RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (Full Version)

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



Message

morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/9/2017 12:26:07 PM)

No, there were no changes to weather in this patch. We're pretty limited in what can be done, with just 4 huge zones and 3 out of 4 weather types representing absolute extremes (clear, mud, blizzard). Random weather is always worse for the Axis when compared to non-random, and the goal (when it was reworked) was to close the gap a bit.



weinsoldner -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/9/2017 12:54:18 PM)

Thanks again for all the work into one of my favorite games



Telemecus -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/9/2017 5:48:10 PM)

Is v1.11.01 backwards compatible - games saved under this version can be played by people still on v1.11.00?



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/9/2017 6:04:11 PM)

Although this time there is no lock in place (it's hard to add, so we do it only in very important cases), it should never be allowed. You risk damaging your game by switching between versions back and forth, as old version will undo some things done by the newer version. Perhaps I have to implement a system blocking this automatically for every new version.



tyronec -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/10/2017 6:55:33 AM)

quote:

23. Tactical Bomber aircraft type redesignated Dive Bomber (it was operating as such according to game mechanics). EW aircraft type changed to Ground Attack (mostly identical to Dive Bomber, but attacking like a slightly better version of Fighter Bomber when operating as bomber). Patrol aircraft type changed to Strategic Recon (identical to Recon). Float and Torpedo Bomber aircraft types hidden in the editor. Non-German air groups can switch between Recon and Strategic Recon types freely. All air groups can switch between Dive Bombers and Ground Attack types freely.


Can you explain how this is going to work in the game.
1. I presume EW means Early War, though note that IL2's are classed as 'Ground Attack' which I think is correct.
2. It looks like 'Ground Attack' are much less effective than 'Dive Bomber' which is a good change. Why would anyone change between types if one is much better, or am I missing something ?
3. Also I don't see any option to change types, which aircraft can change and how is it done ?



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/10/2017 7:16:03 AM)

1. EW was unused Electronic Warfare plane type.
2. Dive Bomber has better accuracy, but is susceptible to flak as it finishes the dive much lower. Ground attack aircraft do not do this. Also, agile ground attack aircraft are now allowed to dogfight which greatly increasses their chances to survive (in my tests this resulted in reduction of losses from ~50 to ~4 for unescorted Fw 190F-8 in GC 1944 - since more surived flight to target, more were downed by flak later).
3. Types are changed in generic aircraft data, which means you will see this only in games started under 1.11.01.

By the way, I'm sorry I forgot to update the change log properly. Late in development "Ground Attack" was renamed "Tactical Bomber" (not to be confused with old "Tactical Bomber" that was renamed to "Dive Bomber"), because Ground Attack caused problems with translation in German version.



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/10/2017 7:28:07 AM)

Simply put you have no choice in the matter. In new games some aircraft will be designated as Dive Bomber (for example Ju 87), while some as Tactical Bomber (for example Fw 190F-8). Tactical Bombers are less accurate during bombing, but if they are agile enough they will be much better in surviving encounters with enemy fighters.
Previously there were not enough types to differentiate between those two modes of operation, and in effect all "tactical bombers" were "dive bombers", and were slaughtered by enemy fighters (imagine Fw 190F-8 flying straight in formation, like B-17 bombers, trying to down enemy fighters with their non existent rear gun turrets). And those aircraft could not be described as Fighter Bombers because that would cause problems with groups in which they would be allowed to operate (JG instead of SG). So we had to make something similar to Fighter Bomber, but more bomber than fighter :)



tyronec -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/10/2017 7:54:23 AM)

Thanks.
I think this is a good enhancement. Very much goes along with a couple of books I've read about the ground attack war on the Eastern front.

And is makes quite a difference with a new game !



MrBlizzard -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/10/2017 11:02:51 AM)

A question about point 15:
Vehicle affected by low reparation bonus are also AFV or just unarmoured veichles?

15. Reduced German vehicle class ground element repair bonus from 10 to 5 in 1941-1944, and from 5 to 0 in 1945.



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/10/2017 11:18:21 AM)

All kinds of ground elements that are vehicles (SP Wpn, SP Art, AC, AFV), not generic vehicles (trucks) used for resupply.



