RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (Full Version)

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



Message

RCHarmon -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/9/2012 3:11:13 PM)

I don't understand the insistence with the devs and some players to tie the Axis to historical TOEs and therefore to remained to be tied to Hitler. I really don't understand when someone says, "You are better than historical. Be quiet and be happy." It is not much to ask for TOE options and that is from either side. The Axis side is really tied down to historical situations and not game realities. This is an easy request that everyone should be on board with.
The issue about where does the Axis get all this fuel to operate these increased AFV is a very good point. That goes back to the games supply system. A system that is unrealistic for both sides. Again the Axis shouldn't be tied down or penalized when there are no such penalties for the Soviet side. Fix the supply situation for both sides. If that was the case, then it would be more essential for the Axis player to be able to control his TOEs.

The Axis players do not want to play to a script.



navwarcol -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/9/2012 6:35:27 PM)

I agree RCH! The supply system could be linked to where, if things are going as poorly as historical, the game gives you an option to change TOE to adjust..while if they are going better, there is no need. The winter of '41-'42, mostly, and the winter of '42-'43, with the attendant losses of the 6th Army, etc, were the main reasons for the change irl of TO&E..without the heavy losses, the Germans would not have changed much. And as the German player here, if you can capture the oilfields of the Caucasus,where in reality they came close, but did not quite make it, it would solve some of the oil problem, as well.



navwarcol -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/9/2012 6:45:26 PM)

I do have a question though also to anyone...do these "lost tanks" stay lost? Or are they substituted as replacements, etc?
And if the engine does not use them once they are not needed directly in a TOE(as for example the old PzIII models, etc) can we not adjust TOEs to still use the old models as well?



Farfarer61 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/9/2012 11:02:01 PM)

I would be happy if I could combine Axis SU's like the NW sub-units etc.



veji1 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/13/2012 2:33:32 PM)

I think one element we need to forget is the whole "what is happening on the other Fronts" or its consequence "yeah but the allies would have rolled in Berlin by now".

This game is limited to the East front and the rest is not even abstracted, just inexistent. If you can fight it out till october, means the allies are not rolling in Berlin but stuck somewhere else ?

The game punctions units, mens and armaments to represent the other fronts whatever and wherever they maybe. It doesn't go any further than that therefore any more speculation serves no purpose.

the logical consequence is that late war TOE changes, those that are determined by lack of means, usure, need to lower ambition, should be driven by what happens in game. If the German player can afford 43 TOE in 45, good for him. If his army is being ground and he is starting to suffer from lack of counters, better 3 45 TOEs than 2 43s...

Once this is made more logical (therefore late war TOE changes optional, a bit like PDUs in WITP air units or upgrades for ships where you can toggle yes or no), you can work on trying to ensure that switching TOEs makes sense : for example better emulating the dwindling of fuel supplies and transport capacities of the german due to the bombing campaigns leading to a loss of importance of the Panzer formations, less affordable, etc....

Of course as Aurelian cleverly points out everytime, "this is what the editor is for whiners." Nevertheless we all know that nothing replace an actual changing and patching of the official release...



AFV -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/13/2012 2:47:01 PM)

Maybe make the TOE changes optional, and if you want, edit it back to making it mandetory? Since he is very proficient with the editor, he should not mind that.



RCHarmon -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/13/2012 3:44:06 PM)


Currently, the only adjustments that can be made to TOE is in the 50% to 100% range. As a minimum, this should be adjusted to 50% to 200% range. This is not a perfect solution, but I think one that could be implemented in the current game. I maybe wrong. Ideally the option to upgrade should be in the hands of the player. Given that a single square can be attacked by 300k men and the reserve funtion is inadequate to compensate for this, the Axis player should have more control over the structure of his army.



Aurelian -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/13/2012 4:29:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

I
Of course as Aurelian cleverly points out everytime, "this is what the editor is for whiners." Nevertheless we all know that nothing replace an actual changing and patching of the official release...


