1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (Full Version)

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



Message

xhoel -> 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/20/2019 10:34:48 PM)

I am opening this thread so everyone can post the problems that appear on the newest beta patch and it is all compact. Let's hope for as few problems as possible.

I just did some tests and I see one thing that is off so far: If battle report detail is set to higher than 1, no text is showing even though combat is clearly happening.

The other stuff looks to be working fine so far. I really like some of the changes, the added information is welcomed :)



RedJohn -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/20/2019 10:50:24 PM)

Bug report was already posted, but units will surrender if surrounded and attacked, even if it's on the same turn. Previously they would of course rout.



Telemecus -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/20/2019 11:12:11 PM)

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4691039



morvael -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/21/2019 8:38:33 AM)

As I said it's very dangerous beta (really beta), not suitable for any ongoing games. I'll hope we'll be able to fix all serious issues soon and publish a hotfix.



xhoel -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/21/2019 12:44:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

As I said it's very dangerous beta (really beta), not suitable for any ongoing games. I'll hope we'll be able to fix all serious issues soon and publish a hotfix.


Don't worry about it morvael. I am using the beta to test it but am playing my ongoing campaign on the old 1.11.03. Like I said the added information is quite nice as are most of the changes. We have faith in you!



thedoctorking -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/21/2019 8:17:21 PM)

57th Tank Division at 65,81 is assigned to STAVKA and locked on turn 2 while all the remaining armor around it has been set to 5th Mech Corps/16th Army and is unlocked. Overlooked?



morvael -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/21/2019 9:45:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

57th Tank Division at 65,81 is assigned to STAVKA and locked on turn 2 while all the remaining armor around it has been set to 5th Mech Corps/16th Army and is unlocked. Overlooked?


Maybe it arrived late and wasn't ready. It's indeed fzn for 2 turns, while nearby units are not. That would be a question to Denniss. I have only this piece of information about the division (from Pettibone):

quote:

57th Tank Division 02/41, Transbaikal Military District, assigned to Seventeenth Army as an independent unit; 05/31/41, with Sixteenth Army; 08/41, fought with Twentieth Army; 08/41, disbanded): Col. Vasiliy Alekandrovich Mishulin (wounded/Deputy Commander, Main Tank Directorate) 08/41 disbanded.



morvael -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/21/2019 10:02:30 PM)

Sent the patch with fixes to 2by3. In times of Steam and GOG versions it's serious effort to publish a new version, whereas in the past it was enough to post new exe on the forum [:(]
I blame myself for not looking harder to enlist some testers from those allowed to see development forums.



Denniss -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/21/2019 10:13:38 PM)

http://niehorster.org/012_ussr/41_oob/interior/_transbaikal_17.html
has 57th tank as in transfer from Transbaikal MD to Ukraine, was basically unloading trains when the germans invaded
Setup seems intentional



GPT55 -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/21/2019 11:55:06 PM)

I saw a couple of "wrong way" retreats. The pic shows one. The German 8=6 unit retreated Northeast, when clearly it should have retreated West or Southwest (and when attacked again in the same turn surrendered instead or routing).

[image]local://upfiles/37578/56C4FEF19D64430FB31E299A14701FE9.jpg[/image]



morvael -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/22/2019 6:01:08 AM)

Would like to get a save before the attack to see the wider picture.



xhoel -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/22/2019 8:59:00 AM)

@morvael: Change 19 regarding forts is unnecessary and only rewards the Soviets since they can now hold level 4 forts with very weak units no matter what forces they are going against. See my AAR if you want to see how hard it is to take Sevastopol (while not isolated) against strong Soviet resistance. It makes for a tough decision and a hard fight from both sides and it is realistic. The new rule basically means that such hexes can be defended by very weak units without any downsides to it. It is an artficial rule that is not needed.

I also don't understand what this means: "For heavy urban, mountain terrain or working port level 10+ add 2 to fort level, for light urban, rough terrain or working port level 5+ add 1 to fort level."

Does this mean that a heavy urban hex at level 2 fort will get +2 added to it and odds better than 2.00 to 1 will not force the defenders to retreat?

Point 39 also needs to take into account port damage as it does not account for it from what I can tell. Sevastopol at 70+ damage and Sevastopol at 0 damage should have different supply levels.

Point 19 is my main problem with the new patch, having seen first hand how hard such battles are and having run multiple tests. To further punish the player in an artificial way only so the other side can get a easy win and hold a certain hex is a big mistake. Please review the rule change and revert it back to older versions or tweak it so that it does not lead to such results.



morvael -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/22/2019 9:14:43 AM)

This will remain although I can think of removing that bonus in case inadequate forces are present in the hex. I believe it could kick in only with at least 2 divisions or 1 corps.

