RE: 2nd question RE reserves

RE: 2nd question RE reserves (Full Version)

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

Message

Peltonx -> RE: 2nd question RE reserves (12/9/2012 2:58:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mevstedt Well, thas wasn't the point though Pelton. Leningrad can be captured by frontal assault also. The point was that the tactic isn't SHC specific as it can be used by germans as well =). Because of limited counters and the huge down side, poor up side GHC can or should only do this in a few special cases. SHC can do it 20 times a turn because of poor morale and allot more arm pts ect

Joel Billings -> RE: 2nd question RE reserves (12/11/2012 8:46:06 AM)
After discussing with Pavel and Gary we've concluded the manual is wrong on this and it should be 1:10, not 1:2. It's been that way since release and is what we used when testing and balancing other changes. We can't explain how it got to be 1:2 in the manual, but clearly we never had a tester put the spotlight on it like sjohnson has (thanks for that). Remember, as Pavel says there is significant randomness, and fogged up defender CV values can be very high so this makes the 1:10 not quite the extreme it seems. For those of you wondering about the public beta changes re ammo and wave attacks, they are: 6. Changes to Combat Formulas a) Reduced the fire of artillery elements during bombardment (2-hex) combat (primarily reduced the fire of defending artillery). b) Defensive fire will be reduced to conserve ammunition if the attacker is relatively very small (roughly less than half the size of the defender). c) If an artillery element is firing with its non-main gun devices only, 1/10 of the standard ammunition is used. d) Removed very large ammo usage spikes by artillery ground elements in battle.

Peltonx -> RE: 2nd question RE reserves (12/11/2012 10:05:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joel Billings After discussing with Pavel and Gary we've concluded the manual is wrong on this and it should be 1:10, not 1:2. It's been that way since release and is what we used when testing and balancing other changes. We can't explain how it got to be 1:2 in the manual, but clearly we never had a tester put the spotlight on it like sjohnson has (thanks for that). Remember, as Pavel says there is significant randomness, and fogged up defender CV values can be very high so this makes the 1:10 not quite the extreme it seems. For those of you wondering about the public beta changes re ammo and wave attacks, they are: 6. Changes to Combat Formulas a) Reduced the fire of artillery elements during bombardment (2-hex) combat (primarily reduced the fire of defending artillery). b) Defensive fire will be reduced to conserve ammunition if the attacker is relatively very small (roughly less than half the size of the defender). c) If an artillery element is firing with its non-main gun devices only, 1/10 of the standard ammunition is used. d) Removed very large ammo usage spikes by artillery ground elements in battle. So that means cheesy unrealistic/historical stuff like this is ok? http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3230677 Talking reserve mode reactions. the odds were over 1;10 in both cases of reactions as were SJ's If the battle is on the plains defender has LOS for miles and miles some times 10+. So they know if the forse attacking is 1/10th the size and will not be asking for help. Am I reading your post right? Also if your redusing defensive fire that only helps attacker because of less disrupted attackers, yes? Attacking fire is uneffected and defensive fire is reduced in all cases? I could be miss understanding, but the patch seems to help the wave attack more then hurt it as I see it, 6. Changes to Combat Formulas It makes cheesy tactics ( link) like attacking (12 times) with brigades or divisions one at a time to trigger reactions easyer. Am I wrong? Reaactions now over the 1:10 seem normal also, so in game its clearly not 1:2 but some wheres over 1:10 already. Am I wrong?

Peltonx -> RE: 2nd question RE reserves (12/11/2012 10:19:31 AM)
It would make attacks like MTs wave assaults harder and up the combat ratio as losses will not tapper off like they do. The losses are basicly like this now as defenders run out of ammo - 5k/2k/1k/1k They will look more like this after patch - like 5k/4.5k/4k ect Which will up the ratio from 3:5:1 ish into the 5-6ish:1 I think the first assault will have a slightly better chance to win, but the held losses for attacker will not drop off as they do now. I do agree with that, but the ant soaking will be easyer will it not? I think thats(ant attacks) the unhistorical cheese no one wants to see. I dont see how that (6.) stops that. So the only way is again for the player base to have to again put in house rules to stop the sillyness (ant attacks) because of short coming in the rule set? I all ready see as JS, triggers over 1:10. are you sure the engine is not already set at 1:10 and not 1:2? Am I wrong about the cheesy ant attacks? Just asking.

