Why so dead around here? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Time of Wrath



Message

willgamer -> Why so dead around here? (9/17/2009 7:34:56 PM)

Somehow I thought lots of people were waiting for the patch.

The patch description lists over 130 changes. [:)]

Three days have now passed with the patch little remarked upon.

Where did everybody go? [&:]



gwgardner -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/17/2009 8:00:00 PM)

busy playing?

I was expecting to see some bug reports at least.

As a playtester, I have done a lot of that in the dev forum.

I absolutely love the new features, especially the revised mechanics for air operations, and the addition of more and better reports.



H. Hoth -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/17/2009 8:27:35 PM)

I am enjoying the game.  The AI is greatly improved.  I am playing the with "sprites" on, and it is Jan 1942 and just right outside of Moscow, but my forces are thin and spread out....waiting for the Soviet winter offensive.



gwgardner -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/17/2009 11:47:30 PM)

screenshots! and AAR! your public demands it.



oldspec4 -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/18/2009 12:21:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer

Somehow I thought lots of people were waiting for the patch.

The patch description lists over 130 changes. [:)]

Three days have now passed with the patch little remarked upon.

Where did everybody go? [&:]


Still here but RL has interfered w/ my gametime [:@]

Based on my limited play, I really like what I see of the new patch additions. Great fun playing the Russians in the Grand Campaign.

Some very minor niggles...one CTD in 50+ turns, my video card seems to be running warm again, and counter numbers are hard to see when scrolled out.




H. Hoth -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/18/2009 2:11:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

screenshots! and AAR! your public demands it.


I would like to, but I don't know how to capture the screen shot? [:@], In this game without telling me, the Italians invaded England with 6 div, and wiithin two turns they are gone![:o].



Flaviusx -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/18/2009 2:32:12 AM)

I've been playing a Grand Campaign as the Soviets and am up to Oct 1942.

The AI is greatly improved and building more ground forces than before. The Wehrmacht I'm fighting is noticeably stronger and tougher. The new air game is interesting, but has one annoying bug: fighters cannot be repaired past level 5. At half strength they become mostly ineffective and I'm having to simply disband them at that point and purchase brand new fighters at full 10 point strength. I have to assume this is a bug and not intended. It doesn't happen for tac air or strat bombers, only fighter units.

Aircraft ranges start low and go up significantly with tech, which I like. You have to be somewhat careful now about placing them. At around tech level 3 they get ranges similar to what we see on 1.51.

I very much like the restrictions on paratroop range. They were a bit too good before.

The economic model of the game is also much better -- the Sovs start off slowly and take a while to build up, which is important in a grand campaign context. Production points are scarce early on for the Soviets. The Bolshevik industrialization event is interesting, too. Abuse it too much, and your national moral plummets. Ignore it altogether, and the economy won't grow enough before the Germans invade. You will not be sitting on a pile of thousands of production points and a large army in the pre 1941 period, you actually have to think hard about how to spend the PPs.

In my game the Germans were strangely slow in conquering Poland; took them until December of 1939, they had Warsaw surrounded for months.

The German AI still has a tendency to invade in the mud months of 1941 (while being engaged in Yugoslavia, to boot.) This is kind of a waste insofar as it fails to properly take advantage of Soviet disorganization. It would be much more dangerous if it waited for clear weather -- as they did in real life.

Another bug: reinforcements from prior turns in the deployment pool cannot be accessed in subsequent turns unless you build a new unit manually in the turn you are playing. The game grays out the deployment button for some reason even with old units in the pool. Not a serious problem, but still.



LarryP -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/18/2009 2:37:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldspec4

Some very minor niggles...one CTD in 50+ turns, my video card seems to be running warm again, and counter numbers are hard to see when scrolled out.

Oldspec4:
The other night when I installed the patch, my laptop after 30 minutes got hot again like it used to before I fixed it. The patch must have overwritten a file that I changed. I changed it back and now I can play for hours and it stays cool as if the game was not running! This is a post from Kurak that fixed this for me, and you might remember it because you posted right after this one:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kurak
Try this: open file fpslimit.txt (with Notepad) from the game's installation directory, remove it's content and insert "30" (only the number, without quotation marks), save and close file and then run the game.

Here is the link to this post, and it's #36: Game makes laptop HOT!

I went down to 25 instead of 30. Stays cooler. This number sets the maximum FPS, but setting this to zero tells the game to run it full bore. No FPS limit.

