RE: Turn 80 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> After Action Reports



Message

jubjub -> RE: Turn 80 (11/16/2021 9:50:02 PM)

I'm chronically short AP. Does anyone else have this problem?



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Turn 80 (11/16/2021 10:20:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

I'm chronically short AP. Does anyone else have this problem?



I remember someone saying somewhere on the forums that AP was in abundance for both sides. But hey I have slept a couple times since I read that and it could have been a dream(I doubt it though). Now having said that I always seem to be short AP with the Germans all the time.



jubjub -> RE: Turn 85 (11/22/2021 3:56:11 PM)

Air Update

So far, the new ground attack rule that arbitrarily changes the target from unit to interdiction is not only a terrible idea, but it seems to be busted in terms of implementation as well.

The Soviets ran some ground attack - unit attacks during their turn, and 100% of them were converted to interdiction. These units did not move the prior turn, and there was a division + regiment in one of the targeted hexes, and two regiments in the other. Apparently regiments are now immune to ground attack.

More on this issue to come...


[image]local://upfiles/80089/3054D6D541E448578805233805BCDBE3.jpg[/image]



jubjub -> RE: Turn 85 (11/22/2021 3:57:53 PM)

Air losses:

Interpret these results as you will. For me, it suggests that VVS is under-powered and also shouldn't fly in snowstorms. Note that the higher German losses turns 82-83 were from flying ground attack during snow storms - not from A2A combat.

Soviets are losing planes a rate of 60-80% every sortie as my best guess.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/QJbGUlQ.jpg[/img]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/EZ5asYC.jpg[/img]



jubjub -> RE: Turn 85 (11/22/2021 4:09:46 PM)

German airplane stocks.

[image]local://upfiles/80089/E19385C84BA2462B953071F4B2511049.jpg[/image]



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Turn 85 (11/23/2021 6:59:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub


So far, the new ground attack rule that arbitrarily changes the target from unit to interdiction is not only a terrible idea, but it seems to be busted in terms of implementation as well.



O.O

You are going to hurt someones feelings with what you posted ;-P



So is the conversion like 100%?



loki100 -> RE: Turn 85 (11/23/2021 10:32:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub


So far, the new ground attack rule that arbitrarily changes the target from unit to interdiction is not only a terrible idea, but it seems to be busted in terms of implementation as well.



O.O

You are going to hurt someones feelings with what you posted ;-P



So is the conversion like 100%?


why?

it seems a fair comment given what he's seeing ... and is one reason for using betas to refine new ideas.

you know as well as I do that what sometimes looks like a sensible easy change (in this case to limit the impact of GA-unit) can generate unexpected outcomes. Still seeing bugs around the city fort concept



jubjub -> RE: Turn 85 (11/23/2021 1:33:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub


So far, the new ground attack rule that arbitrarily changes the target from unit to interdiction is not only a terrible idea, but it seems to be busted in terms of implementation as well.



O.O

You are going to hurt someones feelings with what you posted ;-P



So is the conversion like 100%?


why?

it seems a fair comment given what he's seeing ... and is one reason for using betas to refine new ideas.

you know as well as I do that what sometimes looks like a sensible easy change (in this case to limit the impact of GA-unit) can generate unexpected outcomes. Still seeing bugs around the city fort concept


Yeah, I'm not super happy about this change. IMO, it's the first change that's been made to the game that's made it worse.

There's so many different ways that ground attack could have been nerfed, and this seems to be one of the worst ways to do it. Maybe I am being a little harsh, but I spent a lot of time getting good at using level bombers. I was planning on expanding on my criticism of the design in another thread and keeping this one limited to the issues with implementation compared to the patch notes.



Beethoven1 -> RE: Turn 85 (11/23/2021 6:41:51 PM)

FWIW I agree that randomly changing missions to interdiction seems to me a problematic way nerf ground attack bombing against Panzers (if that is the real intent behind it). If that is the goal, it seems like there are other ways it could be achieved which could more directly serve that purpose. Some possible ways include:

1) Limiting sortie numbers for bombing missions - since AFAIK most of the complaint is about Soviets bombing Panzers in 1941 in particular, a time-related limitation particularly for Soviets in 1941 might do a lot of the trick here. Although I think there have been some complaints about bombing in the StB scenario in 1942/43 etc also, but most of the time it seems to come up in the 1941 context, with Soviets bombing a Panzer division or regiment with a lot of bombers and then following it up with a counterattack.