56ajax -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/11/2017 3:23:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

No, there were no changes to weather in this patch. We're pretty limited in what can be done, with just 4 huge zones and 3 out of 4 weather types representing absolute extremes (clear, mud, blizzard). Random weather is always worse for the Axis when compared to non-random, and the goal (when it was reworked) was to close the gap a bit.

In one sense I agree that random is worse for the Axis in comparison with non random, but don't forget that the AXIS always knows about the weather first and has first use of the weather ie the AXIS has the initiative.



GPT55 -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/11/2017 3:45:37 AM)

I just started a game with the new version and am surprised to see the German 1st Cavalry Division now has 50 MPs and for practical purposes is now a mechanized infantry. Is that right?

Never mind--just searched the release notes and see it was changed in the previous version.



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/11/2017 10:59:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: johntoml56
In one sense I agree that random is worse for the Axis in comparison with non random, but don't forget that the AXIS always knows about the weather first and has first use of the weather ie the AXIS has the initiative.


Not if you launch deep penetration, which Soviet player re-opens during his turn isolating your widely spread regiments, and then you can't rescue them and re-close the encirclement again because of mud [:)]



tyronec -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/11/2017 12:53:28 PM)

Have been caught with that one, though difficult for the soviets to take them out if the mud clears after one turn.
Possible benefit for Axis comes if they can pull back units from the front line during mud turns so reducing attrition/fatigue. Having never played late into the game is this a worthwhile tactic ?



solops -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/11/2017 2:56:07 PM)

The public area patch link is not working.



56ajax -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/11/2017 11:16:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael


quote:

ORIGINAL: johntoml56
In one sense I agree that random is worse for the Axis in comparison with non random, but don't forget that the AXIS always knows about the weather first and has first use of the weather ie the AXIS has the initiative.


Not if you launch deep penetration, which Soviet player re-opens during his turn isolating your widely spread regiments, and then you can't rescue them and re-close the encirclement again because of mud [:)]


Well you should be watching the weather forecast and as the AXIS you may be disadvantaged for a turn but in 41 nothing can stop you and if the Soviets try and isolate your spear head they are just putting their head in a noose....Mr Tyronec taught me that...

Whereas in my current game, forecast mud but was clear, got 7 units surrounded and nothing stops the AXIS in 42 either...not strong enough for rescue....

See what the new patch brings...



morleron1225 -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/12/2017 2:18:08 AM)

Thanks very much. I can't think of another company which supports older games so well. WITE is still one of my favorite games and these improvements will give it yet more life.

Take care,
Ron [&o] [&o]



Nix77 -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 12:00:39 PM)

Morvael & team, please look more closely into the support squad change:

- Soviet total OOB 4.27M => 3.82M (256k difference in Corps HQs, 200k in armies)
- HQ ToE could be adjusted previously to gain manpower from HQ support squads, if that was the desired effect?
- 215k+ men (!!!) less are gained now in 1.11.01 from disbanding Corps HQs
- German HQ support squads still remain at the same (unrealistic?) levels?

What was the cause for the support squad change? Why German HQ ToE was not changed? If there is a change in support squad numbers, shouldn't the unit's support needs be toned down, or was this previously not working as it should?

I think there's a lot to rethink in this change, please consider this as a bug report for 1.11.01.

[image]local://upfiles/55175/824F86A373F74B3491DA4A32AD3BD47C.jpg[/image]

EDIT: the picture says "Corps OOB", that's the added figure from CR below the OOB and my additional calculations. I deducted Airborne and Air Command HQs from the calculations since they don't disband automagically.



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 12:22:42 PM)

Turning non-existent staff officers into soldiers might have been too gamey. I don't know.

On the other hand I have recently suggested to Denniss that we could keep corps HQs around for longer, like they were IRL (only Mechanized Corps HQs were disbanded early).



Kantti -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 12:30:07 PM)

Even if it has been gamey, game balance has evolved around it as long as I remember playing this game (couple of years). Now you can think that as having 20 empty soviet rifle divisions on around turn 10 instead of having them full. Earlier balance changes have been made presuming that those corps HQ's disband AND ppl get their manpower as replacements. Now they won't get that anymore. That is a huge nerf to Soviet side.



Nix77 -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 12:31:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Turning non-existent staff officers into soldiers might have been too gamey. I don't know.

