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

Telemecus -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 2:05:26 PM)

I think you should still have morale losses when attacks are suicidal. There are many recorded events of troops being ordered into what they thought of as futile battles and losing morale as a result. Or even becoming mutinous. So maybe extreme loses from attacking (4 to 1 or some such threshold) is still necessary. Making all attacks a morale freebie would just mean mass spamming of attacks whatever the odds.



Stelteck -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 2:06:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

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

Ho yes !!
[sm=innocent0001.gif]



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 2:09:52 PM)

Telemecus, losing men and equipment should be penalty enough, especially for the Axis.



Crackaces -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 2:39:17 PM)

quote:

Being attacked by the enemy is usually more a bad news than a morale building thing.


The first battle of Slominsk with the Russians futile effort .. they gave up a lot of blood to gain time and space .. I have to see the Germans being quite celebratory [sm=party-smiley-012.gif]



Nix77 -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 3:11:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nix77

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.


Following up with questions about the Support Squad change:

What exactly is the desired functionality of HQs having support squads? In 1.11.01, an army HQ of 10 divisions can raise the divisions' capacity to recover fatigue and repair elements by less than 10% (200/10/275), and the division will still be operating at less than 60% of the needed support.

If the bonus admin chance mechanic is not changed, a Soviet Army has 20% chance to give +1 admin to the leader checks, if at full ToE.

The above numbers are now really small, and it seems it wouldn't make much difference if all the army HQs were operating at 20% ToE:

56% vs 60% fatigue reduction & element repair effectiveness
4% vs 20% chance for admin bonus

The support squad & command chain seems to have become quite insignificant for the Soviet side with this patch.

Front HQs were also reduced to 500 support squads, that translates into roughly 10 squads of assistance spread out among the divisions.

German divisions have almost 100% support need fulfilled by their own ToE, not toning down German HQ support squads seems like an odd choice. I understand the support squads reflect the efficiency of the command structure and Germans should excel in this, but this should be represented perhaps differently than having 30000 men in support duties in a German army (10000 in army, 20000 in the corps) while the Soviet army now has only 4000. That's far from realism.




Would it have been better to make a complete support squad overhaul, and include the German side to it also?

HQ support squad numbers could've been lowered on both sides, while at the same time adjusting the support needs for different units. Support squad admin effect formula should be adjusted accordingly to reflect the changes, and to preserve the meaningfulness of having a functional command chain supporting the combat units.




chaos45 -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 3:34:23 PM)

ouch...good catch Nix....ya the continuous reducing of Soviet manpower seems to have gone alittle to far. Soviet manpower has already been reduced far below historical, while the Germans is far higher than historical. To the point now that manpower is a huge issue for the soviets until the end game.

Honestly think maybe the soviet manpower multiplier may need to be slightly increase or starting manpower reserves increased to lessen the manpower constraints on the soviets.



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 3:46:27 PM)

Yes, it's better to handle this with higher multiplier or mobilization of extra men (like vehicles) in the early turn, than by increasing strength of corps to be disbanded. As I said those corps were operating long past the date that WitE allows them now.



Nix77 -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 3:51:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

ouch...good catch Nix....ya the continuous reducing of Soviet manpower seems to have gone alittle to far. Soviet manpower has already been reduced far below historical, while the Germans is far higher than historical. To the point now that manpower is a huge issue for the soviets until the end game.

Honestly think maybe the soviet manpower multiplier may need to be slightly increase or starting manpower reserves increased to lessen the manpower constraints on the soviets.


There's one effect that I missed though, the 23 new armies that arrive during the late summer and autumn of '41 take around 120000-150000 men less as they need less support. So the manpower effect isn't that dramatic after all!


I would however maybe tune down the German support squads too, since they're mostly unneeded for anything else than the admin bonus chance (divisions have nearly 100% support squad levels, haven't checked the later ToEs though). Maybe change the admin bonus chance multiplier too to reflect the lower support numbers?


The lingering rifle corps HQs would perhaps be a proper chaos factor in the Soviet command chain. I'd become more tempted to disband them manually tbh :)



Nix77 -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 4:30:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Yes, it's better to handle this with higher multiplier or mobilization of extra men (like vehicles) in the early turn, than by increasing strength of corps to be disbanded. As I said those corps were operating long past the date that WitE allows them now.


From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_corps_(Soviet_Union)
quote:

By November 1941, the Soviet order of battle showed only one rifle corps headquarters still active among the forces fighting the German invasion.

....

The use of rifle corps headquarters never disappeared entirely from the Red Army during World War II, as rifle armies in areas not fighting the Germans (such as the Far Eastern military region) maintained their use of rifle corps headquarters during the entire war.



tomeck48 -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 4:48:06 PM)

I recently downloaded the version 1.11.01. In the Game Options screen there is a new option called CV mode. I get the "better math" setting but I can also pick and "Art. 1" and a "Sup 1 or 0." What do those do?



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/16/2017 8:27:32 PM)

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4367937



MrBlizzard -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/20/2017 10:51:16 AM)

Under beta some soviet airgroups have been renamed in turn 2 with an incomplete name (ie only "64" instead than "64 IAP"



MrBlizzard -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/20/2017 4:03:52 PM)

This is what I mean

[image]local://upfiles/41800/D4634686E23A4B5085C091598211841D.jpg[/image]



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/20/2017 4:17:16 PM)

Will check.
What is the version of your scenario data, version of your game (exe), and your opponent's exe?



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/20/2017 4:21:17 PM)

This happens most likely because your opponent is using older exe which doesn't know about new plane types and thus doesn't know the correct names for air groups. One more reason why I must add save locking for every new patch.



