1.06 differences

1.06 differences (Full Version)

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

Message

HITMAN202 -> 1.06 differences (2/28/2012 12:08:23 AM)
Seems that the Soviets have slightly stronger defensive values on Turn #1. But it seems that the Axis gain morale much quicker with combat wins. ??? More with Shatters ???

heliodorus04 -> RE: 1.06 differences (2/28/2012 2:27:47 AM)
I have not witnessed any of these things of which you speak in 1.06.

Flaviusx -> RE: 1.06 differences (2/28/2012 3:00:59 AM)
There haven't been any direct changes to these things in 1.06. Soviet at start morale is randomized, and each game will yield different results for your starting units. Sometimes dramatically so. Although on average you can expect Western and NW Fronts to be garbage and SW Front and the interior reserve armies to be somewhat better.

Peltonx -> RE: 1.06 differences (2/28/2012 10:50:39 AM)
Only differences will be 1. Less russian replasements during 43-45. 2. The March German offensive can still punch a hole in Russian lines, but can't exploit it from what I have tested to date. Basicly you can push but can't get those 20+ unit pockets during snow. So a small change in tactics during snow coupled with the first clear turn will yield the same results, just takes a little more planning ahead of 3 to 4 turns.

Flaviusx -> RE: 1.06 differences (2/28/2012 1:05:39 PM)
Yes, I had noticed from Tarhunnas' multiplayer game that claims about the new snow rules leading to Maginot line east were rather exaggerated. Not that this was ever a serious possibility given the fort situation. In the long run, to get this truly right, logistics are going to need a do over. The real issue here is imo the infinite capacity rail lines. That right there is a large part of the reason why WITE is wildly biased in favor of the offensive. Supply is just too easy. No real pauses due to supply considerations or the need to stockpile -- and no real limits on how much power you can pack in any given place, which is of course ridiculous, but is why you get the 1942 style mass panzer balls, the mass panzer assaults on Leningrad in 1941, and, ultimately, the Big Red Machine that Never Ever Has To Stop. Supply is just too damned easy.

carlkay58 -> RE: 1.06 differences (2/29/2012 3:17:47 AM)
I agree that the real problem is the logistics engine and that the Axis motor pool is much too large. It is also possible that the Soviet motor pool is too large too - or it could be that the motor pool attrition is just too low. Starting in mid to late October 1941, the Germans had to start stripping trucks from front line units to use for supply purposes. The locomotives were beginning to break down and the rail capacity for supply purposes was down to 40% of real supply needs. This pushed the effective rail heads back even further than the converted rail heads were. Trucks were in short supply. The game ignores these factors and, as long as a converted rail head is in the area, trucks have an immediate access to the supply pool. I created a scenario variant of Barbarossa scenario with only two-thirds of the HI for each side in version 1.05. The lowered supply creation made a big difference with the Axis starting supply pool running down by mid to late August and forcing the Axis to start deciding where to limit the attacks and offensive thrusts for the rest of the year because there was not enough supply to push everywhere safely. It seemed more historical - but two-thirds is probably too low - probaly about 75% would be closer. Unfortunately the production numbers cannot be changed in the editor so I was forced to edit the number of factories - which changes the Soviet evacuation capabilities, etc. I am sure that the logistical engine will be closely examined and drastically changed for WitW - after all the Allies will not have rail supply for quite sometime in France and have to rely on trucks for supply.

Flaviusx -> RE: 1.06 differences (2/29/2012 3:43:18 AM)
Lowering supply production isn't the way to deal with this, imo, but I can see it's the most readily available way to address the matter given the constraints of the editor. Transportation is the real constraint, not supply per se. Axis trucks are overstated, agreed. But the fundamental issue is the infinite carrying capacity of the rail lines. Knocking down truck amounts doesn't resolve that. There's only so much stuff a single given line can carry at any given time. Eventually the Soviets get even more out of this infinite rail carrying capacity than the Axis do.