Can you show where I say that every time? I can't recall.

But you right about one thing. That is one reason there is an editor. Though I can't recall pointing that out.

But what you are unaware of something else. Or just plain ignore it.

The TOE changes are set in stone for this game. Not my decision, as I have nothing to do with any part of the design or development. Since it isn't a bug, it's off the radar.

All one has to do is two things. First, understand that the game has been out for a year. And despite the complaining, TOEs haven't changed.

Second, read the forums. Save's one alot of useless angst. Like "Why can't Axis build support units."

Here ya go: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3055488&mpage=1&key=?

"If you really want to play an "historically based" fantasy game where the Germans fight the Red Army to a standstill while the Western Allies sweep across Germany, be my guest but don't expect me to change the TOE upgrades so you can indulge that fantasy; that's what you have an editor for."

Said by......wait for it......jaw. Funny how you forgot that. Especially considering you qouted him.

You doing it yourself would insure that *you* get what you want.



kswanson1 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/13/2012 5:05:47 PM)

This forum needs a Jar labeled “Douche Bag”. Every time a forum member posts something that is obviously douche bag’ish they should have to put a dollar in the DB jar. The above poster owes the DB Jar a buck.



AFV -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/14/2012 3:43:47 AM)

Actually, he owes the jar about $100.

Regarding the set in stone, cannot ever be changed comment:
Would that be similar to the alternate CG end date, and the victory conditions?



kg_1007 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/14/2012 4:20:50 AM)

I think that, had I known BEFORE I spent money for the game, that playing the axis side, you are already pre-determined to suffer for their real mistakes, even if you do not make them, I would likely have saved my money. I do like the game, but the idea of a wargame should be that doing better than historic, making better choices if you will, benefits you. This game is great fun to tinker with, etc...but it seems set up to already achieve the historic results, even to the point of cheating for the Soviet side, and against the axis side, to get those results.
To those who say the TOE changes were made to defend the west from being overrun, you likely have a too-great idea of the western allies contribution to the war effort. If it had not been for the fact that MOST of the Wehrmacht was actually slugging it out in Russia, D-Day, already a very close run thing, would have been a disaster, and there would not have even been a western front. The German army already nearly shoved back the allies in Italy, in Normandy, etc...one more division in either of those places, especially "at the right time" would have ended the west front. Yes, I know that is a HUGE "if", but this is a game, where we deal in the "what-if"
To sum it up, no game player would want to play as Axis, if the game is just to be a recreation of the actual event..who wants to play a game they already know from history they will lose?
A good game should give historic results, IF, and ONLY IF, the player makes the historic choices.



randallw -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/14/2012 4:53:31 AM)

The German offensive at Anzio caused quite a bit of trouble for the Allies, and they were considering evacuation, but then realized that only a portion of the troops and all the heavy equipment would have been left, so they shelved the idea; this is just Anzio, and the main Allied line ( to the southeast ) was sort of a standstill...the Germans did not have the resources to go on the offensive.

Omaha Beach was trouble for the U.S Army, but that was the only Allied beach where there was any real threat of the Germans forcing evacuation.



kg_1007 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/14/2012 2:31:08 PM)

Quite true Randall, but, in both cases, it was the fact that the majority of the German concentration was in the east, that even allowed the western allies to be there. One more division at Anzio, and it would have crushed the landing. One more division at Normandy, or even the "chief idiot" Hitler, allowing the panzer reserves that already were there, to move up sooner, and that landing would have been a disaster that the allies would not have recovered from. This was known to the allied generals, also, in the case of Eisenhower, who held a note in his pocket apologizing for the disaster, "just in case"..and the British general Brooks, who expected a disaster.
Deception efforts caused the Germans to spread so thinly trying to cover many unreal targets, so that they could not concentrate on the real one, a great job, a great strategy, but HARDLY a "sure thing"...and much less so, had not the Wehrmacht still put about 60-65% of their effort in the east. Even going beyond, since it is a game, had Hitler listened to generals such as v Rundstedt, Guderian, Manstein, etc..he would have avoided most of the "first blizzard" losses, as well, which were the PRIMARY reason for the switch to weaker TOE..as a player, we perhaps have an unfair advantage already knowing that those generals were correct, but we should still have some way of not making the mistake, or at least, some luck involved, instead of automatically assuming we will make those mistakes, and programming into the game, that we will.