This change otherwise is bound to stay, as without it it's impossible to recreate fortress battles that took months. Time to dust off those Karl mortars, they should give a good modifier to fort destruction.

+2 in heavy urban means fort level 2 counts as 4 in that case and gives the no retreat bonus.



MaXXOltt -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/22/2019 9:15:27 AM)

quote:

57th tank as in transfer from Transbaikal MD to Ukraine, was basically unloading trains when the germans invaded

In fact, 57th Tank division saw very few combat action in Ukraine. Only 114th Tank Regiment were unloading at Proskurow railway station and even more only sapper and recon companies of the regiment were already unloaded at mid-day of June 22nd. The whole regiment took a first action on June 26th-27th defending Ostrog and Schepetovka,an stayed in 16th army until the begining of July, whilst the other units of 57th division was sent to Western Front, unloaded at Orsha on june 28th, and then assigned to 20th Army.



morvael -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/22/2019 9:19:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel
Point 39 also needs to take into account port damage as it does not account for it from what I can tell. Sevastopol at 70+ damage and Sevastopol at 0 damage should have different supply levels.


It should take damage into account. But Sevastopol is a big port, so the cost remains quite low. It was never very big, now it's bigger so it's not a change for worse.



xhoel -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/22/2019 9:56:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

This will remain although I can think of removing that bonus in case inadequate forces are present in the hex. I believe it could kick in only with at least 2 divisions or 1 corps.

This change otherwise is bound to stay, as without it it's impossible to recreate fortress battles that took months. Time to dust off those Karl mortars, they should give a good modifier to fort destruction.

+2 in heavy urban means fort level 2 counts as 4 in that case and gives the no retreat bonus.


You are being far too generous to the defenders. A properly defended Sevastopol will hold for the same amount of time as the real fortress did (around 1 month). Again, take a look at my AAR, Sevastopol proper held from turn 56 till turn 59 (a full month) against the whole 11th Army, which had the best divisions of the Wehrmacht and frightening artillery and which was much stronger than its real life counterpart. If that doesn't convince you, run a modified Sturgeon Catch scenario and look at how hard it is to take the city. All the Soviets have to do is actually commit forces, the terrain, fort levels and supply mechanics are on their side.

With your added bonuses, Sevastopol can hold for 2+ months which is absolutely insane. Even if the Germans manage to drop the fort levels to 2, the Soviets still have the no retreat bonus due to the fact that Sevastopol is a port level 10+. Even if the Axis finally manage to drop the fort levels to 1 and force the Soviets to retreat, the Soviet units will simply rout to safety with all their men and equipment which is completely unrealistic and should be changed but that is a whole other topic on its own.

Under those conditions, no German player will even try to go for Sevastopol since it is a stupid decision to make: If you commit forces, it will take forever to capture it, you will lose so many men and at the end of the day the Soviets will simply rout and escape.

So now, instead of making it a hard prize to fight over, it will simply be ignored because it will become impossible to capture against proper defense. I am 100% sure that that is not your intention, that is why I am urging you to see into tweaking said rules.

The idea of removing the bonus if inadequate forces are present sounds good to me as a start but I would advise to also add a cap on the end odds. If an Axis player is getting 5 to 1 odds and the defenders are still holding because of the bonus, that needs to go. Or if you are not open to that, make the Soviets take heavier losses, the same way WitW simulates beachhead defense.

Also if you are trying to simulate fortress battles, rough and mountain terrain have nothing to do with that and should not profit from the bonus, only Light and Heavy urban hexes should.

I have seen Voronezh, Leningrad and Tula (all isolated) hold off multiple attacks for 3+ turns without the bonus that you have added. I am not against it in theory and understand your intention but it seems like you need to tone the bonus down a bit as it is way overpowered in the current state.

quote:

It should take damage into account. But Sevastopol is a big port, so the cost remains quite low. It was never very big, now it's bigger so it's not a change for worse.


It wasn't in the changelog so I assumed it doesn't. Fair enough.



