Toss us a bone (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

Ketza -> Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 4:19:51 AM)

There have been hints as well as conjecture that there is a few potential changes in the works to make playing the Axis a bit more viable in 1942 and beyond.

Inquiring minds would love to be thrown a bone as to what may be in the works.

If you can that is [:D]. If not that is cool as well but reading some of the AARs that are getting into 42 is getting a bit unnerving for Axis types.



Tarhunnas -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 9:44:05 AM)

Interesting for Soviet types as well, or those playing both sides. As the Soviets, I would want a challenge, not just being secure in that whatever happens I will eventually be able to wear down the Germans in a WW1 Western Front style grind.



Peltonx -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 10:31:42 AM)

Nerfing the fairytale rule would be all thats needed.



veji1 -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 12:19:52 PM)

I undestand the fact that the developpers want to make sure they don't unhinge the game with radical changes, but It would probably go faster if they opened up some of the testing. They could do an open betatest of a version of the game with the 1/1 rule gone in April 42 and let the community play with it, see what they think. They would get rapid response as well.



76mm -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 12:44:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Nerfing the fairytale rule would be all thats needed.


You might be right, but this is a complex game and I'm not sure it is as simple as you suggest. I certainly hope the devs think through things a bit more before drawing any firm conclusions about what is "broken" about the game.



veji1 -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 2:45:47 PM)

That's why an open beta might be the solution.



Q-Ball -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 2:53:18 PM)

I come from the perspective that the Germans need some help after 1941. I have suggested previously that the Winter Morale rule in the open be eliminated, and that Wehrmacht morale post-blizzard be allowed to bounce back quickly. I also suggested some fort changes.

I think we also need to see some 1943-45 games between two good players to see how it plays out, because we don't have alot of data in that space. I suspect, though, that the Germans are ticketed for an earlier collapse than historical. But I am not sure yet. If the Germans grind down too quickly, that can be easily addressed by increased Manpower production or other expedients.

There are two bigger problems that are more difficult to address within the current engine. 1942 mobility, and Soviet Logistics.

The 1942 problem is that the Soviet player can easily build defenses in depth, frustrating German efforts. The result isn't a historical 1942 "feel", because the Germans have difficulty gaining mobility. Nerfing forts would have consequences beyond 1942, and in any case, the Soviets could still have depth, because they have so many units. You can't take the units out though. The historical Soviets made several critical errors leading up to 1942 that allowed the Germans that mobility, and would not likely be repeated by a good human player.

It might be that even perfectly modelled, "1942 with hindsight" just isn't going to be the same. I can accept this, provided VP conditions are tweaked for the Germans to permit this.

The other problem is Soviet Logistics. At several points, good Soviet offensives ground to a halt or didn't start for Logistical reasons. The game does not model this; the Soviets simply do not have a logistical problem, period. You can attack anywhere and everywhere all the time, without considering the logistical cost. This to me is the biggest problem, not the 2-1 or anything else. My esteemed opponent Tarhunnas thinks the same, and has advanced some good ideas here, limiting the number of fronts that can attack. Even that has a game problem, in that the engine couldn't tell the difference between an "Offensive", and a "Local Counterattack". But it's a start.

I think 1943-45 is inevitably going to involve mostly turns of WWI trench warfare. If it was all mobile, the Reds would be in Berlin way too fast.






pompack -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 3:34:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


The other problem is Soviet Logistics. At several points, good Soviet offensives ground to a halt or didn't start for Logistical reasons. The game does not model this; the Soviets simply do not have a logistical problem, period. You can attack anywhere and everywhere all the time, without considering the logistical cost. This to me is the biggest problem, not the 2-1 or anything else. My esteemed opponent Tarhunnas thinks the same, and has advanced some good ideas here, limiting the number of fronts that can attack. Even that has a game problem, in that the engine couldn't tell the difference between an "Offensive", and a "Local Counterattack". But it's a start.




+1



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 4:01:20 PM)

agree - I am dead keen on this game but stopped plaing once I saw how flawed 42 is. Hope it gets sorted...



ComradeP -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 5:41:45 PM)

It's not just Soviet logistics, the Wehrmacht can also keep going on minimal amounts of supply.

However, it seems that even with the above historical rail repair rate, fuel supplies run out sooner than they did historically. Try fighting the war without supplying your mobile units by air every turn and you'll end up with minimal MP's as early as turn 3.

Pavel is currently working on adding more details to the combat screen, so it's easier to see what's happening. Joel's AFK until next Tuesday/Wednesday.