wosung -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/14/2012 3:23:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Quite true Randall, but, in both cases, it was the fact that the majority of the German concentration was in the east, that even allowed the western allies to be there. One more division at Anzio, and it would have crushed the landing. One more division at Normandy, or even the "chief idiot" Hitler, allowing the panzer reserves that already were there, to move up sooner, and that landing would have been a disaster that the allies would not have recovered from. This was known to the allied generals, also, in the case of Eisenhower, who held a note in his pocket apologizing for the disaster, "just in case"..and the British general Brooks, who expected a disaster.
Deception efforts caused the Germans to spread so thinly trying to cover many unreal targets, so that they could not concentrate on the real one, a great job, a great strategy, but HARDLY a "sure thing"...and much less so, had not the Wehrmacht still put about 60-65% of their effort in the east. Even going beyond, since it is a game, had Hitler listened to generals such as v Rundstedt, Guderian, Manstein, etc..he would have avoided most of the "first blizzard" losses, as well, which were the PRIMARY reason for the switch to weaker TOE..as a player, we perhaps have an unfair advantage already knowing that those generals were correct, but we should still have some way of not making the mistake, or at least, some luck involved, instead of automatically assuming we will make those mistakes, and programming into the game, that we will.


"chief idiot" Hitler implies that there were other idiots in Nazi and Wehrmacht leadership. And rightly so.

"60-65% of their effort in the east": From 1944 onwards "Wehrmacht" did not put a majority of effort & ressources into the Ostfront. The count is not only about manpower in the Heer. The air war alone in the Med (1942/43) and above the Reich (1944) was immensely costly in manpower and material. The Flak alone consumed gigantic ammounts of ressources.

"avoided most of the "first blizzard" losses": Barbarossa was everything bit the kitchen sink. Another short Blitzkrieg. There just was no plan B for any serious fighting after autumn, nor for the needed logistics. To have been forced to stop advancing would have been seen as defeat. Barbarossa wasn't fought in a vacuum but as part of a major war becoming a world war. German military thinking was all about "attacking is the best defense" and "do not fight on two fronts". Thus for Hitler and OKH it was imperative to go on.

Sure Overlord wasn't a sure thing, simply because it never had been tried before on this scale. But a successful German defense was even less a sure thing. Simply because the Atlantic front (from thes Spanish border to the North Cape) was thinly defended in many ways. (Apart from maybe the very first hours) the fate of Overlord was not decided by one lacking German division.

Regards



kg_1007 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/15/2012 6:06:46 AM)

Actually, German casualties in the east throughout the war, historically, were 80+% of their total casualties..and in the last few years of the war, after the "second front"..from November 1943-VE Day April 1945, their total(both front)casualties were roughly 5.000.000, and of these, approximately 3.450.000 were on the East Front( 69% of their casualties in the wars final 17 months, AFTER the western allies began their offensives in Europe)
Of committed forces, not casualties..the following numbers give also roughly the same percentage..