heliodorus04 -> RE: 1.06 differences (2/29/2012 10:10:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Yes, I had noticed from Tarhunnas' multiplayer game that claims about the new snow rules leading to Maginot line east were rather exaggerated. Not that this was ever a serious possibility given the fort situation. In the long run, to get this truly right, logistics are going to need a do over. The real issue here is imo the infinite capacity rail lines. That right there is a large part of the reason why WITE is wildly biased in favor of the offensive. Supply is just too easy. No real pauses due to supply considerations or the need to stockpile -- and no real limits on how much power you can pack in any given place, which is of course ridiculous, but is why you get the 1942 style mass panzer balls, the mass panzer assaults on Leningrad in 1941, and, ultimately, the Big Red Machine that Never Ever Has To Stop. Supply is just too damned easy. And herein lies one of the justifications of my crusade against the current status quo in WitE. I paid a price premium to buy into this game, and the reality in the above post (by someone probably considered one of the most reasonable of the playtesters) confirms that my purchase qualified me for a beta test that eventually proved the game suffered from two fundamental design flaws: The combat engine, and the logistics system. It's not like those are minor sub-systems... And these problems, they won't be fixed in this product, but the lessons learned will be used for WitW, a possible future WitE 2.0, and a possible future War in Europe grand-strategy game. Next time a new product is released, I'll remember that I was used as a cash-cow-guinea-pig, and make purchase decisions accordingly.

Peltonx -> RE: 1.06 differences (2/29/2012 11:54:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Yes, I had noticed from Tarhunnas' multiplayer game that claims about the new snow rules leading to Maginot line east were rather exaggerated. Not that this was ever a serious possibility given the fort situation. In the long run, to get this truly right, logistics are going to need a do over. The real issue here is imo the infinite capacity rail lines. That right there is a large part of the reason why WITE is wildly biased in favor of the offensive. Supply is just too easy. No real pauses due to supply considerations or the need to stockpile -- and no real limits on how much power you can pack in any given place, which is of course ridiculous, but is why you get the 1942 style mass panzer balls, the mass panzer assaults on Leningrad in 1941, and, ultimately, the Big Red Machine that Never Ever Has To Stop. Supply is just too damned easy. And herein lies one of the justifications of my crusade against the current status quo in WitE. I paid a price premium to buy into this game, and the reality in the above post (by someone probably considered one of the most reasonable of the playtesters) confirms that my purchase qualified me for a beta test that eventually proved the game suffered from two fundamental design flaws: The combat engine, and the logistics system. It's not like those are minor sub-systems... And these problems, they won't be fixed in this product, but the lessons learned will be used for WitW, a possible future WitE 2.0, and a possible future War in Europe grand-strategy game. Next time a new product is released, I'll remember that I was used as a cash-cow-guinea-pig, and make purchase decisions accordingly. I heard you can get baned for making statements based on data and quoting play testers that support your statements. So becareful. you two.

Flaviusx -> RE: 1.06 differences (2/29/2012 1:14:35 PM)
Helio, thing is, I love this game. You don't. I'm looking to improve it. It's not perfect. The idea that it was ever going to be perfect on release was and is a fantasy. Something like this takes years to perfect. Delaying release until it reached a state of perfection is tantamount to never releasing it at all. A game this big needs to evolve over time and with the input of many people, including players post release. Warts and all I'm still playing it. No other wargame has held my interest so long, including boardgames. My criticisms are of the tough love type.

Ketza -> RE: 1.06 differences (2/29/2012 1:48:27 PM)
I do enjoy the game but the logistics are indeed an issue. After the expansion I will most likely be playing again.

