1.08 Discussion

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

1.08 Discussion

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 >> 1.08 Discussion

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 2:58:26 AM

BJP III

Posts: 51
Joined: 2/22/2013
Status: offline

There are a couple of things I have noticed that seem to be different in 1.08 (and are not in the change log), and I wanted to make sure they are WAD.

1) Soviet HQs and airbases get 50 mechanized MPs (like their Axis counterparts).

2) There is no factory rail movement on T2 (in addition to T1 as in the past).

BTW, I really like the way that HQ/unit re-assignments are working now. It feels more much realistic.

Post #: 1

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 3:45:19 AM

hfarrish

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

-

< Message edited by hfarrish -- 6/8/2015 11:27:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to BJP III)

Post #: 2

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 4:40:34 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

The factory rail movement is in there. Item #105.

105. Evacuation of Soviet factories may only start in July 1941, that is one turn later than before

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 11/9/2014 5:41:53 AM >

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to hfarrish)

Post #: 3

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 5:05:55 AM

hfarrish

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

-

< Message edited by hfarrish -- 6/8/2015 11:27:13 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 4

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 9:23:26 AM

timmyab

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

quote:

ORIGINAL: BJP III
1) Soviet HQs and airbases get 50 mechanized MPs (like their Axis counterparts)

I think (1) has always been true in my experience.

That's odd because I thought they'd always had 25 MPs too.

One thing I am pleased about in 1.08 is that the Romanians are much stronger than they have been in recent patches (maybe even too strong?). I'm seeing 3 and 4 CV now instead of 1 and 2. The change from 35 to 40 morale also means that they are far less likely to rout when attacked.

(in reply to hfarrish)

Post #: 5

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 11:35:45 AM

Disgruntled Veteran

Posts: 615
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline

The starting morale for the Romanians is the same as before. Only the NM has changed. Not sure why their CV's have changed.

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 6

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 11:43:22 AM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Disgruntled Veteran

The starting morale for the Romanians is the same as before. Only the NM has changed. Not sure why their CV's have changed.

Squads of 17 men have 1.7x3 CV. This rule helps early Rumanians and German Motorized Squads most, though their late war rifle squads suffer. Soviets also sometimes benefit sometimes suffer.

(in reply to Disgruntled Veteran)

Post #: 7

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 3:10:19 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

Have encountered a problem with applying the patch in mid-game. Not a bug report, or a complaint, as I suspect in some way this is restoring the OOBs to what they should have been if the routines had worked properly (and I realise there is no point looking at problems caused by updating). As you can see, my total manpower (7.8m) looks correct, but about 500,000 have gone from the front line to the reserve pool (& the Germans seem to have had the reverse effect) with a lot of damage to the combat worthiness of my units.

To stress, this is not a complaint, just reporting as an observation.

In truth, 90% of the resulting changes have been great. All the T-26s/BT-7s/T-60s that were being retained in my light tanks slots have been bounced out the OOB and replaced by the huge stock of T-70s I had building up. Equally, really like the new refit routine as it is now a lot easier to prioritise key formations.

But, coming in the middle of the axis 1942 summer offensive, this is rather scary. Hopefully it resolves itself over a couple of turns of refit/replacements.

All the images are from the turn as received from SigUp, so it like with like but T54 was run under 1.07/15 and T55 with the patch.

This shows the headline shift in the OOB. All the numbers make sense apart from Soviet and German manpower - both notional and actual in the units. The Germans are up 90,000 and this can't be explained by new units as it looks they have a single new division. I've lost 700,000

And this is my losses, in effect I lost 28 divisions in a pocket, so the drop of 300,000 makes sense.

This shows the impact on what was my best stack leading a localised offensive. Collectively they have lost 13,000 men (no combat in either part turn)

But, I've gained 500,000 in the replacement pool. So the net position looks right, I've had a loss of about 200,000 in total combining in-unit manpower and those in the pool. But as in the third image, the short term impact is pretty awful ... eek

_____________________________

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 8

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 3:18:31 PM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

A little addition from my part regarding German manpower, the German manpower pool declined by about 70.000, so if all of them went into the OOB it would explain the rise of 90.000 when coupled with the newly arrived infantry division.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 9

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 3:21:26 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

A little addition from my part regarding German manpower, the German manpower pool declined by about 70.000, so if all of them went into the OOB it would explain the rise of 90.000 when coupled with the newly arrived infantry division.

that makes sense, I think what we are seeing is some sort of restoration to what should have been the situation if the old routines had worked. There are no inexplicable net changes in manpower, just the relative balance between on map and in reserve.