July 1943 Total troops in Heer 3.933.000...deployed to East Front 2.477.790(63%)
June 1944 Total troops in Heer 2.522.000 deployed to East Front 1.573.728 (62+%)
January, 1945 Total troops in Heer 2.234.000 deployed againt Russians(east front, but by now, inside greater Germany in some areas) 1.344.872 (60%+)

Note numbers sourced from various works, wikipedia, slaughterhouse:handbook of the eastern front, etc.



randallw -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/15/2012 9:58:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Quite true Randall, but, in both cases, it was the fact that the majority of the German concentration was in the east, that even allowed the western allies to be there. One more division at Anzio, and it would have crushed the landing. One more division at Normandy, or even the "chief idiot" Hitler, allowing the panzer reserves that already were there, to move up sooner, and that landing would have been a disaster that the allies would not have recovered from. This was known to the allied generals, also, in the case of Eisenhower, who held a note in his pocket apologizing for the disaster, "just in case"..and the British general Brooks, who expected a disaster.
Deception efforts caused the Germans to spread so thinly trying to cover many unreal targets, so that they could not concentrate on the real one, a great job, a great strategy, but HARDLY a "sure thing"...and much less so, had not the Wehrmacht still put about 60-65% of their effort in the east. Even going beyond, since it is a game, had Hitler listened to generals such as v Rundstedt, Guderian, Manstein, etc..he would have avoided most of the "first blizzard" losses, as well, which were the PRIMARY reason for the switch to weaker TOE..as a player, we perhaps have an unfair advantage already knowing that those generals were correct, but we should still have some way of not making the mistake, or at least, some luck involved, instead of automatically assuming we will make those mistakes, and programming into the game, that we will.


If the Germans had been stronger in the west then the Allied landings would not necessarily have been undertaken as they actually happened.



wosung -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/15/2012 10:48:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Actually, German casualties in the east throughout the war, historically, were 80+% of their total casualties..and in the last few years of the war, after the "second front"..from November 1943-VE Day April 1945, their total(both front)casualties were roughly 5.000.000, and of these, approximately 3.450.000 were on the East Front( 69% of their casualties in the wars final 17 months, AFTER the western allies began their offensives in Europe)
Of committed forces, not casualties..the following numbers give also roughly the same percentage..

July 1943 Total troops in Heer 3.933.000...deployed to East Front 2.477.790(63%)
June 1944 Total troops in Heer 2.522.000 deployed to East Front 1.573.728 (62+%)
January, 1945 Total troops in Heer 2.234.000 deployed againt Russians(east front, but by now, inside greater Germany in some areas) 1.344.872 (60%+)

Note numbers sourced from various works, wikipedia, slaughterhouse:handbook of the eastern front, etc.




Friendly casualities are not equivalent to "war effort" - for 1944 I'd rather say the German casualities in the East show (apart from Red Army's growing fighting power) that for Hitler the Eastern Front just wasn't top priority any longer.

Heer is not Wehrmacht. And manpower up front was only a part of the war effort. So if you add Luftwaffe personell and Kriegsmarine personnel, for 1944 the total ratio of manpower was not in favour of the East front. Luftwaffe personnel in August 1944 was 2,89 Mio. men, mostly deployed in Luftflotte Reich and in the West (70% of 1,1 Mio Luftwaffe Flak personnel fought in the Reich or in the West). Plus, in 1944 the distribution of armament output in 1944 also was not exactly in favor the Eastern Front.

Regards



kg_1007 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/16/2012 1:13:50 AM)

That may be true, however, this is predominately a "Heer" game with a lot of abstraction in the air war, and no Kriegsmarine effort, at wall...and the reason for the discussion, here, was land TOE(Heer) as well, and the argument that should the German player do better than historically, he should not suffer the historic penalties of manpower, as for the Heer, by any of the numbers I listed above, etc, or you can even look up divisions, etc, the majority were deployed against the Russians already.
I listed casualties, but immediately below that, I listed the deployment of the Heer, all through the end of the war, after the Western front had already begun, still 60+% of "Heer" troops, remained committed to the east. That was the point of the second paragraph above, after the one regarding casualties.
Regards,
Kyle



veji1 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/16/2012 4:57:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

I
Of course as Aurelian cleverly points out everytime, "this is what the editor is for whiners." Nevertheless we all know that nothing replace an actual changing and patching of the official release...


Can you show where I say that every time? I can't recall.

But you right about one thing. That is one reason there is an editor. Though I can't recall pointing that out.