VigaBrand -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/22/2019 2:21:41 PM)

Did you see the engineer and Artillery change values in combat which reduces the fort level?
I like this rule (19), but please test it with the current changes and not with some old games.
Did you had an idea how well the artillery/engineers decrease the fortlevel with the new rules?
The germans will benefit from this rule, too in the late game.
My understanding is, this will bring us more late war games, because soviets survive and the germans could better defend there line later, too.



morvael -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/22/2019 2:32:20 PM)

xhoel, siege of Sevastopol officially took place between 30 October 1941 and 4 July 1942. That's a bit more than you said (thinking perhaps only about the final successful attempt to capture it). Assume all that time (except First Winter) you'll be nabbing at the forts to reduce them while also bombing the port to decrease its efficiency. Seems ok for me. Also look at Leningrad and Stalingrad - sieges that took years and months respectively. Old rules were unable to replicate this at all. I'm not fan of using odds as modifiers - they swing a lot because of random rolls, between 1/16 to 32x of base value. It's not something I would like to base on.



sixten992 -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/22/2019 5:26:37 PM)

The first attack on Sevastopol took place at the very end and the beginning of October/November 41 and was more of a probe since the Germans lacked sufficient forces. I game terms it was perhaps like two infantry divisions (the 72nd and the 132nd) making a hasty attack. The Soviet at the time only had around 20,000 men in the city, but they could also benefit from coastal batteries around the city. After shipping in reinforcements the Soviets had more than 50,000 men defending the city in the middle of November.

The Germans made more, in game terms, hasty attacks in the mid-November with more troops than before but without any lasting success; or perhaps was it a deliberate attack that only resulted in a probe attack result due to the Soviet forces being too strong. Anyhow, the Germans now understood that the city was not going to fall easily and begun to prepare for a more massive effort. The Germans at this time, mid-November, had weak supply line in their positions outside the city.

On 17 December they attacked again, this time with more troops, in what in game terms definitively could be called a deliberate attack. The Soviet defenses were too strong though, and they could also benefit from the guns of a Soviet battleship in the harbor.

The final assault took place on 7 June 42 and lasted about four weeks, i.e. four game turns approximately. When this final assault begun the Soviets had around 115,000 men defending. This means that they must have had, in game terms, three full corps defending, at least. The geographical area the Soviet held at the beginning of the 7 June attack only amounted to one hex, or actually even less, in game terms.



SpeedKat -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/22/2019 7:49:48 PM)

If artillery and engineers are better against forts then it might be a necessary change. I would give any modifications the benefit of the doubt until extensively tested.

That said, I might have done it slightly differently. The way it is now, the hex can't be captured no matter what the final battle odds are until the fort is reduced. This doesnt make all that much sense. Rather it should work like this:

At any fort level above 2, the battle odds needed to capture the hex should be equal to the fort level of the hex. Fort level 2.1? The battle odds needed are 2.10:1. Fort level 4.68? Battle odds needed are 4.68:1.

If artillery and engineers are better at reducing fort levels now, this change will matter less than you might think, while also making forts much more interesting and a bit harder to take.

If you feel like you are forced to implement forts in such an odd way due to the punishing CV mechanics, then your issues lie with how final CV is calculated and not with forts.



morvael -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/22/2019 9:14:13 PM)

Yes, I'm not a fan of wildly random final CVs... Anything but not these to determine some effects or modifiers.



morvael -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/22/2019 9:17:59 PM)

I believe base concept is fine and much needed. I'm also aware such a radical new rule will probably need a few tweaks, especially if it can be abused (like not placing respectable number of defenders in hex).



GPT55 -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/22/2019 9:33:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Would like to get a save before the attack to see the wider picture.


Here is a dropbox link to a save at start of Soviet turn (I hope it works!)

Saved Game Link

The problem can be reproduced as follows:
- Load the saved game
- Move 9-14 unit from X89-Y46 to X88-Y48.
- Attack the 13=8 unit in X88-Y49 with the stack in X89-Y50.
The German unit retreats the wrong way every time I have tried it. In playing a couple of turns with the new version I have noticed several instances where German units preferred to retreat to an unoccupied hex in a Soviet ZOC over a German-occupied hex (less than 3 units) not in a Soviet ZOC. It appears to me it is avoiding retreating to German occupied hexes. If it matter, this is an ongoing game where I switched to the new version either this turn or the previous turn (can't remember which).



xhoel -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/22/2019 10:10:23 PM)

@VigaBrand: Yes I saw the changes made to said values and I am aware of them. This changes nothing from the fact that you can hold hexes even against 10:1 odds with 0 penalty just because the game says so which is an artificial change.

I am saying that I am for the rule in theory but it needs to be tweaked a lot. This current blank rule needs to go. Also I am not sure that holding a certain hex will bring more late war games. That is quite a bold statement. I never knew a GC that stopped because a hex fell.

@morvael: I specifically cited the battle of the city itself in 1942 which lasted 4 weeks, the same as in my AAR. If you take a look you will see that I besieged the fortress for the same amount of time as the Germans did.

You won't be nabbing at anything with the new rules since both hexes in front of Sevastopol are at level 4 and with the new rules a German player will not be able to do anything against them in 1941. Once 1942 arrives, you will need to commit so many units to simply take the two hexes not to mention capturing Sevastopol itself.

