Latest on the 1.04 in test now

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Latest on the 1.04 in test now

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Latest on the 1.04 in test now

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/22/2011 9:43:02 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

We are testing a 1.04. Many bugs were fixed, and several major changes were made that will have a big impact on game balance. We are targeting a beta release during the first full week of April, but things could get delayed. Also, because these changes are significant and will require a lot of time to test, we will probably be in beta with 1.04 for awhile, and anyone using 1.04 should realize that the game balance could be significantly different then what it was. We think 1.03 is a good stable game worth playing. For those interested in helping us make the game even better, we welcome your participation with the beta 1.04 when it's ready. We hope that obvious bugs will be found before release, but the balance is something we won't be sure about until we have more (and longer) test results from the public and the testers.

Here's is our current list of changes. This list has been changing and will likely change again before we release a 1.04 (not just new items but some of these items may be changed or removed entirely.

V1.04.001 � Beta � March 22, 2011

� New Features and Rule Changes

1) Changes with Version Numbers � The main menu now lists both the installed version number and the exe version number for the program being used. This makes it easier to use multiple copies of the game with different versions on one computer. The top windows bar will still display only the installed version number. We have also changed our version numbering to show 3 additional digits in the version number instead of labeling versions beta 1, beta 2, etc. --- The exe version number is also shown now as the last entry in the logistics phase event log. This is the version number that was being used during the logistics phase, so it is now possible to see what version your PBEM or Multiplayer opponent was using at the end of their turn.
2) New Rule - Damaged equipment and manpower returned to the pool during the logistics phase are not available immediately to be used as replacements. Although they appear in the pool on the production screen, they actually are put in a �transit pool�. At the start of each friendly logistics phase, 25% of the amount in the transit pool is moved to the available pool. This represents the lost time from the front of lightly wounded soldiers and damaged equipment.
3) New Rule - Units from different Luftflotte�s or Air Armies will not participate in the same air mission.
4) Rules Changes to First Winter rules:
(a) (Section 22.3.1) Changed the CV modifications in January 1942 as follows: Attacking CV is divided by 2 (instead of /3). Any missed check (admin or combat skill) causes CV to be further divided by 3 (instead of /4). Defending CV is divided by 1.5 (instead of /2 � previously this was incorrectly listed as /4). Any missed checks causes CV to be further divided by 1.5 (instead of /2). The displayed on counter CVs are divided by 2 for attack and 1.5 for defense (instead of /3 and /2).
(b) (Section 22.3.1) Changed the CV modifications in February 1942 as follows: Attacking CV is divided by 1.5 (instead of /3). Any missed check (admin or combat skill) causes CV to be further divided by 2 (instead of /4). Defending CV is divided by 1.33 (instead of /2 � previously this was incorrectly listed as /4). Any missed checks causes CV to be further divided by 1.33 (instead of /2). The displayed on counter CVs are divided by 1.5 for attack and 1.33 for defense (instead of /3 and /2).
(c) (Section 22.3.2) The percent of damaged elements has been reduced in December 41 so instead of roughly 5-20% the losses are now roughly 1-7% (the damage losses are still reduced by 50% in Jan/Feb 1942). Units subject to this damage will now see their damage reduced if they are in a hex that has a fort level. The amount of the reduction is the fort level squared as follows:
1. Fort Level 1 � 1% reduction
2. Fort Level 2 � 4% reduction
3. Fort Level 3 � 9% reduction
4. Fort Level 4 � 16% reduction
5. Fort Level 5 � 25% reduction
So a unit in a fort level 4 that would have suffered 6% attrition will now suffer roughly 5% attrition.
(d) (Section 22.3.3) The Morale drop for exposed units was reduced from 2 to 1.
(e) (Section 22.3.3) Removed the automatic pre-combat morale reduction of 2 when morale was less than 60.
(f) (Section 22.3.3) Added a loss of 1 morale for non-Finnish Axis units whenever they are attacked and the final end of combat odds are greater than 1:2.
(g) (Section 22.3.4) Axis units tracing supply to a railhead in the affected area (22.3) will have the amount of supply they receive reduced by 25% after all other modifications. (previously it was reduced 50%).