_____________________________

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 10

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 5:35:14 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

1) HQs and airbases were supposed to always have 50 MP, for both sides.

2) Engineer and construction units - simply those offmap units that are visible in CR when you will select "Eng" and "Const" only. Previously any SU in a HQ was eligible to be selected but it didn't make sense for me, to have AT, AA or Tank units assist in fort building.

3) Manpower drop. I think this will be the most serious issue people have with 1.08 and I'm open to discussion and to change it in 1.08.01. This is the consequence of two rules working together against the player, and I have already mentioned this in another post. Basically:
a) units in refit adjacent to enemy are considered not on refit
b) Soviet infantry units not on refit do not refill elements over 60% TOE (as to German infantry units in 1942+ over 70% TOE). The rule was hardened in 1.08 as the manual didn't state that only rifle squads in such units should be prevented from reinforcing over 60/70%, but that all elements should be affected.

This requires units to be properly rotated out of the frontline to be able to refill to 100% while on refit. AI is not subject to the second rule. In order for the problem to disappear either one of the rules should go away and my favourite for this is the second rule. My opinion on this is that if player is experiencing shortages it's his duty to lower MAX TOE of units to 60 or 70% and not being forced by the rules to this. Also, Axis suffer more from this rule as they have not enough units to implement rotation in required numbers, but the Soviets can. Also, this creates a snowball effect during withdrawal: imagine both sides have units in contact on refit. When one side withdraws, the other is able to refill to 100% because its units are not in contact with enemy during their logistics phase. But then they advance and estabilish contact with enemy units. Those units then do not refill to 100% during their logistics phase because they are in contact with enemy. Rinse and repeat.

So, I'm willing to change this for "1.08 Service Pack 1". The game will be more player friendly and one snowballing effect will be removed. Players will have more freedom in managing their forces, though they will probably have to use the MAX TOE function more often. For now the only solution is to rotate units out of the frontline.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 11

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 6:00:03 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

loki100, aside from the problem described above there are also things to consider for ongoing games switching from 1.07 to 1.08:
a) previously some losses were not visible in the statictics, they appear now, causing an artificial increase (if you have written down one set of data using 1.07 and one using 1.08 - as I did, due to external tracking in Excel).
b) some ground element classes belong to different category now: SPA counts as artillery and is included in those numbers, previously they counted as AFV; in the new generic data Assault Guns are AFV not SPA, but when you retain old data, the change is significant, and there are other side effects (unfortunately this can't be avoided).
c) units having squads with less than 10 men will be weaker, units with squads of over 10 men will be stronger in CV terms, hence 1941 Rumanians with 17-men squads get an increase in CV, mid-war Soviet squads see a decrease in CV, as do the late-war German squads. As rifle squad is major contributor to an infantry unit CV, the change is significant and visible on the counter (a 1-2 CV difference on-counter).

Perhaps there are also some other changes that affect your game, but most likely it's c) and refit blocking/max 60% CV. No longer the Soviet player can play having all his front-line units on refit (as I did). But as I said above I'm willing to reduce the problem and micromanagement by disabling the 60/70 rule.

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 12

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 6:28:01 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

...

Perhaps there are also some other changes that affect your game, but most likely it's c) and refit blocking/max 60% CV. No longer the Soviet player can play having all his front-line units on refit (as I did). But as I said above I'm willing to reduce the problem and micromanagement by disabling the 60/70 rule.

Hi your contribution (& the rest of you who developed this patch) already goes way beyond what could be reasonably expected, so there is no need/expectation to respond. I just thought it would be useful to put together that post so others looking to upgrade a game had some idea what to expect - clearly, all things being equal best done in a quiet mud turn when the short term consequences are minimal.

As a further test we swapped saves (with no moves) and the result was a huge flow from reserve back to my armies. The only units that didn't recover were those in contact (as designed). So I think it'll take me 1 or 2 turns to recover.