But what you are unaware of something else. Or just plain ignore it.

The TOE changes are set in stone for this game. Not my decision, as I have nothing to do with any part of the design or development. Since it isn't a bug, it's off the radar.

All one has to do is two things. First, understand that the game has been out for a year. And despite the complaining, TOEs haven't changed.

Second, read the forums. Save's one alot of useless angst. Like "Why can't Axis build support units."

Here ya go: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3055488&mpage=1&key=?

"If you really want to play an "historically based" fantasy game where the Germans fight the Red Army to a standstill while the Western Allies sweep across Germany, be my guest but don't expect me to change the TOE upgrades so you can indulge that fantasy; that's what you have an editor for."

Said by......wait for it......jaw. Funny how you forgot that. Especially considering you qouted him.

You doing it yourself would insure that *you* get what you want.



No offense Aurelian, it was just a tongue in cheek comment. I am glad to be reassured that OKH actually bothering to get 1100 functionning on trains to be brought back to Germany to be then cut to pieces, molten and than used as pitch forks and hammers is completely WAD... pfiouu for a moment I had a doubt.



darbycmcd -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/17/2012 2:12:31 AM)

Is it true that the exess tanks removed from the units go back into the pool? I thought they did. If that is the case, the issue is irritating but not too critical. It would be very nice if the german player could make SU though, to take up some of the excess if it was there. that should probably come into the game with the combination of WitE and WitW... in about 5 years.



karonagames -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/17/2012 9:20:10 AM)

They do go back to the pool, and some progress has been made on SUs, as the reinforcement schedule now includes no-historical "shell" jagdpanzer units that can be filled up with excess Hetzers/Stg/Jagdpanthers; I think they arrive in late 44.



Denniss -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/17/2012 1:00:51 PM)

The game engine has on oversize reduction function, if any component of a unit (say specific rifle squads or armored cars) is above 125% of it's component TOE then a certain part will be sent back to pool until the component TOE reaches 125% or sligthly below.
This works for all ground elements and vehicles but not for aircraft.



Aurelian -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/17/2012 1:15:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

I
Of course as Aurelian cleverly points out everytime, "this is what the editor is for whiners." Nevertheless we all know that nothing replace an actual changing and patching of the official release...


Can you show where I say that every time? I can't recall.

But you right about one thing. That is one reason there is an editor. Though I can't recall pointing that out.

But what you are unaware of something else. Or just plain ignore it.

The TOE changes are set in stone for this game. Not my decision, as I have nothing to do with any part of the design or development. Since it isn't a bug, it's off the radar.

All one has to do is two things. First, understand that the game has been out for a year. And despite the complaining, TOEs haven't changed.

Second, read the forums. Save's one alot of useless angst. Like "Why can't Axis build support units."

Here ya go: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3055488&mpage=1&key=?

"If you really want to play an "historically based" fantasy game where the Germans fight the Red Army to a standstill while the Western Allies sweep across Germany, be my guest but don't expect me to change the TOE upgrades so you can indulge that fantasy; that's what you have an editor for."

Said by......wait for it......jaw. Funny how you forgot that. Especially considering you qouted him.

You doing it yourself would insure that *you* get what you want.



No offense Aurelian, it was just a tongue in cheek comment. I am glad to be reassured that OKH actually bothering to get 1100 functionning on trains to be brought back to Germany to be then cut to pieces, molten and than used as pitch forks and hammers is completely WAD... pfiouu for a moment I had a doubt.



Umm, they go back to the pool. Glad you are reassured that it WAD. Started to have some doubts.



AFV -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/17/2012 8:12:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Schmart
Another (most likely unintended) by-product of this hard coded TOE reduction, is that in the case of AFVs, any obsolete tanks will vanish into the pools and not be used, as the first tanks to go will be those that are no longer in production. As an extreme example, the German player could have 100's of Panther Ds still in Panzer units, but with a TOE reduction most would go to the pool and not be used, as they are no longer in production in 1945 and therefore are considered to be 'obsolete', because unfourtunately the AFV (and aircraft) replacement/upgrade routines are not fine tuned (nor adaptable to in game realities). The game would only accept Panther Gs as acceptable replacements in 1945. Just another argument for allowing manual upgrades/changing of AFVs by the player.