5) Rule Changes to fort level construction rules:
(a) (Section 15.3.2.1) Decreased the fort build rates as follows:
Fort Level 0 3.0 (was 3.0, no change)
Fort Level 1 1.0 (was 1.0, no change)
Fort Level 2 0.25 (was 0.33)
Fort Level 3 0.05 (was 0.10)
Fort Level 4 0.01 (was 0.02)
(b) Construction values are reduced based on the supply level of the unit. In no event will they be reduced below 20% of normal due to supply level.
(c) Level 5 forts may continue to build up to 10% over level 5. This allows them to take some damage and still remain at Level 5.
(d) Artillery (especially Heavy Artillery) can cause small fort reductions during combat.
(e) Fort build rates for building forts greater than 3 can be divided by 2 if a leader admin check fails.
6) Rule and Formula Changes to Movement Attrition:
(a) Non-AFV elements of motorized divisions will no longer suffer enhanced movement fatigue.
(b) Increased the average movement fatigue, especially for non-motorized units.
(c) Increased the chance of non-AFV elements breaking down during movement.
(d) Movement break down is decreased in case of successful Admin Rolls.
7) Rule Change � The amount of support units can be increased by the level of fortification in the defending hex.
8) Rule Change - Introduced the concept of a commanding HQ for each side for each combat. Generally this commanding HQ is selected because it has the most CVs directly reporting to it in the battle. Units not reporting directly to the commanding HQ will suffer command battle modifiers that will reduce their CV for the battle. The battle report now lists the units in the battle grouped under the name of the HQ they report to. If an HQ�s units are suffering a command battle modifier, the amount of the CV reduction is shown next to the name of the HQ (for example XXIV Panzer Corps -36% indicates that each unit listed in this corps has had its CV reduced by 36%). The greater the number of HQ�s that the unit must trace through to reach the commanding HQ, the greater the modifier. In addition, units that report directly to a high command HQ suffer an additional 20% modifier, and those that report directly to an Army Group or Front suffer an additional 10% modifier (these are shown as part of the total modifier percentage displayed).
9) Rule Change � Adjusted the amount of morale a unit loses after a battle. Now units are not guaranteed to lose a morale point when a battle is lost. The higher a unit�s morale is over its national morale, the greater the chance the morale will be reduced when it loses a battle.
10) Rule Change � (Section 18.2.1) Damaged units sent back to the pool during the logistics phase now have 40% of their manpower disabled (instead of 20%).
11) Rule Change � (Section 15.4.1) Artillery (ART,MORT,ROCKET,AT) support units have priority to be committed into a battle during a special commitment phase. During this round of commitments, defending HQ's have a chance of committing 3 more than the normal limit of committed HQs (so 9 or 21 instead of 6 or 18). After this round, the normal commitment round is conducted.
12) Rule Change � (Section 9.5.2) Increased front line attrition, but reduced the proportion of these attrition loss that is KIA to 30% (was 50%). The net impact should be similar KIA but an increased amount of manpower disabled due to front line attrition.
13) Multiplayer Change - Added 'Resign' option to the games list.
14) Multiplayer Change - Added 'Show Completed' and 'Show Resigned' buttons to the games screen to allow filtering of the game list
15) Multiplayer Change - Added 'hover' text to the games and challenges lists to display additional information about games.
16) Multiplayer Change � Now when an attempt to save the game fails, the user will be informed of this event and given the opportunity to try again.
17) Formula Changes - Reduced the effectiveness of interdiction in terms of casualties caused. Increased the chance that interdiction will cause movement point reduction to the interdicted unit.
18) Formula Change - Decreased the morale reduction for air groups.
19) Formula Change - Air strikes are more fragmented now depending on experience and leader checks.
20) Formula Change � Reduced the amount of planes flying recon interception missions.
21) Interface Change - Added AA units directly attached to cities to the OOB display.
22) Interface Change � Added turn, date and location information to the battle reports.
23) Interface Change - Units that are already assigned to an HQ will not appear on that HQ�s list on the Pick Support Unit Window when the Assign/Form button has been selected.
24) Interface Change - Added the number of ready, damaged and reserve aircraft to the reinforcement screen for each air group listed.
25) New Message - Added a message to the event log when an empty unit is disbanded.
26) New Editor Feature - Added COPY/CLEAR functions to the TOE(OB) editor.