I'm going to treat this, in game, as the equivalent to the catastrophic blow to Soviet morale of the sequence of defeats at Kharkov, Voronezh and Rostov ... it also gives me a brilliant excuse if I lose

But all in all, the patch is fantastic. As a test I started a vs AI game under it and the difference is impressive - I was so pleased to produce all these 5-8 cv rifle divisions till I realised the Pzr divisions were running around at 30+ (using the revised cv routine) ... but great for learning so much about the impact of the command chain on combat efficiency.

_____________________________

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 13

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 8:00:02 PM

vandorenp

Posts: 1028
Joined: 8/4/2006
From: Suffolk, VA
Status: offline

Limiting what SU could.be assigned to forts was a surprise. Never thought to build with anything but Eng or const. Once built switch out for arty or aa.

_____________________________

Keydet

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 14

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 8:17:03 PM

timmyab

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Disgruntled Veteran
The starting morale for the Romanians is the same as before. Only the NM has changed. Not sure why their CV's have changed.

That's odd because my Romanians are starting at 40 morale under 1.08.
I think it's about right now. The 3rd and 4th armies are useful without being overpowered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael
a) units in refit adjacent to enemy are considered not on refit
b) Soviet infantry units not on refit do not refill elements over 60% TOE (as to German infantry units in 1942+ over 70% TOE). The rule was hardened in 1.08 as the manual didn't state that only rifle squads in such units should be prevented from reinforcing over 60/70%, but that all elements should be affected.

This requires units to be properly rotated out of the frontline to be able to refill to 100% while on refit. AI is not subject to the second rule. In order for the problem to disappear either one of the rules should go away and my favourite for this is the second rule. My opinion on this is that if player is experiencing shortages it's his duty to lower MAX TOE of units to 60 or 70% and not being forced by the rules to this. Also, Axis suffer more from this rule as they have not enough units to implement rotation in required numbers, but the Soviets can. Also, this creates a snowball effect during withdrawal: imagine both sides have units in contact on refit. When one side withdraws, the other is able to refill to 100% because its units are not in contact with enemy during their logistics phase. But then they advance and estabilish contact with enemy units. Those units then do not refill to 100% during their logistics phase because they are in contact with enemy. Rinse and repeat.

So, I'm willing to change this for "1.08 Service Pack 1". The game will be more player friendly and one snowballing effect will be removed. Players will have more freedom in managing their forces, though they will probably have to use the MAX TOE function more often. For now the only solution is to rotate units out of the frontline.

I'd like to get rid of (a), but with some advantages for units that are refitted out of the front line. So really only priority replacements for front line units on refit with no other refit benefits and maybe only 90% max TOE, something of that sort.
I don't see why (b) shouldn't be raised to 90% either. Surely divisions could be reinforced to near max TOE while in the front line? Just guessing on that though.
Also I've noticed that my non refitting Soviet units are TOEing up to 80%, not 60%.

(in reply to Disgruntled Veteran)

Post #: 15

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 10:31:44 PM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

Loki, I assume a lot of you units switched their squads to those defined in their OB and then hit the 60% rule as described by morvael. That would explain the manpower loss in units and gain in pool.

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 16

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 10:51:08 PM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

1) HQs and airbases were supposed to always have 50 MP, for both sides.

2) Engineer and construction units - simply those offmap units that are visible in CR when you will select "Eng" and "Const" only. Previously any SU in a HQ was eligible to be selected but it didn't make sense for me, to have AT, AA or Tank units assist in fort building.

3) Manpower drop. I think this will be the most serious issue people have with 1.08 and I'm open to discussion and to change it in 1.08.01. This is the consequence of two rules working together against the player, and I have already mentioned this in another post. Basically:
a) units in refit adjacent to enemy are considered not on refit
b) Soviet infantry units not on refit do not refill elements over 60% TOE (as to German infantry units in 1942+ over 70% TOE). The rule was hardened in 1.08 as the manual didn't state that only rifle squads in such units should be prevented from reinforcing over 60/70%, but that all elements should be affected.

