RE: 1.08 Discussion (Full Version)

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



Message


morvael -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/11/2014 9:03:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Would any of these fixes require a restart to take effect?



They are relatively minor changes in the code, so in this sense no. But there may be harm that was already done when having frontline units understrength. In 1941 this affects the Soviets, so with the change they would offer slightly stronger resistance (especially in late 1941). If you're ok with that (it can't be measured in absolute numbers), you don't have to restart.




Oshawott -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/11/2014 11:25:07 PM)

There is some strange behavior regarding beachhead supply. The two rifle divisions southwest of Riga should not be in beachhead supply. What makes this even stranger is that both divisions show as isolated during the following Russian turn.


[image]local://upfiles/46668/C860E175977545378F828339CFCE9ECE.jpg[/image]




morvael -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 4:19:58 AM)

Maybe there were on the coast on their previous turn, got beachhead supply, then moved inland retaining it for the duration of enemy turn?




Mehring -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 6:14:33 AM)

Turn one in my new game I isolated some Russian units in Lithuania, capturing but not occupying all ports. Next turn they showed as having a supply route but did surrender to an attack.




Banzan -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 9:53:39 AM)

I noticed a strange creation of guard units. As an example, a tank brigade with 3 victorys and 5 loses got guard status. Some inf. divisions got guards status where i was wondering from what fighting/wins, but i havn't checked their win count, yet. I'll check them complete when back home.




morvael -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 10:29:32 AM)

3V+5L should not grant Gds status. Are you sure it wasn't a unit that started the game marked as guards?




Oshawott -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 10:42:28 AM)

quote:

Maybe there were on the coast on their previous turn, got beachhead supply, then moved inland retaining it for the duration of enemy turn?


True, didn't take this into consideration. But I have another test game were a unit is isolated away from the coast and has beachhead supply. This is T1 before Russians move.

[image]local://upfiles/46668/BBA8EC3D8BCB41338188BA39B641354D.jpg[/image]




morvael -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 10:55:03 AM)

Could you send me a save from the end of the previous German turn so I could run the logistics phase?




Oshawott -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 10:58:48 AM)

Yeah, just PM me your email.




Banzan -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 11:07:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

3V+5L should not grant Gds status. Are you sure it wasn't a unit that started the game marked as guards?


I will check the entire case when back home this evening and add some screenshots, or tell you i was too tired/stupid yesterday night, whatever fits better. :)




Denniss -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 12:17:34 PM)

Is the armor unit attached to the HQ which is in BH supply?




Oshawott -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 12:21:36 PM)

quote:

Is the armor unit attached to the HQ which is in BH supply?


Yes indeed. Didn't know that beachhead supply works like this.




morvael -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 12:43:48 PM)

Yeah, I think this is possible in current version.




morvael -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 12:50:23 PM)

You can easily test it using GC 42 and giving some space to Soviet beachhead near Oranienbaum.




Denniss -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 1:17:23 PM)

AFAIR this also worked in 1.07 if the unit is able to trace a route to its HQ within a MP limit.




swkuh -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 1:58:31 PM)

Must say that this discussion is deep and useful. Thanks all.

My 2 cents, have seen two minor surprises:

1. starting "multiplayer" feature gets message "earlier version available 1.07.15" and seems to wait. Punch the tab again and off it goes. Am using 1.08 and that's what plays.

2. selecting manual aircraft upgrade, info panel misstates range. If selected, but range is correct when aircraft is accepted.

And a biggie that I'm not sure about, have had to restart several times vs. AI due to freezing. Goes away after restart.




Banzan -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 4:18:54 PM)

I just checked, its unit 2837 (was 8th Tank Divison). Is it possible that victorys as Tank divison are counting, but it only shows victorys as Tank Brigade in the CR?

[image]http://mail.britlore.co.uk/Banzan/WitE/guards.jpg[/image]




Grungar -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 4:47:24 PM)

anything that reduces the micro managment aspect of the game is welcome for me! perhaps in a future update you could say ummm ad a powerful ai stavka staff officer assistant! I mean one that is truly usful. I predict mass volume depletions and or busy mirror sites![:D]
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

loki100, aside from the problem described above there are also things to consider for ongoing games switching from 1.07 to 1.08:
a) previously some losses were not visible in the statictics, they appear now, causing an artificial increase (if you have written down one set of data using 1.07 and one using 1.08 - as I did, due to external tracking in Excel).
b) some ground element classes belong to different category now: SPA counts as artillery and is included in those numbers, previously they counted as AFV; in the new generic data Assault Guns are AFV not SPA, but when you retain old data, the change is significant, and there are other side effects (unfortunately this can't be avoided).
c) units having squads with less than 10 men will be weaker, units with squads of over 10 men will be stronger in CV terms, hence 1941 Rumanians with 17-men squads get an increase in CV, mid-war Soviet squads see a decrease in CV, as do the late-war German squads. As rifle squad is major contributor to an infantry unit CV, the change is significant and visible on the counter (a 1-2 CV difference on-counter).