MrBlizzard -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/20/2017 4:28:20 PM)

Thanks
Mine is 1941-45 campaign - bitter end
1.11.01
Server game
My opponent told me He has the same version, I'll check again with him



tyronec -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/20/2017 8:01:33 PM)

I don't know if this is a bug, but am on T7 of a game under the new patch and my available transport aircraft is very low.
The numbers available each turn has been as follows:
2- 197
3- 263
4- 145
5- 153
6- 77
7- 77
My transport airbases have nearly always been on railways and are not overloaded. Used them T3 to T5 but last turn I didn't fly any supply at all so was surprised numbers had not gone up.



[image]local://upfiles/52296/815C39ED7BF24D4FBBD9B4BDAE34D8DC.jpg[/image]



cohimbra -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/20/2017 8:28:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBlizzard

Thanks
Mine is 1941-45 campaign - bitter end
1.11.01
Server game
My opponent told me He has the same version, I'll check again with him

[image]http://i65.tinypic.com/10p5505.jpg[/image]
Loading save cause this advice new version 1.09.00 available*
Installed executable first (1.08.04) then patched to 1.11.01

*can't check right now, save is in MrBlizzard hands, but I'm pretty sure it say that



cohimbra -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/20/2017 8:31:01 PM)

-



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/20/2017 9:41:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec
Used them T3 to T5 but last turn I didn't fly any supply at all so was surprised numbers had not gone up.


They are still there but in reserve. Previously the planes were sent back to pool and players were unhappy that numbers are low while pool is full. Now they stay in unit, but little has changed - they are still not useable. I will try to check why they are so slow to repair.



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/20/2017 9:43:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cohimbra

Loading save cause this advice new version 1.09.00 available*


Please ignore this message, they always forget to update this message and I have no control over it. So you can't give me the save as this is multiplayer. I'll try to replicate this on my own.



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/21/2017 9:34:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBlizzard
Under beta some soviet airgroups have been renamed in turn 2 with an incomplete name (ie only "64" instead than "64 IAP"


In 1.11.02:
quote:

2. Fixed a bug where ground attack and strategic recon Soviet air groups had no default air group names assigned, so they were losing their designation during the logistics phase.



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/21/2017 9:37:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec
My transport airbases have nearly always been on railways and are not overloaded. Used them T3 to T5 but last turn I didn't fly any supply at all so was surprised numbers had not gone up.


In 1.11.02:
quote:

3. Fixed a bug where an airbase had to have at least 100% of fuel needs to be able to return reserve aircraft to active duty. This wasn’t required for returning damaged aircraft to active duty.


Coupled with the fact that after flying a transport mission most transport aircraft become reserve aircraft, and that supply situation rarely allows to refill bases to 100% fuel needs, this prevented return to active duty. And in the last patch I have reduced rotation of reserve aircraft to the pool, so they were stuck in that state forever (only solution is to move to National Reserve).



tyronec -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/21/2017 12:45:12 PM)

quote:

In 1.11.02:
quote:

3. Fixed a bug where an airbase had to have at least 100% of fuel needs to be able to return reserve aircraft to active duty. This wasn’t required for returning damaged aircraft to active duty.


Coupled with the fact that after flying a transport mission most transport aircraft become reserve aircraft, and that supply situation rarely allows to refill bases to 100% fuel needs, this prevented return to active duty. And in the last patch I have reduced rotation of reserve aircraft to the pool, so they were stuck in that state forever (only solution is to move to National Reserve).


This game was started under the latest patch, so if I read the patch information correctly the reserve aircraft should be returning to active even if they don't have 100% fuel.



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/21/2017 1:07:13 PM)

No, 1.11.02 is the next patch I'm making, you play on 1.11.01.
These posts were only to confirm issues, and let you all know I have fixed them.



Crackaces -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/21/2017 1:35:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

No, 1.11.02 is the next patch I'm making, you play on 1.11.01.
These posts were only to confirm issues, and let you all know I have fixed them.


I think it was pointed out that the rout through multiple ZOC was not attiring enough? If that is true, is this going to be fixed?



morvael -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/21/2017 2:00:32 PM)

The problem is hexes, ZOC and IGoYouGo turns and ability to time travel (because of attack/move sequencing) are a bit artificial, usually the situation would be more fluid and the unit would retreat earlier. So one can say extra retreat losses because of that should be limited. Perhaps only a small boost to see a difference could be added, but nothing major.



tyronec -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/21/2017 2:03:23 PM)

quote:

No, 1.11.02 is the next patch I'm making, you play on 1.11.01.
These posts were only to confirm issues, and let you all know I have fixed them.


OK, thanks - understand now.
Will try and improvise to get my transports back.



Templer_12 -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (11/30/2017 4:50:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elma666

Wow,thanks for keep this great Game alive[&o]

Yes, thank you. [sm=love0059.gif]



Tomcat84 -> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01 (1/1/2018 6:01:01 PM)

Am brand new to this game but think I have found a few minor typo's in the Commander's report Aircraft pages (it's all those beta hours for CMANO coming to the fore I think ;):

The first three columns (Name, nationality and type) all have the word aicraft, as in aircraft but missing the r in the mouse over.
Example screen:
[image]https://borism.home.xs4all.nl/images/wite/cdrreporttypo1.jpg[/image]

The rest of the columns correctly spell aircraft.

Additionally, the fourth and fifth column (SDate and EDate) have the same mouse over, that is they both say "Production start date of aircraft" where I would expect that Edate needs to say "Production end date of aircraft".

[image]https://borism.home.xs4all.nl/images/wite/cdrreporttypo2.jpg[/image]

This is all under 1.11.01 public beta branch on steam.

Minor stuff but hope that's helpful.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.328125