This requires units to be properly rotated out of the frontline to be able to refill to 100% while on refit. AI is not subject to the second rule. In order for the problem to disappear either one of the rules should go away and my favourite for this is the second rule. My opinion on this is that if player is experiencing shortages it's his duty to lower MAX TOE of units to 60 or 70% and not being forced by the rules to this. Also, Axis suffer more from this rule as they have not enough units to implement rotation in required numbers, but the Soviets can. Also, this creates a snowball effect during withdrawal: imagine both sides have units in contact on refit. When one side withdraws, the other is able to refill to 100% because its units are not in contact with enemy during their logistics phase. But then they advance and estabilish contact with enemy units. Those units then do not refill to 100% during their logistics phase because they are in contact with enemy. Rinse and repeat.

So, I'm willing to change this for "1.08 Service Pack 1". The game will be more player friendly and one snowballing effect will be removed. Players will have more freedom in managing their forces, though they will probably have to use the MAX TOE function more often. For now the only solution is to rotate units out of the frontline.

A simple non-fix would be to simply up the set point from 60 SHC and 70 GHC to 70/75 SHC and 80/85 GHC.

AS GHC you can rotate divisions IF you set up your Corps right, each Corp has a 3 hex front and 4 divisions.

Just my 2 cents.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/9/2014 11:51:30 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 17

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/9/2014 11:06:23 PM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

loki100, aside from the problem described above there are also things to consider for ongoing games switching from 1.07 to 1.08:
a) previously some losses were not visible in the statictics, they appear now, causing an artificial increase (if you have written down one set of data using 1.07 and one using 1.08 - as I did, due to external tracking in Excel).
b) some ground element classes belong to different category now: SPA counts as artillery and is included in those numbers, previously they counted as AFV; in the new generic data Assault Guns are AFV not SPA, but when you retain old data, the change is significant, and there are other side effects (unfortunately this can't be avoided).
c) units having squads with less than 10 men will be weaker, units with squads of over 10 men will be stronger in CV terms, hence 1941 Rumanians with 17-men squads get an increase in CV, mid-war Soviet squads see a decrease in CV, as do the late-war German squads. As rifle squad is major contributor to an infantry unit CV, the change is significant and visible on the counter (a 1-2 CV difference on-counter).

Perhaps there are also some other changes that affect your game, but most likely it's c) and refit blocking/max 60% CV. No longer the Soviet player can play having all his front-line units on refit (as I did). But as I said above I'm willing to reduce the problem and micromanagement by disabling the 60/70 rule.

I would like to see the 60/70 rule disabled. I had built up a nice front with fresh units other than those that have been in combat and after applying the patch ALL my units are now only at 60% so all my planning has been wasted. I've been rotating entire armies and fronts out of the line to reorganize them. If anything make it so units in enemy zones of control can't go into refit mode. I don't see why units next to enemy units go down to 60%.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 18

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/10/2014 1:02:53 AM

Khaax01

Posts: 8
Joined: 6/28/2011
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

The factory rail movement is in there. Item #105.

105. Evacuation of Soviet factories may only start in July 1941, that is one turn later than before

Does that apply to the AI?

Just started a 1.08 against Sov AI and Minsk factories are there on turn 1, but not on Turn 2 - and I didn't go adjacent to them at any point.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 19

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/10/2014 1:10:16 AM

Khaax01

Posts: 8
Joined: 6/28/2011
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Status: offline

Quick observation on efficiency of JU87 on first turn airfield bombing - knowing that update no. 32 has reduced effective Sov AA, but surprised to see just how effective JUs are now - 24 planes destroying 100+ on the ground for no loss in one raid (sorry don't have exact stats to hand).

Overall this time round destroyed over 4200+ on T1, best under 1.07.15 was ~3750, so big improvement doing everything the same (fighter sweeps, tired Sov fighters from intercepts etc).

(in reply to Khaax01)

Post #: 20

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/10/2014 1:12:05 AM

Disgruntled Veteran

Posts: 615
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Albion99

Quick observation on efficiency of JU87 on first turn airfield bombing - knowing that update no. 32 has reduced effective Sov AA, but surprised to see just how effective JUs are now - 24 planes destroying 100+ on the ground for no loss in one raid (sorry don't have exact stats to hand).

Overall this time round destroyed over 4200+ on T1, best under 1.07.15 was ~3750, so big improvement doing everything the same (fighter sweeps, tired Sov fighters from intercepts etc).

Observed the same on both your posts.