heliodorus04 -> RE: 1.06 differences (2/29/2012 4:58:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Helio, thing is, I love this game. You don't. I'm looking to improve it. It's not perfect. The idea that it was ever going to be perfect on release was and is a fantasy. Something like this takes years to perfect. Delaying release until it reached a state of perfection is tantamount to never releasing it at all. A game this big needs to evolve over time and with the input of many people, including players post release. Warts and all I'm still playing it. No other wargame has held my interest so long, including boardgames. My criticisms are of the tough love type. Like you, I've played this game like no other wargame. For a time, I considered it the best eastern front wargame, but that faded (for reasons I probably don't need to rehash). And my reasons aren't even the reasons you allude to - heck, given the problems that are my pet peeves, the logistics would be fine for added (re-)playability and competitiveness, however inaccurate that logistics model is from the real war. I always favor competitiveness over accuracy, because the game is the thing. Obviously, you and I differ in how this product affects our goodwill for Matrix. My goodwill was used up on the price point, and the fact that fundamental design flaws (logistics, combat) made my 15 months of playing a de facto beta test (and I still play versus the AI to try to get the right settings for continued enjoyable games). My enjoyment for the game was also subject to the attrition resultant from having to re-start at least 3 campaigns (versus people) due to 'game-breaker' type bugs or patch problems. In short, WitE did not manage my expectations at all well, and that really is on them more than it is on me. I go back in the Gary Grigsby pantheon to Typhoon of Steel in 1990 (though I was not aware of whom GG was until much more recently). And considering the price point and the design/patch missteps, I have to re-consider the core competency of the design team, which I don't mean to sound as critical as it may. What I mean is that maybe the core competency isn't in the original release candidate as much as it is the post-release support and updates of the design. From what I read, that seems to be the case with many people I've spoken to about WitP:AE - many years later, that game was a gem. Perhaps I just need to wait for the 'many years' and I will be a happier customer.

jjdenver -> RE: 1.06 differences (2/29/2012 6:34:48 PM)
I generally agree with heliodorus' post, but I have to add that with a game of this scope and detail it's not realistic to expect the initial release to be golden. It seems obvious in retrospect that it would be impossible for the initial release to be fully mature. I just hope that the dev team sticks with the game and fixes the outstanding issues. This is off-topic a little but I have to add that I just can't play the game as long as the "carpet defense" syndrome is around....seeing those carpets just makes me nauseous.

76mm -> RE: 1.06 differences (2/29/2012 7:42:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 ...the reality...confirms that my purchase qualified me for a beta test that eventually proved the game suffered from two fundamental design flaws: The combat engine, and the logistics system. It's not like those are minor sub-systems... And these problems, they won't be fixed in this product... Next time a new product is released, I'll remember that I was used as a cash-cow-guinea-pig, and make purchase decisions accordingly. quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 My enjoyment for the game was also subject to the attrition resultant from having to re-start at least 3 campaigns (versus people) due to 'game-breaker' type bugs or patch problems. I would tend to agree, although I don't think I feel as strongly about it as you do. This is a very complex game, and the devs are certainly doing their best to fix identified problems. Pending introduction of the alternate VP scenario is a good example.

bevans -> RE: 1.06 differences (3/23/2012 7:16:15 PM)
I do think that 1.06 is significantly better than the previous versions, it has a little bit of actual 1941 feel to it (I am only 8 turns in so no idea whether that persists). Previous versions (as the Axis) devolved into a tedious, boring, ahistorical slog through 8-10 row deep carpet defenses in front of every Pz Army. And infinite numbers of 10 soldier divisions made up those rows. By the time the second soldier got off one of the infinite number of Soviet trains, the first guy had already got the hex to Fort 1 and by the time the last guy got off, it was Fort 3. I am very grateful that the designers have spent so much time determining how many bullets the average German soldier carries in his right shirt pocket, but I do feel that maybe detail doesn't always equal accuracy in gameplay. Well, 1.06 has less deep carpets (only 5-8 hexes) and fort levels are way down so some sort of blitzkrieg is sort of possible after turn 2 - but the SU defense is still completely different from historical and I don't think large pockets are possible after turn 2 at anything but the most trivial difficulty levels. As for playing as the SU, well it was clearly the same guy who programmed the airwar and the German AI. Both are pathetic stinking masses of horribleness that show no sign of improvement (except that some aircraft stats have been tweaked). Whoo hoo! Detail vs accuracy - WitE has it about 180 degrees wrong. I just want at least one of my frickin' Stukas to destroy an SU tank sometime during the war. Is that really too much to ask? But fear not, these things will be addressed right after the editor manual is finished. Just joking, the editor manual will never be finished. I do actually have an actual question about 1.06. I didn't spend much time playing 1.02-1.05 because, as someone else noted, those infinite carpet defenses were a complete turnoff. Game = no fun = no play. So maybe this really is a 1.06 thing or maybe I just didn't play earlier versions enough: the SU seems to be creating HUGE numbers of 'Crps Art Rgmts'. Just doing the math of the number of SU units x the average number of these attachments that I see during attacks says the SU has somewhere between many hundreds and a thousand or so by T8. This is reflected in the OB stats: the SU has lost nearly 20k art but their OB is UP 8K. I didn't think that the SU got really serious about artillery until later. Just wondering whether this is in fact a result of 1.06 and whether it is an intended one.