I hope this helps. It sure did help me. [&o] Thanks to Kurak.



oldspec4 -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/18/2009 2:40:28 AM)

Thank you sir...I will try this fix ASAP.



Bleck -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/18/2009 2:48:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The new air game is interesting, but has one annoying bug: fighters cannot be repaired past level 5. At half strength they become mostly ineffective and I'm having to simply disband them at that point and purchase brand new fighters at full 10 point strength. I have to assume this is a bug and not intended.

It will be fixed in official 1.60 patch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Another bug: reinforcements from prior turns in the deployment pool cannot be accessed in subsequent turns unless you build a new unit manually in the turn you are playing.

Will investigate and hopefully also fix for official patch.




cpdeyoung -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/18/2009 6:33:54 AM)

There is a bug report on the deployment button issue from the beta testing.

0001174, assigned.

Chuck



Magpius -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/18/2009 10:39:24 AM)

been busy modding it. now comes playing it.
(and tweaking some more!!)
-love this game.
looking forward to the new AAR's



Flaviusx -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/18/2009 7:40:39 PM)

Bleck, thanks for the quick response.

Another thing that's long annoyed me, not a bug, but in terms of historical flavor: the Soviet leadership ratings seem to me wildly off.

For example, Voroshilov, an incompetent crony of Stalin's, might rate a two on a warm day with a breeze at his back; the game considers him a 5. Nor does Budenny merit a 6, unless it's for his mustache. The we have leaders like Vatutin and Zhukov rating a 3, which is simply baffling; these guys surely belong somewhere near Rokossovsky's 7.

This doesn't make any difference in terms of gameplay, to be sure, but it's disconcerting for us Soviet military history buffs.



H. Hoth -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/19/2009 2:58:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Bleck, thanks for the quick response.

Another thing that's long annoyed me, not a bug, but in terms of historical flavor: the Soviet leadership ratings seem to me wildly off.

For example, Voroshilov, an incompetent crony of Stalin's, might rate a two on a warm day with a breeze at his back; the game considers him a 5. Nor does Budenny merit a 6, unless it's for his mustache. The we have leaders like Vatutin and Zhukov rating a 3, which is simply baffling; these guys surely belong somewhere near Rokossovsky's 7.

This doesn't make any difference in terms of gameplay, to be sure, but it's disconcerting for us Soviet military history buffs.

Yes I agree, I changed Zhukov to a 9, he was by far the best Russian general. I also added H. Hoth one of Germany's best tank commanders of WW2.



H. Hoth -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/19/2009 3:05:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Bleck, thanks for the quick response.

Another thing that's long annoyed me, not a bug, but in terms of historical flavor: the Soviet leadership ratings seem to me wildly off.

For example, Voroshilov, an incompetent crony of Stalin's, might rate a two on a warm day with a breeze at his back; the game considers him a 5. Nor does Budenny merit a 6, unless it's for his mustache. The we have leaders like Vatutin and Zhukov rating a 3, which is simply baffling; these guys surely belong somewhere near Rokossovsky's 7.

This doesn't make any difference in terms of gameplay, to be sure, but it's disconcerting for us Soviet military history buffs.

It makes all the difference, the higher the number the better the units do, A leader with a 7,8,9 with exp of 10++ can turn a tank corps into uber tank corps.



Flaviusx -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/19/2009 4:44:09 AM)

Nah, for game purposes it doesn't matter much because you could just swap Vatutin and Zhukov's rating with those of Voroshilov and Budenny, and get the same basic result. I'm just irked by the sheer ahistoricity of the ratings themselves with the commanders in question. The gave the good ratings to civil war relics and Stalinist cronies and severely underrated most of the good new commanders of the second world war. (Except Rokossovsky, who is doubtfully Polish...)




H. Hoth -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/19/2009 12:40:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Nah, for game purposes it doesn't matter much because you could just swap Vatutin and Zhukov's rating with those of Voroshilov and Budenny, and get the same basic result. I'm just irked by the sheer ahistoricity of the ratings themselves with the commanders in question. The gave the good ratings to civil war relics and Stalinist cronies and severely underrated most of the good new commanders of the second world war. (Except Rokossovsky, who is doubtfully Polish...)



From what I see in the game a commander who is 2-6 will give a div/corps a +1 advant. (in size of a unit)a commander with a number of 7-9 a +2 advant. When they gain exp, it goes even higher. Leaders are very important, and that is why I changed the numbers of most leaders.