(in reply to Khaax01)

Post #: 21

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/10/2014 1:28:30 AM

BJP III

Posts: 51
Joined: 2/22/2013
Status: offline

One "gamey" trick still seems to work -- as the Germans, you can still send the army-recon airbases around as mobile fill-up stations for your mechanized units. As long as one of those airbases is adjacent to the fuel-drop target, it gets 100% of the dropped amount.

My suggestion on this would be that in order to get the 100% transfer, the airbase in question would need to have at least one non-recon air unit in it. That would at least force the Germans to use their more valuable ABs. Plus it would make more sense. The Storchs and other light recon a/c do not require a full-scale airbase to take off and land. But JU-52s do, so they should need an AB to which they would be eligible to transfer.

(in reply to Khaax01)

Post #: 22

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/10/2014 2:51:47 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BJP III

One "gamey" trick still seems to work -- as the Germans, you can still send the army-recon airbases around as mobile fill-up stations for your mechanized units. As long as one of those airbases is adjacent to the fuel-drop target, it gets 100% of the dropped amount.

My suggestion on this would be that in order to get the 100% transfer, the airbase in question would need to have at least one non-recon air unit in it. That would at least force the Germans to use their more valuable ABs. Plus it would make more sense. The Storchs and other light recon a/c do not require a full-scale airbase to take off and land. But JU-52s do, so they should need an AB to which they would be eligible to transfer.

No, please no.
The Army airbases are WAD, I hope. It's not just a matter of having a suitable landing field, but also of radio communications, etc.

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to BJP III)

Post #: 23

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/10/2014 3:57:02 AM

Chris21wen

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

2) Engineer and construction units - simply those offmap units that are visible in CR when you will select "Eng" and "Const" only. Previously any SU in a HQ was eligible to be selected but it didn't make sense for me, to have AT, AA or Tank units assist in fort building.

I understand the reason for do it while it is building but what happens once the fort level 4 is reached. Can they be added then. If not there will be little point in keeping a FR in place once the level is reached.

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 24

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/10/2014 4:42:30 AM

Chris21wen

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Perhaps there are also some other changes that affect your game, but most likely it's c) and refit blocking/max 60% CV. No longer the Soviet player can play having all his front-line units on refit (as I did). But as I said above I'm willing to reduce the problem and micromanagement by disabling the 60/70 rule.

I would like to see the 60/70 rule disabled. I had built up a nice front with fresh units other than those that have been in combat and after applying the patch ALL my units are now only at 60% so all my planning has been wasted. I've been rotating entire armies and fronts out of the line to reorganize them. If anything make it so units in enemy zones of control can't go into refit mode. I don't see why units next to enemy units go down to 60%.

One of the problems with applying a patch mid scenario. It doesn't make it right having said that. Units at the front should retain whatever TOE% they had before the patch was applied.

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 25

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/10/2014 7:57:23 AM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

One of the problems with applying a patch mid scenario. It doesn't make it right having said that. Units at the front should retain whatever TOE% they had before the patch was applied.

Going by Denniss post it doesn't seem like the TOE drops, but rather that the elements switch and then don't refill past the TOE limit for frontline units.

(in reply to Chris21wen)

Post #: 26

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/10/2014 8:23:12 AM

cato12

Posts: 246
Joined: 7/19/2011
Status: offline

morvael,

will anymore updates to this patch, for example the refit changes you mentioned earlier, be fully compatible with games started with 1.08?

I don't want to start a new campaign and not be able to update it, especially regarding those refit changes.

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 27

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/10/2014 9:03:09 AM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

All game mechanics changes from the .exe will be applied to ongoing games, just the data changes require a new game to take effect.

(in reply to cato12)

Post #: 28

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/10/2014 10:34:26 AM

Peltonx

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

.

I would like to see the 60/70 rule disabled.

After more thought I have to agree the snowball effect is not HISTORICAL.

Disable

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 29

RE: 1.08 Discussion - 11/10/2014 11:08:17 AM

Wuffer

Posts: 402
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline

Some of the original concepts by GG may based more of modern (anglo-)amercian thoughts than reflecting the reality.
Both sides reinforced their front troops, sometimes even in fire. Pulling out a whole division was a luxus that no side could afford. But normally, you would expect at least some battalions in local, tactical reserve, which could be reinforced.
A suggestion might be just to slow reinforcement for units in direct enemy contact a bit, at least enough to compensate for attrition and minor casualities.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 30