randallw -> RE: 1.06 differences (3/24/2012 5:21:44 AM)
In my own game, as the Soviet side, I have just 137 artillery regiments through turn 24...but that's after having my army HQs set to 0 support for awhile. I can tell you that the Soviets built more artillery pieces in 1941 than the Germans did, even with the factory displacements.

Farfarer61 -> RE: 1.06 differences (3/25/2012 9:47:35 PM)
Price point? Look at how many hours of enjoyment get for the price of a movie ticket, then compare that cost-per-hour to what one pays to play a game. Games are comparatively free, even if you pay 80 bucks for them. and no Matrix, you can't quintuple your prices :)

AFV -> RE: 1.06 differences (3/26/2012 6:16:25 AM)
The game was not cheap, and it certainly has flaws- but it really is a great game, and I personally feel I got my moneys worth. All the hours I have spent on it were certainly worth 4 movies!

saintsup -> RE: 1.06 differences (3/26/2012 4:17:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Lowering supply production isn't the way to deal with this, imo, but I can see it's the most readily available way to address the matter given the constraints of the editor. Transportation is the real constraint, not supply per se. Axis trucks are overstated, agreed. But the fundamental issue is the infinite carrying capacity of the rail lines. Knocking down truck amounts doesn't resolve that. There's only so much stuff a single given line can carry at any given time. Eventually the Soviets get even more out of this infinite rail carrying capacity than the Axis do. I think reducing motor pools (or increasing attrition for trucks) for both Axis and SU could go a long way to better simulate the strategic choice and preparation needed to conduce a major offensive. Less trucks means you need to put part of the front in static (which I never see in AARs) and then you have to plan in advance which part of the front you reactivate. I always found strange that 'static' mode is never used in campaign game whereas you can see for exemple in the 42 campaign starting point that this mode was intended in the initial design to simulate the fact that you cannot put the whole front in offensive mode due to logistical reasons.

delatbabel -> RE: 1.06 differences (3/27/2012 11:22:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: saintsup I always found strange that 'static' mode is never used in campaign game whereas you can see for exemple in the 42 campaign starting point that this mode was intended in the initial design to simulate the fact that you cannot put the whole front in offensive mode due to logistical reasons. It would be more historical for players to put units into static mode, especially the Soviets who were often short of trucks and historically did strip them from units, but it's unaffordable in terms of APs. If you put a mech corps into static mode it costs more than double the amount of APs to reactivate it from static mode as it does to build a new one. So it's completely not worth it, especially in a game where APs are the Soviet's main limiting factor.

Flaviusx -> RE: 1.06 differences (3/27/2012 2:31:34 PM)
Yeah, as things presently stand, static mode is an Axis only tool. Not only can the Soviet not afford it from an AP standpoint, but it hardly seems to lower Soviet attrition losses -- the best way for the Sovs to limit these is to defend in depth.

saintsup -> RE: 1.06 differences (3/27/2012 6:20:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel quote: ORIGINAL: saintsup I always found strange that 'static' mode is never used in campaign game whereas you can see for exemple in the 42 campaign starting point that this mode was intended in the initial design to simulate the fact that you cannot put the whole front in offensive mode due to logistical reasons. It would be more historical for players to put units into static mode, especially the Soviets who were often short of trucks and historically did strip them from units, but it's unaffordable in terms of APs. If you put a mech corps into static mode it costs more than double the amount of APs to reactivate it from static mode as it does to build a new one. So it's completely not worth it, especially in a game where APs are the Soviet's main limiting factor. A useful static mode (for exemple by increasing it's advantages) should obviously come with a lowering of AP needed to reactivate. However I think that this new equilibrium could better simulate the chanelling of logistics to one part of the front needed for major offensives. It's a lot more simpler than a revamp of the logistical system, although in doesn't correct the root of the problem.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.390625