Helpless -> RE: 2nd question RE reserves (12/11/2012 10:30:57 AM)
quote: I all ready see as JS, triggers over 1:10. You don't see the odds used to determine reserve reaction. These are random CV generated prior the battle, which can be significantly different from the those in reports. Besides odds are not the only and not the most decisive factor in reserve activation code.

Peltonx -> RE: 2nd question RE reserves (12/11/2012 10:34:30 AM)
Ok I agree with the "random" stuff, but does the new patch address these chessy tactics- which was the hole point of this thread to begin with? It had nothing to do with redusing defending art fire or ammo usage, but ant attacks to get RMA like in the link. I do like the idea of the large historical wave attacks taking high losses every wave I must say, but I don't see how it addresses SJ's and others consern about triggers.

Helpless -> RE: 2nd question RE reserves (12/11/2012 10:41:56 AM)
I see no issue here. Don't set units to reserve mode if you don't want them to be activated.

timmyab -> RE: 2nd question RE reserves (12/11/2012 11:42:18 AM)
Surely the original intention must have been 1:2.No commander, not even an AI one, is going to be daft enough to commit his reserve to a 1:10 attack.

sjohnson -> RE: 2nd question RE reserves (12/11/2012 1:15:06 PM)
Hi Joel & Pavel - these beta changes look really good and realistic. I like it - looking forward to seeing how it plays! Thanks for the great work.

Flaviusx -> RE: 2nd question RE reserves (12/11/2012 2:36:25 PM)
Pavel, this ammo fix looks pretty good, but I wonder if it would be simpler to merely make such low odds attacks cost no ammo at all to the defender. As things stand it will still be possible to run down a defender's ammo if you launch enough attacks...a much larger number with this fix than before, sure, but still a finite amount. Somebody will contrive to figure out what that number is. Maybe the number should be infinite. The 1:10 reserve trigger seems very low to me as well and begging for abuse. The concern here is that people will cheese the reserve activations by using ants to draw them out, and then throw in the big attack once the reserves are exhausted. Obviously the defender wants reserves to be used against attacks that actually matter.

Helpless -> RE: 2nd question RE reserves (12/11/2012 3:00:32 PM)
quote: Surely the original intention must have been 1:2.No commander, not even an AI one, is going to be daft enough to commit his reserve to a 1:10 attack. No, intention was to make interdiction to work the way it works now. quote: Pavel, this ammo fix looks pretty good, but I wonder if it would be simpler to merely make such low odds attacks cost no ammo at all to the defender. As things stand it will still be possible to run down a defender's ammo if you launch enough attacks...a much larger number with this fix than before, sure, but still a finite amount. Flavio, ammo fix and odds are not related at all. All this odds discussion has no point as system currently doesn't provide these numbers. The one you see at the end are not the numbers which are used in calculation. On map counters could look as 1:1, it can calculate 1:2 prior the commitment and become 1:20 after battle is resolved. It is not very much predictable.. as war in general. Yes it is complex and hard to understand, but you have enough controls to avoid unwanted reactions.

morvael -> RE: 2nd question RE reserves (12/11/2012 7:50:46 PM)
Just please issue the patch, I can't wait, my SUs are so depleted and won't switch from that lone captured 37mm gun... [;)]

Joel Billings -> RE: 2nd question RE reserves (12/11/2012 8:27:58 PM)
Soon. We had a last minute hiccup, but unless something else comes up, it's just a matter of getting back in Matrix's production queue. Should happen this week sometime.

Peltonx -> RE: 2nd question RE reserves (12/11/2012 11:18:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Helpless quote: Surely the original intention must have been 1:2.No commander, not even an AI one, is going to be daft enough to commit his reserve to a 1:10 attack. The one you see at the end are not the numbers which are used in calculation. On map counters could look as 1:1, it can calculate 1:2 prior the commitment and become 1:20 after battle is resolved. It is not very much predictable.. as war in general. Yes it is complex and hard to understand, but you have enough controls to avoid unwanted reactions. Ok I see what your saying now about commitments after going back over data. Also about end odds and controling triggers. So the next patch will not change anything with trigger odds? They have always been 1;10 and not 1:2? If the next patch is not changing the in game trigger because its always been 1:10 and not 1:2 and if it will lower ammo use I am so happy [sm=00000947.gif]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.625