Some mysteries have been solved, like why small units take so few losses: when a unit is entirely disrupted, it stops taking losses. However, that may not actually be causing the entire issue. As pure speculation on my part, it could be that most of the combat elements are disrupted initially and the few non-disrupted ones then take the losses. However, until Pavel's more detailed combat reports are available, nobody knows exactly what's going on with small units/why it's happening.

As to other changes: the line between what is actually being worked on and what's just an idea isn't really clear, so I can't really comment on that until Joel gets back and it's clear what's going to be in the upcoming version, as I don't know that either.



Helpless -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 6:39:19 PM)

There was some delay caused by the vacation season and some code split and setup activities. This week I started to code 1.05.xx and in fact it wasn't released even to the beta testers.

Usually we post public beta once it is stable and ready to be released for the public.

We more or less have reached internal consensus on the possible direction of changes to for the 1.05. As Pieter says currently I'm busy to code interfaces to provide extra data.

Keep in mind that this is very early beta - it may look totally different on release.


[image]local://upfiles/13846/CDA6905A564545DF829ED68358AF9C5A.gif[/image]



gids -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 7:32:39 PM)

this looks awesome :)



JAMiAM -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 8:01:13 PM)

Consider yourselves...boned...[:D]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...and that is meant in a good way...[;)]



Mynok -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 10:09:16 PM)


Looks nice!



Peltonx -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 10:17:36 PM)

Is the game engine so gimp that it has to be save by a flying pig rule?

I am fine with the summer of 42 with or without the 1v1=2v1 rule.

The problem is after turn 74. As I posted in detail. The Red army can make 40+ 1v1=2v1 attacks that completely smashs the German army in 16 turns. Tweaking forts will simply screw the German army more. Tweaking morale will not help or messing with logistics. The fronts 120 hexes wide so getting in 30-40 attacking will not be stopped because of a logistics rule. If the 1v1=2v1 rule is dumped then the red army will not be able to make 40+ mindless attacks per turn.

There is very very little wrong with forts, morale or logistics. I don't think there is anything wrong with 1v1=2v1 during the summer of 42.

If you did so bad during 41, the historical rules should not be bent to save your butt.

Why do we spend so much time defending an tweaking historical things like forts,moral,logistics ect to defend a rule based 100% on fantasy? The only major thing wrong with the game is 1v1=2v1 after Dec 42.

Alls this tweaking will do is get more poeple to 43 so more poeple can figure out that pigs can't fly.

Very nice lay-out for battle report for sure.



Michael T -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 10:54:10 PM)

quote:

However, it seems that even with the above historical rail repair rate, fuel supplies run out sooner than they did historically. Try fighting the war without supplying your mobile units by air every turn and you'll end up with minimal MP's as early as turn 3.



+1

My Luftwaffe has become primarily a mob of flying fuel tankers. Something ain't right.

For the Germans 1941 is all about one thing, getting fuel forward.



Mynok -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/4/2011 11:22:18 PM)


quote:

I think 1943-45 is inevitably going to involve mostly turns of WWI trench warfare. If it was all mobile, the Reds would be in Berlin way too fast.


It won't because the Germans can't hold up once the Soviets get to a certain level of strength no matter how many forts they build. Big Anorak and I experienced this very clearly.



Peltonx -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/5/2011 1:54:05 AM)

Getting fuel forward is not that hard, just costs a few more AP's and requires some planning.

Start of turn 7

Pelton

[image]local://upfiles/20387/7D815A69610F41AB8955B55916E3D90C.jpg[/image]



Peltonx -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/5/2011 2:02:32 AM)

End of turn 7.

Fuel not a problem with good planning even with 19 MP rule.

Zero air drops also.

[image]local://upfiles/20387/AD06F9A68BAA4E4D8BDDC72B84B96938.jpg[/image]



Q-Ball -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/5/2011 2:25:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

I think 1943-45 is inevitably going to involve mostly turns of WWI trench warfare. If it was all mobile, the Reds would be in Berlin way too fast.


It won't because the Germans can't hold up once the Soviets get to a certain level of strength no matter how many forts they build. Big Anorak and I experienced this very clearly.



To be fair, that was a 1943 game, rather than finishing a campaign game. Maybe that makes a difference or maybe not, but I haven't seen anyone finish a full GC game.



Michael T -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/5/2011 2:27:00 AM)

I do the same thing with HQ's Herr Pelton but one can never have enough fuel. There are not enough AP's or HQ's to keep the whole army gased up. Having a couple of Pz Divisions gased up for a mad dash at a city or two won't win the war for you against a good player. You need entire Pz Armies fueled up to deliver big punches and that's a little more difficult to achieve when your 25+ hexes (not MP) from your railhead.