2) Simply directly lowering the amount of damage/disruption bombing does against AFVs, if it is actually too high.

3) Make bombing missions get escorted by fighters less reliably (maybe particularly in 1941 for Soviets, owing to lack of coordination with the early VVS). This means sometimes Soviet attempts at mass bombing would get intercepted and countered. Maybe the chance of being intercepted could increase with sortie size? That sounds like it would be realistic to me, and would provide players an incentive to limit sortie size also - if you bomb with fewer planes, you are less likely to be detected and intercepted.

Just my $0.02



jubjub -> RE: Turn 86 (11/23/2021 8:53:00 PM)

Counterattack:

Last turn, the Soviets broke through west or Kursk with a couple of tank corps. This salient was quickly pinched off and destroyed by Manstein's and Herr's panzer corps.


[image]local://upfiles/80089/D6163839ACF34AFB9D1CF3B6ED46E73E.jpg[/image]



jubjub -> RE: Turn 86 (11/23/2021 8:57:07 PM)

The total tally includes 3300 trucks along with the units shown. Unfortunately, Guards status is very easy to achieve, so I don't anticipate any fewer Guards tank corps in the future.


[image]local://upfiles/80089/38AC51B9E14C42EE848ABC31999D2437.jpg[/image]



Gam3r -> RE: Turn 86 (11/27/2021 1:01:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

Counterattack:

Last turn, the Soviets broke through west or Kursk with a couple of tank corps. This salient was quickly pinched off and destroyed by Manstein's and Herr's panzer corps.



Tank corps seems pretty weak on defence. It might worth using Mech Corps instead for breaktrough like this. But i keep them on reserve right now, besides there is a much stronger TOE comes in Feb, with assault guns in it.



Gam3r -> RE: Turn 85 (11/27/2021 1:12:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

Air losses:

Interpret these results as you will. For me, it suggests that VVS is under-powered and also shouldn't fly in snowstorms.



Despite all this losses i have more IL-2 airframes in pool than pilots or SHAPs to field them.

Maybe decreasing death rate of IL-2 pilots do the trick. After all, Germans call this plane Betonflugzeug for a reason.



loki100 -> RE: Turn 86 (11/27/2021 7:27:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gam3r
...

Tank corps seems pretty weak on defence. It might worth using Mech Corps instead for breaktrough like this. But i keep them on reserve right now, besides there is a much stronger TOE comes in Feb, with assault guns in it.



you'll find the Tank Corps are poor defensively till the 1944 TOE. One practical solution is to attach one or two mot brigades, that seems to rebalance the TOE to something more robust.



jubjub -> RE: Turn 85 (11/27/2021 5:02:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gam3r

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

Air losses:

Interpret these results as you will. For me, it suggests that VVS is under-powered and also shouldn't fly in snowstorms.



Despite all this losses i have more IL-2 airframes in pool than pilots or SHAPs to field them.

Maybe decreasing death rate of IL-2 pilots do the trick. After all, Germans call this plane Betonflugzeug for a reason.



It's impossible to keep up with pilot losses using the trained pilots. You have to leave them on normal replacements and wait for them to train up in the reserves.



loki100 -> RE: Turn 85 (11/27/2021 6:51:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

...

Despite all this losses i have more IL-2 airframes in pool than pilots or SHAPs to field them.

Maybe decreasing death rate of IL-2 pilots do the trick. After all, Germans call this plane Betonflugzeug for a reason.



It's impossible to keep up with pilot losses using the trained pilots. You have to leave them on normal replacements and wait for them to train up in the reserves.



agree, its not till 1945 can the Soviets bring losses under control, you simply have to be prepared to constantly bounce formations that have lost pilots to the reserve to train again. One reason why I reckon the VVS should have about 40% of its formations off map at any time



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Turn 85 (11/27/2021 9:20:34 PM)

Why use trained pilots on IL2's anyway?



jubjub -> RE: Turn 85 (11/27/2021 10:10:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Why use trained pilots on IL2's anyway?