� Bug Fixes
1. Fixed a bug causing incorrect numbers being shown in the number of men moving to and from the pool in the Event Log.
2. Fixed a bug causing some withdrawing units to incorrectly place their equipment and manpower in the pool.
3. Fixed a bug where Axis units could ignore the TOE% settings during the first winter.
4. Fixed a bug in the truck loss routine that was adding manpower to the pool when trucks were damaged.
5. Made sure that the CR and OOB screen numbers agree. There were some discrepancies that could cause the two to disagree.
6. Fixed bugs that caused the AI to sometimes move support units to off-map/delayed HQs and �inactive� support units to on map HQs.
7. Fixed a bug that caused units moving by naval transport to get stuck in a water hex when it was interdicted.
8. Fixed a bug in which small factories could report different amount of equipment built than those that actually went to the pool.
9. Fixed combat so odds may no longer be shown as 0:0.
10. Fixed a bug that could cause routed tank divisions to not correctly transform to delayed tank brigades.
11. Fixed a problem in which the disband routine was not bringing some damaged equipment back to the pool.
12. Fixed a bug where inactive support units were passing through the upgrade/swap ground types procedure, placing and taking equipment to/from the pool.
13. Fixed a bug where the number of partisan cadres formed was incorrect.
14. Fixed a bug that was causing ports to be repaired too quickly.
15. Fixed a bug in the path tracing that could prevent defending units to receive support units help in a battle.
16. Fixed a bug that caused a unit to not be able to trace a movement path through a hex with 3 friendly units.
17. Fixed a bug where a guards unit was created with the same name as that of an existing guards unit.
18. Fixed a bug causing manpower loss/gain when escaped squads convert to partisans.
19. Fixed a bug in the Set All Unit MPs function in the editor that doesn't set MP for the Axis units correctly on June 22 1941.
20. Fixed Motorcycles Squads so they are set to infantry class instead of artillery class.
21. Fixed Heavy Infantry Guns so they are set to artillery class instead of infantry class.
22. Fixed a bug where Artillery Regiments had the option to assign another support unit to them, something that should never happen.
23. Fixed a bug where damaged elements were not having their manpower sent to the pool when due to an OB change the elements were no longer needed (the manpower was just being lost).
24. Fixed a bug where elements that were being exchanged due to a TOE change or upgrade were not properly accounting for the difference in manpower between the old and new elements.
25. Fixed a bug that could cause inaccurate record keeping of manpower lost from retreat attrition.
26. Fixed a bug that could prevent a totally empty Soviet or German unit removed from the map from being brought back on the map to be rebuilt.
27. Fixed a bug where ground elements which had an upgrade path set to 0 (instead of to themselves) could have some of their elements incorrectly sent back to the pool.
28. Fixed bugs where the map popup was not closing correctly when either ground element details of support units were displayed, or when TOE(OB) of support units attached to a city were displayed.
29. Fixed a bug where HQ units moving by naval transport were stopping when they entered an enemy zone of control in a water hex.
30. Fixed a bug where CV counter values for Axis units during the first winter were not displaying the correct modified CV value for the �attack�.
31. Fixed a bug preventing support units directly attached to combat units from helping in fort construction. Also fixed a bug that had allowed �inactive� support units to allow in fort construction.
32. Fixed a bug where undoing an air base unit movement could wipe out air groups recently assigned to the air base from reserve.
33. Fixed another instance where an isolated AI unit makes an illegal escape.
34. Fixed a bug where new units could be formed in reserved slots in the database (0, 8172-8191).
35. Fixed a bug where Soviet Military Districts and the Moscow Defense Zone that were isolated could not be destroyed when they should have been (they should be disbanded after October 1941 if they are forced to retreat).
36. Fixed a bug where HQ or routed units can start the turn next to an enemy combat unit when other units in the stack surrendered during the logistic phase.
37. Fixed a bug where enemy units were revealed by selecting a friendly unit and then shift-clicking on remote hexes.
38. Made a change so that frontline attrition will never cause damage beyond the amount of ready squads.
39. Fixed a problem where the unit names of units disbanded during combat were not being reported in the battle report.
40. Fixed a bug where delayed air groups could reset their plane count on load/saving a scenario.