Perhaps there are also some other changes that affect your game, but most likely it's c) and refit blocking/max 60% CV. No longer the Soviet player can play having all his front-line units on refit (as I did). But as I said above I'm willing to reduce the problem and micromanagement by disabling the 60/70 rule.





morvael -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 5:27:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oshawott

quote:

Is the armor unit attached to the HQ which is in BH supply?


Yes indeed. Didn't know that beachhead supply works like this.


Beachhead through HQs work this way and this is correct. What is not correct is that unit was marked as being in beachhead supply even if 0 tons of supplies were recieved from HQ. I changed that. This leaves me with a problem as to why the HQ requested much less supplies for phase 2 than 1 (and that's why not enough was left for the Tank Division).




morvael -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 6:53:58 PM)

Ok, I fixed the problem with beachhead supply. When I added beachhead supply for HQ units (which wasn't working) I didn't add a failsafe for combat units and there was interference, when they were in supply range from a HQ that had beachhead supply.




morvael -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 7:03:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Must say that this discussion is deep and useful. Thanks all.

My 2 cents, have seen two minor surprises:

1. starting "multiplayer" feature gets message "earlier version available 1.07.15" and seems to wait. Punch the tab again and off it goes. Am using 1.08 and that's what plays.

2. selecting manual aircraft upgrade, info panel misstates range. If selected, but range is correct when aircraft is accepted.

And a biggie that I'm not sure about, have had to restart several times vs. AI due to freezing. Goes away after restart.


1) It's up to Matrix to change this and they do this only when the patch gets official, so for now you have to live with this warning.
2) I would need info which panel. The one where you can click "Manual" that shows "Radius" or the one with two aircraft being compared, which says "Range". "Range" is "Radius"/10 I think, so both are correct, though it would be better if the info shown would be consistent.




Oshawott -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/12/2014 7:23:26 PM)

quote:

AFAIR this also worked in 1.07 if the unit is able to trace a route to its HQ within a MP limit.


I checked the old version. It's definitely a new feature.




morvael -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/13/2014 11:46:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Banzan

I just checked, its unit 2837 (was 8th Tank Divison). Is it possible that victorys as Tank divison are counting, but it only shows victorys as Tank Brigade in the CR?

[image]http://mail.britlore.co.uk/Banzan/WitE/guards.jpg[/image]


I think it's not possible. Is this from a normal 1941 Grand Campaign scenario started under 1.08?




swkuh -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/13/2014 11:46:41 AM)

Its "radius" as shown in small panel when making a manual change to units in the field. I'll have to look at the comparisons available through the commander's report for that issue. Maybe its the divide by 10 rule, after all.






morvael -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/13/2014 11:51:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill
Its "radius" as shown in small panel when making a manual change to units in the field. I'll have to look at the comparisons available through the commander's report for that issue. Maybe its the divide by 10 rule, after all.


I have reviewed it yesterday and indeed in one place it might have been shown wrongly. It should be radius=range/30, where range is in miles.




SigUp -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/13/2014 3:16:37 PM)

Morvael, I take it that the hotfix for 1.08 is going to take somewhat longer?




comsolut -> RE: 1.08 Discussion (11/13/2014 7:29:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I can't say that I like or agree with anything that reinforces the replacement shuffle. It's never been clear to me why at the scale this game is played, reinforcement to full 100% can't take place in any given hex, even if adjacent to the enemy. It's just micromanagement hell. This isn't a tactical level game. The effect desired is or ought to be fully modeled by attrition losses, and nothing further is needed.

As others note, this mechanic oddly favors the offense in an IGOUGO game system. Which strikes me as deeply perverse.




+1




vandorenp -> RE: 1.08 Discussion - AI and the Air Recon Ops (11/14/2014 1:42:48 AM)

Think I saw a note asking that all observations be posted here.

Selecting AI for Air Recon does not execute all the air recon missions. A few execute at a time. So I have to click AI repeatedly. In previous version I clicked once and dozens of Air recce missions were flown. What gives?




heliodorus04 -> RE: 1.08 Discussion - AI and the Air Recon Ops (11/14/2014 5:55:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vandorenp

Think I saw a note asking that all observations be posted here.

Selecting AI for Air Recon does not execute all the air recon missions. A few execute at a time. So I have to click AI repeatedly. In previous version I clicked once and dozens of Air recce missions were flown. What gives?

My own experience in 1.08 is the opposite of yours. It seems to work better than prior versions in my (limited) experience. Normally I do manual recon but I've been playing around with it in 1.08.




Oshawott -> RE: 1.08 Discussion - AI and the Air Recon Ops (11/14/2014 12:55:58 PM)

Morvael, can you give us an idea when the hotfix will come out? I would really like to start a new game but the 60% TOE issue prevents me from doing so. Thanks for any info you can give us.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625