On the other hand I have recently suggested to Denniss that we could keep corps HQs around for longer, like they were IRL (only Mechanized Corps HQs were disbanded early).


Gamey or not, this is an actual reduction of 215000 men in the Soviet OOB in late summer '41, quite critical phase I'd say. The disbanded Corps HQ went to the manpower pool, they weren't non-existent staff officers in the previous versions.

Also if the HQ +1 admin roll is still in effect as it used to be (support squad #/1000?), the chance for Soviet HQs to pass that ever have become really low.

You're now changing "gamey" stuff to realistic levels, should we start talking about Opel Blitz fuel consumption...? ;)



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 12:52:33 PM)

Let's wait for Denniss, I'm not in charge here.



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 1:00:24 PM)

If we'll keep rifle corps active until the end of the year, then this manpower will be still unavailable in the early phase, regardless of corps size.



Nix77 -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 1:01:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Let's wait for Denniss, I'm not in charge here.



[image]local://upfiles/55175/0E545EC898EC4D88BDE7C9BC3C5BD7FC.jpg[/image]



Nix77 -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 1:05:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

If we'll keep rifle corps active until the end of the year, then this manpower will be still unavailable in the early phase, regardless of corps size.


The Corps HQs have disbanded during the late summer, and that's when their manpower appears in the pool. In many games, the initial soviet manpower pool (800000 men) is drained dry at this point, and the men from HQs go directly to the fresh or returning divisions. So it's a direct hit to the Soviet late summer / autumn defense.

I'm not claiming the corps HQ disbanding is the correct way to handle the manpower pool, but it's just as Kantti said: it has been this way for quite a while and the balance has been built around these numbers. Not sure what would be the best way to fix it, but changes like this need to be investigated with care and with balance in mind. Just like all other data changes of this caliber. 200000 men disappearing is a huge change.



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 1:36:36 PM)

No balance change should be looked at in isolation. With higher forts, less accurate tactical bombers, reduced Axis repair rate, and reduced HQBU rate, less Soviet men will be killed in the period of easy victories. That offsets corps size change, obviously without 1:1 guarantee. All patches are tested so that no drastic balance changes will occur. Smaller balance chances are possible and actually welcome, since changing meta means the game is fresh, and there is always something new to discover, new roads to victory. I know many things are unrealistic, including Opel Blitz fuel consumption or lack of horse economy, but my policy was to always allow for changes made on historical ground (one small step towards accuracy), unless they lead to drastic balance changes, even if I can't make all things to be more accurate in one go. Denniss makes data changes, and very rarely I voice dissent. Let's see what he will say.



Telemecus -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 1:47:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael
That offsets corps size change, obviously without 1:1 guarantee. All patches are tested so that no drastic balance changes will occur. Smaller balance chances are possible and actually welcome


I know earlier comments were this patch was a deliberate re-balancing towards the Soviet side - on the assumption that there were too many Axis captures of Leningrad and Moscow in September 1941. I know I felt the HQBU change was particularly dramatic and the fortification change would mean changes in game play. Would I still be right in assuming with this coming the other way it is still a re-balancing to the Soviet side. But maybe less so than we thought?



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 1:48:26 PM)

At this point I'm for example thinking about adjusting too many attackers penalty that will remove the supreme killing power from regiments, by assuming they are overextended when alone. It's also possible to remove morale penalty from failed Soviet attacks to promote more aggressive playstyle.



Stelteck -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 1:54:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael
At this point I'm for example thinking about adjusting too many attackers penalty that will remove the supreme killing power from regiments, by assuming they are overextended when alone. It's also possible to remove morale penalty from failed Soviet attacks to promote more aggressive playstyle.


Interesting idea the morale thing. But a point to consider.

The problem for aggressive soviet playStyle and morale is not the soviet morale looses for me (you can recover the morale by resting), but the fact that the german gain morale by being attacked by the soviet !!! So attacking the german forces can easily make them stronger. 99 morale german units are a joke.

If you want to promote more aggressive play style i suggest to allow morale increase only when a formation is on the offensive (and winning).
I do not think it is unrealistic. Being attacked by the enemy is usually more a bad news than a morale building thing.



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 1:58:49 PM)

Yes, perhaps only attacking and winning should result in morale increase, and defending and losing in morale decrease.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7659912