+1. They should go to fighters as much as possible. The pilot losses will easily exceed the trained pilot production just from fighter losses alone.



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Turn 85 (11/27/2021 11:09:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Why use trained pilots on IL2's anyway?


+1. They should go to fighters as much as possible. The pilot losses will easily exceed the trained pilot production just from fighter losses alone.


Ya, you should be able to get the trained pilots into the fighter squadrons you want to maintain. Slow arduous process but worth the effort if you put the time and effort into it.



Gam3r -> RE: Turn 85 (11/27/2021 11:23:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

It's impossible to keep up with pilot losses using the trained pilots. You have to leave them on normal replacements and wait for them to train up in the reserves.



that way i saved thousands of IL-2 in the pool. maybe thats good, i have the spare planes for upcoming TOE increase in April.

will try a different aproach for summer campaign



jubjub -> RE: Turn 87 (11/30/2021 11:18:14 PM)

Soviets fail an attack north of Rzhev, and take 12% casualties. This kind of result was not possible before the artillery changes. Before the changes, they would lose 5% tops. Much better now.

This is especially important in pvp because players perform fewer, larger attacks, and are much more selective than the AI is.

Also, I think it's worth mentioning that this battle likely consumed in excess 1,000 tons of ammo from the German side. Even in a loss, you can severely strain the local German logistics.

[image]local://upfiles/80089/8FDD70D5462F4BEDBECCDA7A2BA59384.jpg[/image]



Beethoven1 -> RE: Turn 87 (12/1/2021 2:40:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

Soviets fail an attack north of Rzhev, and take 12% casualties. This kind of result was not possible before the artillery changes. Before the changes, they would lose 5% tops. Much better now.


Eh, I dunno about that. Looking at the battle, you have (at least) two motorized divisions, one of which is an SS division. Motorized divisions have always been pretty OP and could get surprising holds and inflict lopsided casualties even in previous patches. All the more so with SS divisions.


quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

Also, I think it's worth mentioning that this battle likely consumed in excess 1,000 tons of ammo from the German side. Even in a loss, you can severely strain the local German logistics.


So the new Soviet strategy is to gather up all your troops and request that the Germans shoot at the Soviets. The Soviets will win the war because the Germans will run out of ammo before they can shoot all the Soviets. Genius strategy! The best part is you don't even have to give the Soviet troops weapons and it is not necessary to shoot back at the Germans. You just sit there, get shot at, and wait for lack of German ammo to end the war.



jubjub -> RE: Turn 87 (12/1/2021 3:00:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

Soviets fail an attack north of Rzhev, and take 12% casualties. This kind of result was not possible before the artillery changes. Before the changes, they would lose 5% tops. Much better now.


Eh, I dunno about that. Looking at the battle, you have (at least) two motorized divisions, one of which is an SS division. Motorized divisions have always been pretty OP and could get surprising holds and inflict lopsided casualties even in previous patches. All the more so with SS divisions.


quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

Also, I think it's worth mentioning that this battle likely consumed in excess 1,000 tons of ammo from the German side. Even in a loss, you can severely strain the local German logistics.


So the new Soviet strategy is to gather up all your troops and request that the Germans shoot at the Soviets. The Soviets will win the war because the Germans will run out of ammo before they can shoot all the Soviets. Genius strategy! The best part is you don't even have to give the Soviet troops weapons and it is not necessary to shoot back at the Germans. You just sit there, get shot at, and wait for lack of German ammo to end the war.


1. Look at the halt range. The casualties were inflicted before the infantry engaged, which leaves the German units in much better shape after the battle.

2. This is just half the story. Obviously you’d rather win battles and inflict losses at a 1:1 rate or better, but failed attacks have a cost to the Germans too, and are sometimes necessary to get something rolling.




Gam3r -> RE: Turn 87 (12/1/2021 7:10:33 AM)

There is a discussion about arty buff, so i thought to show this funny arty strike from t83.

[image]local://upfiles/78197/9B5B7AA1252943B28454EFB1F44B3A43.jpg[/image]



jubjub -> RE: Turn 87 (12/1/2021 12:18:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gam3r

There is a discussion about arty buff, so i thought to show this funny arty strike from t83.