� Data and Scenario Changes
1. Small adjustments of Heavy Panzer Battalions for correct OBs for arrival dates
2. Moved the 653rd and 654th Heavy Panzerjager Battalions arrival date to 3 Jun 43
3. Changed the Soviet 1st BAK Commander to Izotov in all 1941 scenarios
4. Adjusted Operation Blue's Victory Points to make a German decisive victory a little easier. Stalingrad is now worth 300 VPs to the Germans at the end of the scenario (was 200). Soviet VPs for Baku is now worth 200 (was 300).
5. Fixed Soviet overstack in 1943 Campaign at 85,24
6. Ernst Leyser put as commander of XXVI Corps in 1943 Campaign
7. Ran SET ALL CITY SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS in all non-campaign scenarios
8. Updated leader file with corrections to German names

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

Post #: 1

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/22/2011 10:29:19 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

Thanks for the update! Looks like a great list of improvements! Looking forward to trying it out.

I am just thinking "a unit in a fort level 4 that would have suffered 6% attrition will now suffer roughly 5% attrition. " This definitely seems like a step in the right direction, though the effect hardly seems overwhelming, but maybe it has greater effect than it appears from the numbers.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 2

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/22/2011 11:21:49 PM

Altaris

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline

I agree these changes look good. Having just conceded my GC PBEM on Turn 30 after getting completely steamrolled with no ability to defend or fight back, I'm definitely keeping an eye on changes before stepping back into the GC arena. The attrition rates look far more appropriate now. Considering there's 13 turns of blizzard, that's still quite a bit over the course of those months. December's still going to suck, but at least divisions won't be completely wrecked by attrition alone come January, and the CV adjustments will give Germans the capability of striking back against very weak units at least (something I couldn't do with 6 units on deliberate attack against a 2=2 tank brigade). I think everyone agrees the Germans should have a tough go of it in the winter of '41, but not so much that there's absolutely no option but to run or die.

I also really like the supply/fort building effects. Part of the problem in summer 1941 is that all those just formed divisions can start immediately cranking out forts at a super fast rate. Makes the German get bogged down way too early in AGC, which in turn stalls out getting across the Dnepr and creates a snowball effect which really puts the Germans at a disadvantage.

Anyway, this is a very good game that unfortunately has some real balance issues right now, but it's good to see the dev's making moves in a sensible direction. Considering that the core engine and design is very solid, I think once the balancing kinks get worked out, this game will truly be stellar.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 3

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 12:04:52 AM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Thanks for the update! Looks like a great list of improvements! Looking forward to trying it out.

I am just thinking "a unit in a fort level 4 that would have suffered 6% attrition will now suffer roughly 5% attrition. " This definitely seems like a step in the right direction, though the effect hardly seems overwhelming, but maybe it has greater effect than it appears from the numbers.

Just work through the numbers. This is a 16% reduction in attrition. So IF I was fortunate enough to have half of my infantry in lvl4 forts for the entire winter AND I normally lose 500,000 men to attrition (actually I normally lose more, but it makes the numbers easier to work with

) then with this change I can expect to have about 41,000 more men at the end of the Blizzard or the equivilent of four more full-strength divisions just due to the fort attrition change. While not an overwhelming force change, it's not that shabby either.

< Message edited by pompack -- 3/23/2011 12:05:11 AM >

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 4

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 2:31:52 AM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

The Winter changes are very large; I hope it doesn't go too far in hurting the Reds. It should allow the Wehrmacht, though, to conduct a summer campaign, and not end every PBEM in turn 35.

I may start a Soviet GC soon, in anticipation of this being out by the time we hit winter.

_____________________________

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 5

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 2:55:14 AM

PeeDeeAitch

Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline

I am too aggressive, I never have my guys in level 4 entrenchments. I must suck.

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 6

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 3:04:55 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

We don't expect people to be in level 4 entrenchments, especially with the slower fort building in 1.04, so you don't suck.

The fort level reduction in frostbite is intentionally small and is only one of a bunch of changes that will impact the summer and winter of 41 (some were the result of bug fixes, some the result of rules changes).

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)

Post #: 7

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 3:28:26 AM

delatbabel

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

Can I make a suggestion?