Michael the Pole -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/19/2009 2:12:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: H. Hoth


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Nah, for game purposes it doesn't matter much because you could just swap Vatutin and Zhukov's rating with those of Voroshilov and Budenny, and get the same basic result. I'm just irked by the sheer ahistoricity of the ratings themselves with the commanders in question. The gave the good ratings to civil war relics and Stalinist cronies and severely underrated most of the good new commanders of the second world war. (Except Rokossovsky, who is doubtfully Polish...)



From what I see in the game a commander who is 2-6 will give a div/corps a +1 advant. (in size of a unit)a commander with a number of 7-9 a +2 advant. When they gain exp, it goes even higher. Leaders are very important, and that is why I changed the numbers of most leaders.


Like everything else, opinions are subjective. Rather than blind denunciations, why don't ya'll publish your commander files on the modding board so we can actually evaluate what you think.



Flaviusx -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/19/2009 4:26:05 PM)

I'm having a difficult time understanding anybody who genuinely believes that Zhukov is a 3, and Voroshilov a 5. Voroshilov better than Zhukov? C'mon. Budenny equal to Konev at 6? Some opinions just don't pass the laugh test.







bo -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/19/2009 5:05:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer

Somehow I thought lots of people were waiting for the patch.

The patch description lists over 130 changes. [:)]

Three days have now passed with the patch little remarked upon.

Where did everybody go? [&:]


Hey Will I cant answer for others but I personally do not like Beta's, I will wait for the official patch before I download anything, by reading some posts I am glad I didn't.

Bo



gwgardner -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/19/2009 6:58:28 PM)

You're making a mistake not to get 1.6. It is like 100% better than 1.5.



bo -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/19/2009 7:20:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

You're making a mistake not to get 1.6. It is like 100% better than 1.5.


Hey GW I do not doubt for one second what you are saying and as soon as the official patch comes out I will, didn't I read that if you have a saved game and you download the new patch that the saved game won't work?

Bo



H. Hoth -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/20/2009 12:26:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole


quote:

ORIGINAL: H. Hoth


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Nah, for game purposes it doesn't matter much because you could just swap Vatutin and Zhukov's rating with those of Voroshilov and Budenny, and get the same basic result. I'm just irked by the sheer ahistoricity of the ratings themselves with the commanders in question. The gave the good ratings to civil war relics and Stalinist cronies and severely underrated most of the good new commanders of the second world war. (Except Rokossovsky, who is doubtfully Polish...)



From what I see in the game a commander who is 2-6 will give a div/corps a +1 advant. (in size of a unit)a commander with a number of 7-9 a +2 advant. When they gain exp, it goes even higher. Leaders are very important, and that is why I changed the numbers of most leaders.


Like everything else, opinions are subjective. Rather than blind denunciations, why don't ya'll publish your commander files on the modding board so we can actually evaluate what you think.

Or you could just play the game and see for yourself. Blind denunciations, wow thats good. Do you think before you write, or write then think. You seem one minded, dull and to wit, Ignorant.



Anraz -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/20/2009 10:36:22 AM)

To discuss Russian commanders rating is like to open  a can of warm.

Some of those who lived behind the iron curtain, and I hope some who lived on the other side of it,   known how huge was  (and still is) difference between propaganda (which so common and unfortunately is perceived as "historic") image  and the truth (yeah, the real historic!) image of this isolated red realm.

For example if we consider a division led by Zhukov and average American, British or German leader I assure you no matter what task  is to perform Zhukov's division would fall as first, because there was no skill in his "genius" just blind human wave approach which led to monstrous losses among solders. Moreover most of other soviet generals were more or less of the same quality (probably Rokosvsky's skill is too high). So why should he have bigger skill then generals in other nations who can use subjected units and owned military resources in a better way? [Also it worth remembering we have the same kind of units on both side of front.]

Finally if anyone asked me what were are two biggest hoaxes connected with ww2 which still deceive people I would answer: myth of T-34 and Zhukov'v skills. Even though I'm not sure which one is bigger...

Most probably I will be too busy making the third project to participate actively if a discussion arise, so consider this post not only as developer's Sunday reflections, but as "official "words written in order to let you know the reasons for such ratings.

Anyway we have democracy (haven't we? :)) and anyone can have his own view on the matter... so the game allows players to mod easily those ratings, so every gamer can set his own values. This the best way to satisfy everyone :)



Flaviusx -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/20/2009 12:32:36 PM)

Anraz, even if you consider Zhukov's reputation overinflated, it's difficult to understand how he is worse than a Budenny or the especially egregious Voroshilov. (Who couldn't even manage to get anything out of human wave attacks, see Finland 1940.)