[image]local://upfiles/78197/9B5B7AA1252943B28454EFB1F44B3A43.jpg[/image]


Yes, that was an interesting move, and I thought it was a success on your part. It's much more efficient than including them in a large battle, because of the penalties to FPE with large amount of counters.



jubjub -> RE: Turn 87 (12/1/2021 2:04:27 PM)

Only counter attack this turn. I consider undefended tank corps prime targets, and I smash them whenever possible. The Soviet tank count is sub 3,000 as of my turn.

IMO, leaving them on the front like this is a bad move. They are best kept in reserve until the heavy hitting rifle corps can open up a gap for exploitation. Leaving them in a gap like this is a role much better suited to cavalry corps.

This is not commentary on tank balance, and I think it's in a good place. I just think that there has been inefficient use of the tank corps this game (no offense to Gam3r).


[image]local://upfiles/80089/FADFE0B94A01402FA54B0385398B3082.jpg[/image]



loki100 -> RE: Turn 87 (12/1/2021 3:45:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

Only counter attack this turn. I consider undefended tank corps prime targets, and I smash them whenever possible. The tank count is sub 3,000 for the Soviets as of my turn.

IMO, leaving them on the front like this is a bad move. They are best kept in reserve until the heavy hitting rifle corps can open up a gap for exploitation. Leaving them in a gap like this is a role much better suited to cavalry corps.

This is not commentary on tank balance, and I think it's in a good place. I just think that there has been inefficient use of the tank corps this game (no offense to Gam3r).
..

agree fully, I operate a see/attack approach to these things.

his SUs aren't well chosen though, the thing that is missing is rifle elements so they get better with a mech/mot brigade (or 2) attached, I personally wouldn't put my heavy tank regiments into them

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gam3r

There is a discussion about arty buff, so i thought to show this funny arty strike from t83.

[image]local://upfiles/78197/9B5B7AA1252943B28454EFB1F44B3A43.jpg[/image]


presume the halt range is keying off what the game would see as combat elements and where they stopped. Since battles notionally open at 20,000m (or is it yards?) since you had none I presume it picks that point.

Must confess I always thought this sort of artillery only attack was a waste of time but clearly not [:)]



jubjub -> RE: Turn 89 (12/15/2021 3:16:51 AM)

Can someone explain when the bonus points will be added to the Soviet's score? Also what I need to do to avoid the initiative change in July? @Loki




loki100 -> RE: Turn 89 (12/15/2021 7:17:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

Can someone explain when the bonus points will be added to the Soviet's score? Also what I need to do to avoid the initiative change in July? @Loki




the July 43 initiative change is hard wired, so at that stage your route to a win is the December 1944 test vs the HWM (the Soviets need to meet your score or you win), if that is passed then it comes down to the Berlin rules. The Soviet player can win at any of the quarterly test points if they meet the requirement.

When the initiative changes the Soviets get a blcck of VPs. This is made up of 2 elements. Simplest is all the cities they hold are added up, but if they hold a city that was either (a) never captured or (b) they have recaptured and July 43 is before its notional capture date then they get the +10 bonuses.

So an example of (a) could be say Kalinin, if never taken so the Soviets get +16 on the change. An example of (b) could be say Kiev. They hold it on July 43, that is before the notional liberation date, so here they get +16.



OberstVonWitz -> RE: Comeback Time '42 GC Jubjub (Axis) Vs Gam3r (Sov) (12/17/2021 12:32:30 PM)

Hi,

I have seen your posts on the War in the East 2 Forum...
For the life of me I cannot see how:

Any rail repair happens to the EAST ( not north). IT IS AN ABSOLUTE JOKE that by August there is not a FULL ( green)
supply system to at least Minsk. By Nov they had a a FULL rail to Vyazma (near Moscow). if both of these do not occur
the whole truck transport system likewise turns to r#t sh*t...

Other issues:

How CV goes up. In November CV is about 1-5 ( earlier was 20-30)

AIR TRANSFER is a nightmare!!

I hope you can assist in clarifying some of the glaring unknowns of this game.

Thank you







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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.09375