--
4) Rules Changes to First Winter rules:
(a) (Section 22.3.1) Changed the CV modifications in January 1942 as follows: Attacking CV is divided by 2 (instead of /3). Any missed check (admin or combat skill) causes CV to be further divided by 3 (instead of /4). Defending CV is divided by 1.5 (instead of /2 � previously this was incorrectly listed as /4). Any missed checks causes CV to be further divided by 1.5 (instead of /2). The displayed on counter CVs are divided by 2 for attack and 1.5 for defense (instead of /3 and /2).
(b) (Section 22.3.1) Changed the CV modifications in February 1942 as follows: Attacking CV is divided by 1.5 (instead of /3). Any missed check (admin or combat skill) causes CV to be further divided by 2 (instead of /4). Defending CV is divided by 1.33 (instead of /2 � previously this was incorrectly listed as /4). Any missed checks causes CV to be further divided by 1.33 (instead of /2). The displayed on counter CVs are divided by 1.5 for attack and 1.33 for defense (instead of /3 and /2).
(c) (Section 22.3.2) The percent of damaged elements has been reduced in December 41 so instead of roughly 5-20% the losses are now roughly 1-7% (the damage losses are still reduced by 50% in Jan/Feb 1942). Units subject to this damage will now see their damage reduced if they are in a hex that has a fort level. The amount of the reduction is the fort level squared as follows:
1. Fort Level 1 � 1% reduction
2. Fort Level 2 � 4% reduction
3. Fort Level 3 � 9% reduction
4. Fort Level 4 � 16% reduction
5. Fort Level 5 � 25% reduction
So a unit in a fort level 4 that would have suffered 6% attrition will now suffer roughly 5% attrition.
(d) (Section 22.3.3) The Morale drop for exposed units was reduced from 2 to 1.
(e) (Section 22.3.3) Removed the automatic pre-combat morale reduction of 2 when morale was less than 60.
(f) (Section 22.3.3) Added a loss of 1 morale for non-Finnish Axis units whenever they are attacked and the final end of combat odds are greater than 1:2.
--

I see these changes going in without any similar changes for the weakness of the Red Army in the summer months of 1941. I suspect that this has something to do with the amount of whining going on in the forums from Axis players complaining about the Soviets being "supermen" in the winter of 1941/42, however it's also been noted that the Soviets in the summer of 1941 also have to face "supermen".

Can we include some parameters in the game options screen about this?

e.g. the amount of extra hardships that the Soviets face in the summer of 1941, in the 1.03 game, be equivalent to "100%" on a sliding scale. Similarly, the first winter and blizzard hardships faced by the Axis be set at "100%" level. Rather than hard-coding changes like the above, allow the players to adjust those percentage so that each side can have their "hardship" level modified from 0% (actually, no extra winter effects for the Axis), to 75% (about what you're proposing above) to 100% and maybe 400% (Axis units all vapourise instantly on seeing snow).

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 8

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 4:13:43 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Is there something in there about reducing the Interdiction Effects? I just had a game ended due to the hammering my Soviet opponent was getting due to excessive effects.

Also can someone in the *know* possibly explain what happens with air attacks on ground units. What are the hidden effects. I can see for example that I might kill 300 men and destroy 5 guns but what else happens? I assume some troops get disrupted but how many? Is there a rough rule of thumb? E.G For every X amount killed you get 2X disrupted or some other?

At the moment its a black box.

Thanks for any info and the continued great support for this game :)

_____________________________

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 9

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 4:29:16 AM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Is there something in there about reducing the Interdiction Effects? I just had a game ended due to the hammering my Soviet opponent was getting due to excessive effects.

There is a reduction to the Interdiction effects. Opinions vary, but you'll be happy to hear that I'm in the vast minority. In other words, I think they're too much reduced...

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 10

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 6:02:00 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Thanks for the suggestion. We don't have any immediate plans to break out formulas and make them changable. This would require a major effort to overhaul the way things are done. Down the road it's possible that a detailed game options screen could be created with certain key formulas moddable. Until then, you'll have to use the current game options to change balance. I realize that it's hard to do this given the complexities involved and the fact that we can't easily give you details about what the impact of various percentages would do. Players in 2 player games could develop a bidding system though to determine the side played by bidding changes in the game options.