If Zhukov is a 3, they ought to be twos and ones. Not a 5 or 6.

Some of these guys contrived to get better results out of human wave attacks than others. Besides that, Zhukov perfectly understood the importance of maneuver and flanking schemes, as demonstrated in Kalhkin Gol in 1939, Moscow in 1941, and Stalingrad in 1942 (which he coauthored with Vasilevsky.) It is true that Zhukov, like virtually all Russian commanders, tended to fall back to mere mass with poor results as in Berlin 1945, and the Rzhev salient in 1942, but he ought to be judged on the entire record.

Rokossovsky's rating is perfectly fine, he was an excellent front commander. He was, indeed, among the relatively few Soviet commanders who didn't favor the mass approach and actually cared about his own casualties.

Nor would I rate the commanders in the game based on divisional leadership; I look at them as Army/Front commanders.  

But if the this is the developer's final stance on the matter, so be it. I will modify the ratings for myself based on the weight of historical opinion.




Severian -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/20/2009 12:41:38 PM)

Flaviusx - soviet generals topic is very hard and unclear to understand. For nearly 70 years leaders like Zhukov or Vatutin are described as billiant generals comparable to Patton or Alexander. It's not true. Soviet strategic and tactical skills in World War 2 was poor. Really. Winter War against Finland was first stage of Red Army incompetence. Because of lack of leaders skills whole divisions were preparing frontal attacks against bunkers even without winter uniforms. It was complete disaster - over 120.000 dead soldiers, over 2200 destroyed tanks and 500 aircraft inf war with small country. You can say - and what? Later they were winning almoste everywhere but you know how cost of life? One day of soviet offensive took more than whole Overlord landing in Normandy. Every offensive when Overlord was only once. The main tactic of soviet generals was human wave - push as much soldier as we can and if they pass first line, send then tanks to make breaktrough deeper. So admired Zhukov lost over 2000 tanks when he was advancing to Berlin becuse he doesn't want to be second in the city. Soviet Union lost 12.500.000 dead soldiers. A half of total killed soldiers of every country involved in World War Two.

Why Voroshilov or Budenny were experienced in russian civil war when they had many big units under they command. Only one younger commander had comparable units in fight before WW2 - Zhukov in Khalkhyn Gol which isn't so clearly russian victory as we suppose. So only few soviet generals had enough experience to command fronts.



Anraz -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/20/2009 2:26:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Moscow in 1941, and Stalingrad in 1942


Are 100% you sure those two were pure Zhukov achievement not laurels stolen post factum form other soviet commanders?



gwgardner -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/20/2009 4:40:45 PM)

quote:

H.Hoth

Or you could just play the game and see for yourself. Blind denunciations, wow thats good. Do you think before you write, or write then think. You seem one minded, dull and to wit, Ignorant.



... and Miss Congeniality strikes again.




Flaviusx -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/20/2009 4:47:22 PM)

Well, the Stalingrad operation was planned by Zhukov and Vasilevsky, although Zhukov didn't execute it. At the time the Stalingrad offensive actually went down, Zhukov ran Operation Mars up north to clear out the Rzhev/Vyazma salient as a companion offensive. It was a total fiasco, not one of his finer moments. Nevertheless, he was clearly one of the minds behind the Stalingrad concept.

The Moscow counteroffensive was of course not solely a Zhukov show, but his Western front was the largest one involved.

Severian, the thing you need to understand about the Finnish War is: the theater was being run by Voroshilov when it started. This is the guy who the game considers better than Zhukov. He completely bungled the assignment and had to be replaced by Timoshenko. Nor did Voroshilov do any better running the Northwestern theater later on against the Germans in 1941. He was eventually replaced there by Zhukov, barely in time to stop the drive on Leningrad, but not before the city got cut off and blockaded.

By 1942 he was more or less kicked upstairs and removed from any further field commands. The guy was just a total incompetent and never managed to do anything right on the field, but was protected from his failures of command by his close ties to Stalin, which went back to the Civil War days. Much the same can be said about Budenny, although Budenny wasn't a total booby at least, and had once been a highly effective cavalry commander. But by the 1940s he was a fossil and ineffective.



H. Hoth -> RE: Why so dead around here? (9/20/2009 5:34:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

quote:

H.Hoth

Or you could just play the game and see for yourself. Blind denunciations, wow thats good. Do you think before you write, or write then think. You seem one minded, dull and to wit, Ignorant.



... and Miss Congeniality strikes again.
Is that your best? You seem to be a one trick pony.






Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.984375