Back into the pool, apparently to not be used.

Aurelian- Its broken, its a clumsly design, and as several have posted, available manpower and equipment dictated TOES, not visa versa. The fact that you think its WAD, and there is not room for improvement, speaks volumes.



darbycmcd -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/18/2012 12:19:24 AM)

Schmart, in your example, wouldn't the units take D replacements if that is what they were currently using? I am fairly sure (but not totally) that this is the way it works. I think you mean the problem is that once the units upgrade to G, there could be lots of D models sitting in storage as the G's get depleted. But the manual specifically says it checks for the possibility of downgrading at a certain TOE level, so have you seen this problem in action? I never have as I have very few tanks left by 45 usually!

And AFV, just a point of order, the game is WAD and is therefore not broken. But you may argue that it is bad design of course. At least give credit to the game designers that, while you may agree with their decisions (legitimately), they made them for rational reasons. Personally I think this is pretty much tempest in a teacup type stuff, but I can understand your perspective.



Zebedee -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/18/2012 4:40:48 AM)

Fully agree that the issues with divisional establishments could be resolved with something as simple as being able to delay a scheduled ToE upgrade (simple only in concept, not simple in terms of adding it into the game). Modding will likely be my route once game stabilises enough for it to be worth doing. Disagree with a number of design decisions which depend upon historical outcomes to make sense. It is what it is. At least these things can be modded I guess.

Some are overly paranoid about some kind of pro-Soviet bias to the game. As far as I can see, it seems to boil down mainly to a conflict between sources being used. The more recent, which took advantage of those Yeltsin years where the archives were open, have given new slants on the post-war memoirs from the German side which gave the foundations for literature on the Eastern Front for 40 years. When, on the very first turn, you can gain 10/12 weeks by wiping out a significant proportion of the Red Army, it's not a sign that a game is somehow slanted against the Axis-only player. Personally, I play both sides with equal incompetence. Balance is all. Some decisions have obviously been taken to try and balance out other decisions.



veji1 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/18/2012 8:43:03 AM)

Indeed this is not about bias but about a simple toggle as is done for ship upgrades in WITP-AE (and WITP already). Just toggle yes or no to upgrades... a German player doing well might toggle no for all his units... most german players at some point would have to toggle yes for most of their units..just gives them a simple tool to adjust to the state of their forces / pool.



kg_1007 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/18/2012 1:56:31 PM)

While I have taken the side of the original poster, I do not see the game as "biased" either..if anything it has been a backwards compliment to the "axis" side by creating many cheats, if you will, to help the Red Army side(magically removing itself from encirclements is probably my favorite, with this TOE issue being a distant second).
As far as being simple to correct this issue(TOE) I would assume that since they already have something close as mentioned above, in WiTP, as well as even in this game, with aircraft, I do not think it should be a huge problem to fix..the magical ability of the Soviets to remove encircled troops, on the other hand, might be difficult..I will have to see though, if the Axis player has the same ability(in which case, it would be an aid to the AI, not to the "Soviet" side, per se)



elmo3 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/18/2012 2:11:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

..the magical ability of the Soviets to remove encircled troops, ...


Warping out of pockets is considered a bug so if anyone has a save file just before it happens then post it in the Tech Support Forum. We are eliminating this bug as examples are posted.



kg_1007 -> RE: Over 1100 Panzers lost in a single turn!!! (4/19/2012 8:38:18 AM)

Ah, I see first thing when I look, that there is new patch released. One of fixes is said to be this "warp out of pocket" issue..
And thank you for the advice, I normally hate to complain or send file saying"this game you worked so hard on has major issue" lol, but I will do so if I see again.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.71875