As for interdiction, bombing causes elements to be damaged or destroyed, and also causes disruption to some elements (which is converted to fatigue before the next battle). I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't also cause use of ammo for AA fire.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 11

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 6:44:08 AM

randallw

Posts: 2057
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline

I like this latest list of new changes. Maybe Axis players won't be abandoning the campaign so early in 1942 now.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 12

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 8:26:41 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

List looks pretty good, but am a bit worried about the reduction in fortification ability, could be a killer for the Sovs in 1941. Would it make sense to boost the fortification value provided by civilians near cities a little bit to offset? While I haven't done any scientific tests, the effect of using civilians seems rather subtle.

(in reply to randallw)

Post #: 13

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 10:34:11 AM

color

Posts: 324
Joined: 7/24/2001
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

(c) (Section 22.3.2) The percent of damaged elements has been reduced in December 41 so instead of roughly 5-20% the losses are now roughly 1-7% (the damage losses are still reduced by 50% in Jan/Feb 1942).

Thanks a lot for sharing these details

There's one thing that jumped to my eye, so I'm curious about knowing a little about the changing interactions in the game engine.

Above statement says blizzard attrition is going from 5-20% damaged to 1-7%, is that correct?

At first sight seems like a big change that will considerably lower german blizzard attrition losses.
Upon reading some other details in your list I get the impression you are tweaking other parts of the engine.
Does that in effect mean some parts of the losses previous suffered from blizzard, are now suffered in general ?
Trying to rephrase the above statement: even though that drop in blizzard damaged % is large, it's deceiving in an isolated context as losses are generally going to be higher due to other attrition factors?

I'm especifically thinking about:
- 10) More damaged units returned to pool are disabled resulting in less % damaged units recovered.
- 12) increased front line attrition & KIA % with net change resulting in more damaged elements

I do not intend to critize, I'm merely analyzing the changes trying to understand what impact the changes will generate.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 14

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 10:40:25 AM

Aussiematto

Posts: 344
Joined: 2/13/2011
From: Australia
Status: offline

Call me stupid (see my AAR re preparing for winter) but I rather like the current rules for blizzard. However, that said, I accept that the problem of the blizzard is one that hurts the game unless the German player is incredibly careful about what they do (which is often not as much fun in gameplay terms) and the Soviet is playing 'for' the blizzard. In other words, perhaps the problem with the blizzard is that it too dramatically shapes what people do in the game?

_____________________________

I still remember cardboard!

(in reply to color)

Post #: 15

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 1:09:22 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

List looks pretty good, but am a bit worried about the reduction in fortification ability, could be a killer for the Sovs in 1941. Would it make sense to boost the fortification value provided by civilians near cities a little bit to offset? While I haven't done any scientific tests, the effect of using civilians seems rather subtle.

Good point! I was thinking about that too.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 16

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 1:23:39 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I see these changes going in without any similar changes for the weakness of the Red Army in the summer months of 1941. I suspect that this has something to do with the amount of whining going on in the forums from Axis players complaining about the Soviets being "supermen" in the winter of 1941/42, however it's also been noted that the Soviets in the summer of 1941 also have to face "supermen".

To be fair, I think the "whining going on in the forums from the Axis players" goes far beyond the "Axis players". I don't consider myself an Axis player, but after destroying over 100 units against the Axis by 15 Jan and watching what else has happen with the AAR's, it is clear there needs to be some changes and this should be obvious to anyone regardless if they are Axis or Russian fanboys or those who don't consider themselves either. The same can't be said for the Axis summer offensive because I can point out a lot of AAR's where the Axis have struggled to get going. If you need first hand proof of this, try the modified Operation Typhoon scenario in the War room I put there for Germans to work on their blizzard tactics. I suggest playing both sides and see what happens.

The goal should be to get an average game to 1942 where in general; given good play on both sides, the Axis are still in shape to launch some sort of limited offensive if they should so desire. There will be exceptions obviously where the Axis had an outstanding 1941 campaign leading to a mop up in 1942 or the Russians just stuffing the Axis, but these should be the exception rather than the rule of thumb in my view. The changes they have outlined in 1.04 should hopefully go a long way to helping in this regard.