Your claims of bombing the port to decrease its efficiency are way off. After 4 weeks of constant attacks Sevastopol was at 65+ damage in my game and that had 0 effect in reducing the effectivness of the defenders. When the city actually fell, 50.000 men and around 800 guns were evacuated to safety leaving the Germans with their thumbs up their a**. Not a single Soviet soldier was lost in what should have been a historical feat of a naval evacuation under heavy enemy fire and with the Germans breathing down on their necks. Would be nice to see those units surrender (at least some of them) and not just magically teleport to a random location to fight another day.

Leningrad was never properly assaulted but besieged. Stalingrad and Sevastopol are the only cities that actually had to hold back constant attacks and were turned into strongholds.

How can you say that the old rules were unable to replicate this when you have not even taken a look at the examples I provided? Also please explain to me why rough and mountain terrain need to benefit from the no retreat rule? I understand Light and Heavy Urban terrain but what hill or mountain became a fortress?

And please tell me this: If 50.000 Soviets can hold onto Sevastopol for 4 turns against a whole German field Army that has the best divisions, an astounding number of Pioneer Battalions, Multiple artillery pieces, a whole Fliegerkorps to their aide and the best commanders in the German Army in version 1.11.03 how long will they hold Sevastopol under the new version where in order to remove the no retreat rule you need to drop fort levels to level 1? 2 months? 3 months? And can you wholeheartedly say that this is realistic or intended?

To reiterate again: I understand your intention and I agree that seeing such heavily fought over cities will be a nice addition. But the way you are trying to implement it, is not the right way to go. A lot of tweaks need to be made and a lot of testing should be done before this feature is properly implemented.

@SpeedKat: If engineers and arty are doing good against forts I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. My problem with the change is that I have seen how hard it is to crack heavy/light urban hexes with good fort levels and decent defenders (Leningrad, Tula, Voronezh) and how extremely hard it is to crack Sevastopol against a determined Soviet defense. Not to mention all the testing I have done on taking such hexes. So you can understand I am sceptical to a change that further favors the defenders even more, making the taking of such hexes almost impossible.

I think I have written enough to explain my case on this matter and given enough examples that you can easily check with both text and screenshots in my AAR. I welcome answers and replies and am always open for a discussion. At the end of the day my goal is to see the game work realistically without favoring any side, which I am sure is the same thing you @morvael and the other posters are trying to achieve.

Cheers!



chuckfourth -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/23/2019 1:08:02 AM)

There was a comment made that the Fortress battle new rule can be ameliorated by using some heavy mortars.
This highlights a relevant and fundamental problem with the game I've already raised, but to no avail. That whether or not a particular artillery unit participates in a particular battle is random.
That is unbelievable, unrealistic and of course favors the Soviets as it helps to grind down the better quality German units that little bit quicker.
I would suggest that glaringly obvious, easily fixed, fundamental issues like random artillery should be resolved before resorting to top down, arbitrary, complex, unnecessary rules implemented to accommodate an incorrect view of history, i.e. I don't think it is good policy to recreate a new rule for fortress battles on the basis that they took much longer than they actually did.



thedoctorking -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/23/2019 4:17:00 PM)

On turn 2 of a 41GC, as the Soviets, I'm seeing a lot of German units with -1 Supply Path reported even though they are clearly within 100 movement points of an Axis rail head. Is this WAD? It's a server game, against Model, so I don't think I can send a save file, but maybe you can look at it from your end.



thedoctorking -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/23/2019 5:08:10 PM)

Also, is it WAD that airbases and HQ's appear to be surrendering rather than displacing? I've got several of them reorganizing on the east edge of the map.



morvael -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/23/2019 8:45:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

Also, is it WAD that airbases and HQ's appear to be surrendering rather than displacing? I've got several of them reorganizing on the east edge of the map.


Yes, they are now destroyed as other units (which means HQ SU are no longer rescued for free). But they rebuild for free (no AP cost).



morvael -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/23/2019 8:46:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

On turn 2 of a 41GC, as the Soviets, I'm seeing a lot of German units with -1 Supply Path reported even though they are clearly within 100 movement points of an Axis rail head. Is this WAD? It's a server game, against Model, so I don't think I can send a save file, but maybe you can look at it from your end.


I don't have access to server saves. Will have to wait for some other example.



morvael -> RE: 1.12.0 Problems/Bugs (9/23/2019 8:46:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth
This highlights a relevant and fundamental problem with the game I've already raised, but to no avail. That whether or not a particular artillery unit participates in a particular battle is random.


Would being able to attach artillery to combat units like to fort units help to solve that issue?



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125