Q-Ball -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/5/2011 2:53:02 AM)

What do you guys do with HQs? Alternate HQs "fighting" and "accumulating supplies" by swapping units back and forth?

Do tell.



Peltonx -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/5/2011 2:59:46 AM)

The 1st Panzer army is full and then some in the south. Its has been full if need be from turn 1 to turn 7.

The tanks in north only need 1 hq build up on turn 3 and the center is withen normal HQ build-ups after turn 5.

So keeping 1st panzer army fully fueled is doable vs a good or bad player. TDV is a good player if you follow the AAR. Hes got the same look at the game as I do. Hes looking at the big picture for the hole war an not just 41.








Peltonx -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/5/2011 3:10:35 AM)

I can't tell, Hitler will shot me if I do [X(]



Michael T -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/5/2011 3:25:20 AM)

Well what I do when 300+ miles from a railhead or port is get a a Pz HQ with no units attached back within range and HQBU it. It will have around 1000 fuel dumps and enough trucks to move them up to the front next turn. Then assign it some units that need gas, it is usually good for keeping 3 Divisions fueled for 2 turns. The HQ it replaced moves back to the rear and so the cycle continues. Expensive in AP's but far fewer trucks lost. Think of your HQ's as mobile fuel dumps. That process with Luft-Fuel-Waffe can keep the Panzers rolling.



Mynok -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/5/2011 3:59:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

I think 1943-45 is inevitably going to involve mostly turns of WWI trench warfare. If it was all mobile, the Reds would be in Berlin way too fast.


It won't because the Germans can't hold up once the Soviets get to a certain level of strength no matter how many forts they build. Big Anorak and I experienced this very clearly.



To be fair, that was a 1943 game, rather than finishing a campaign game. Maybe that makes a difference or maybe not, but I haven't seen anyone finish a full GC game.


We know the 43 scenario had starting problems. However, it still accurately demonstrates that when the Soviets get to a certain strength level, the Germans cannot hold up, no matter what their forts. The issues will still arise in a GC when the Soviets reach the same levels. That was the whole of my point. The Soviets can simply cause far more casualties than the Germans can withstand. I don't have an answer nor claim to.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/5/2011 11:14:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

It's not just Soviet logistics, the Wehrmacht can also keep going on minimal amounts of supply.

However, it seems that even with the above historical rail repair rate, fuel supplies run out sooner than they did historically. Try fighting the war without supplying your mobile units by air every turn and you'll end up with minimal MP's as early as turn 3.


A long long time ago I proposed a way to tie supply and fuel level to combat capability:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2743124

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Pavel is currently working on adding more details to the combat screen, so it's easier to see what's happening. Joel's AFK until next Tuesday/Wednesday.

Some mysteries have been solved, like why small units take so few losses: when a unit is entirely disrupted, it stops taking losses. However, that may not actually be causing the entire issue. As pure speculation on my part, it could be that most of the combat elements are disrupted initially and the few non-disrupted ones then take the losses. However, until Pavel's more detailed combat reports are available, nobody knows exactly what's going on with small units/why it's happening.


The screenshot Pavel provided is awesome. If 1.04 was a great version, 1.05 will be incredible.



Tarhunnas -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/5/2011 11:19:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Well what I do when 300+ miles from a railhead or port is get a a Pz HQ with no units attached back within range and HQBU it. It will have around 1000 fuel dumps and enough trucks to move them up to the front next turn. Then assign it some units that need gas, it is usually good for keeping 3 Divisions fueled for 2 turns. The HQ it replaced moves back to the rear and so the cycle continues. Expensive in AP's but far fewer trucks lost. Think of your HQ's as mobile fuel dumps. That process with Luft-Fuel-Waffe can keep the Panzers rolling.


That was an interesting trick, thanks for sharing! Though I must say it has a whiff of abusing the system.



Harovan -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/5/2011 12:01:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Well what I do when 300+ miles from a railhead or port is get a a Pz HQ with no units attached back within range and HQBU it. It will have around 1000 fuel dumps and enough trucks to move them up to the front next turn. Then assign it some units that need gas, it is usually good for keeping 3 Divisions fueled for 2 turns. The HQ it replaced moves back to the rear and so the cycle continues. Expensive in AP's but far fewer trucks lost. Think of your HQ's as mobile fuel dumps. That process with Luft-Fuel-Waffe can keep the Panzers rolling.


That was an interesting trick, thanks for sharing! Though I must say it has a whiff of abusing the system.


True, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it was nerfed pretty quick.



Commanderski -> RE: Toss us a bone (8/5/2011 12:50:45 PM)

Getting back to the topic at hand..Thanks for the update Pavel!



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75