product of "March Madness".

The changes in 1.05.59 still give the Axis the best chance of creating a winning position in 1941, and a non-losing position in 1942, until such time as we see Soviet players learning better survival techniques for 1941/42 and learning how to build a war-winning Army in 1943, in the same way the Axis learned to survive and do well in 1941 prior to 1.04, when the cards were definitely stacked against them.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 53

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 3:49:40 PM

Baelfiin

Posts: 2978
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

I played it out vs Hoooper till the end. That end was in 1944 however

_____________________________

(in reply to karonagames)

Post #: 54

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 4:03:02 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commanderski

The rule changers look impressive and it's obvious that Matrix and 2X3 put a lot of effort and thought into this.

I think that maybe we should wait until it's released and we actually use it before we make any criticisms.

The Red Horde will have an extra 1.5 million men at the front, allot more Rifle corp. and 4 months worth of forts.

yes or no?

No.

Rifle corps can't be built before June. They are mostly not worth making in 1942 anyways. Forts get built as slow as molasses during mud and snow. Level 3s are nearly impossible to build in mud, as a matter of fact, even with generous engineering support.

The Red Army will also be grappling with a severe command crisis which you ought to be able to take advantage of.

You will no longer have an ahistorical and deeply silly Axis March 1942 offensive. This is completely intended.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 55

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 4:08:41 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

Actually, I'd say some of the posters are right with their comments that whether the offensives in March are a thing of the past in all or most games is not entirely clear, because German mobile units CV's are not all that low even when divided, as even though German CV's are like they are in February, the effective Soviet CV's are essentially halved from February to March. A lot still depends on how far the Soviets push their forces, and whether they have a defensive position they can fall back to.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 56

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 4:27:16 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

I want to see it in action, but I have to say I think it's pretty balanced.

I don't think raising the Soviet Morale in 1942 isn't going to change the Red Army greatly; through unit rotation, you should have most units above 45 in morale anyway. Taking the Morale bonus from Guards/Shock makes sense, and prevents morale inflation in the late game (Regular Rifle units attached to Shock armies would have an effective NM of 70; a few attacks, and you are there)

The 1942 Snow change are big for the Soviets, obviously.

The Command changes are huge. They have several effects, beyond being a "pain":

1. More Army HQs. This means more Soviet Manpower is tied-up as typists, rather than in combat units. More importantly, it dilutes Soviet leadership. There are not enough good Army commanders to go around, so Soviets will now have some pretty poor ones on duty.
2. Tank Armies, in particular, are small; 15 is enough to Command only 3 TANK/MECH CORPS (plus a Brigade or two). That's small!

3. The Manpower Production change will shave approx. 11,000 Manpower PER TURN from Soviet production in the late war. That's a million men by the time 1945 rolls around. That's pretty important.

_____________________________

(in reply to bdtj1815)

Post #: 57

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 4:30:35 PM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I want to see it in action, but I have to say I think it's pretty balanced.

I don't think raising the Soviet Morale in 1942 isn't going to change the Red Army greatly; through unit rotation, you should have most units above 45 in morale anyway. Taking the Morale bonus from Guards/Shock makes sense, and prevents morale inflation in the late game (Regular Rifle units attached to Shock armies would have an effective NM of 70; a few attacks, and you are there)

The 1942 Snow change are big for the Soviets, obviously.

The Command changes are huge. They have several effects, beyond being a "pain":

1. More Army HQs. This means more Soviet Manpower is tied-up as typists, rather than in combat units. More importantly, it dilutes Soviet leadership. There are not enough good Army commanders to go around, so Soviets will now have some pretty poor ones on duty.
2. Tank Armies, in particular, are small; 15 is enough to Command only 3 TANK/MECH CORPS (plus a Brigade or two). That's small!

3. The Manpower Production change will shave approx. 11,000 Manpower PER TURN from Soviet production in the late war. That's a million men by the time 1945 rolls around. That's pretty important.

Indeed. There is enough to piss off, or please, just about everyone in this patch. That's generally a sign of getting things right. I play both sides, so find myself having to make some pretty serious adjustments to get aligned with the new changes.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 58

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 4:32:46 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Q-ball, I actually plan on overloading my regular armies up to 24 CP. I just don't think it's worth trying to squeeze in the Red Army into 18 CP armies from either an AP or manpower standpoint. APs especially. These are scarce as it is.

And yes, I'm fully aware that this means eating a 6 point penalty on all command rolls at the army level. So it goes. At least you can stick Zhukov in STAVKA now and he can help things some.

Tank armies I will keep under command maximums...if I bother building them, that is. I'm still not sure they're better than putting all your mobile forces into shock/guards armies. I like the admin bonus better.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 59

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/3/2012 4:34:39 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

March Madness is a side effect of the too permissive logistics in WITE.

IMO the current March Madness is a result of overextended Soviets low on supply meeting well supplied Blizzard-sheltered Germans. The results are not unreasonable. "March-Madness" isn't occurring with German units that had to man the line, that would be unreasonable.

The real problem is that Germans can move too many Blizzard-sheltered forces too quickly from Germany to the frontlines, at a time when the supply system should be redlining just to resupply the units in the field, in other words, their rail cap should be nerfed to bone from December to February and be restored by April. Nerf Rail Cap and the problem is fixed. Instead, the Germans now have even less ability to make local counter attacks and this I think is going in the wrong direction.

BTW, I still miss the German Infantry getting their proper Artillery allotment. Otherwise it looks to be an excellent patch.

Next up hopefully Isolation effects and Mountain Winter Warfare.

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 60