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 17

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 3:15:30 PM

GBS

Posts: 903
Joined: 7/3/2002
From: Southeastern USA
Status: offline

I am currently at the end of September in my current long campaign game. It seems that most of the changes in 1.04 will have there greatest effect after this date....so it would seem that I can wait until the new beta is out and then continue so that the balance effect in my game will be minimized....correct? I'm just trying to avoid starting again after 1.04.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 18

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 3:31:02 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GBS

I am currently at the end of September in my current long campaign game. It seems that most of the changes in 1.04 will have there greatest effect after this date....so it would seem that I can wait until the new beta is out and then continue so that the balance effect in my game will be minimized....correct? I'm just trying to avoid starting again after 1.04.

That's a good question, it seems like the primary effects long-term are that under the new system, both sides will take more attrition losses during the 1941 Summer campaign, and enter the Winter weaker. Not sure who that helps.

_____________________________

(in reply to GBS)

Post #: 19

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 3:34:05 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

The goal should be to get an average game to 1942 where in general; given good play on both sides, the Axis are still in shape to launch some sort of limited offensive if they should so desire. There will be exceptions obviously where the Axis had an outstanding 1941 campaign leading to a mop up in 1942 or the Russians just stuffing the Axis, but these should be the exception rather than the rule of thumb in my view.

From what I have seen, in an average game the Axis players can't even equal the Axis effort in the real war.

So the problem is not the blizzard, IMO, it is before.

Fort levels may play a part... they certainly do when you crank up the difficulty. And so does the massive amount of rail the Soviets have at their disposal. Damn, the Soviets can rail out entire airbases from the area of operations.

And all these trains running around dumping troops just where the soviets need them... along the lines of communication (supply).

I would think after having annihilated the Soviet Air Force, on turn one, any trains which tried to operate under Axis controlled skies would be easy pickings.

My personal opinion is that air operations are poorly modeled. A tank division out in the open, without fighter support, should be able to be bombed out of existence. Trains shouldn't be able to move if the air is dominated by the enemy. And while crude fortifications (trenches) are pretty much immune to air attack, sophisticated fortifications should most definitely be vulnerable to air attack.

Now while the German use of maneuver warfare took just about everybody off footed, it must be remembered that the success the Germans gained was done so by combining close air support. In this kind of warfare, tanks weren't suppose to butt heads with tanks. Close air support took care of the tanks.

IMO the reason Axis players cannot achieve historical results, be it against the AI or in PBEM, is because they lack the air support in the game which the Germans had during the war.

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 20

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 3:56:27 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

The Axis 1941 campaign will not replicate history with evenly matched players right now, but I think that's primarily because good Soviet players won't allow massive numbers of units to be encircled. That's the biggest change to me. And that's OK, because why should they have to repeat the dumb mistakes of history?

The Axis will not get as far in 1941, and probably 1942 as well, though there will be some payback, because the Axis player probably isn't going to allow a Stalingrad to happen either. Or even a Korsun pocket for that matter.

Hard to say how it all pans out, but safe to say you won't see as many pockets in-game as IRL.

_____________________________

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 21

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 4:08:25 PM

kirkgregerson

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline

I think 1.04 changes have been long overdue, but reasonable so as they had to be flushed out with data and exp by players. Having played a pre-1.03 game and getting my ass handed to me by the blizzard and single NKVD units in swamp (old terrain mod bug) in summer 41, I'm happy blizzard weather is finally brought back to something more historical. Except for a very few AARs where an inexperienced soviet player was facing an expert axis play (obvious from AAR play), I've yet to see a 1942 for an axis player that had any chances of limited offensives with success (like Blau). I know plenty of 'Soviet only' players won't like the changes, but IMO you 'lived large' for months after the initial release and now you need to accept that the changes coming in 1.04 are for the betterment of WitE. Given equal caliber players the axis should have it mostly their way in 41-42 (except for winter). Soviet production and an almost endless manpower will start to tell in 43 onward and attrition will be the axis's worse nightmare. Very much looking forward to the upcoming changes!!

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 22

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 4:16:22 PM

GBS

Posts: 903
Joined: 7/3/2002
From: Southeastern USA
Status: offline

Well said kirk.... makes a lot of sense.

(in reply to kirkgregerson)

Post #: 23

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 4:37:16 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The Axis 1941 campaign will not replicate history with evenly matched players right now, but I think that's primarily because good Soviet players won't allow massive numbers of units to be encircled.

I think it is because good Soviet players rail their folks out of range of the "plodding" (in comparison) German offensive. Totally inaccurate portrayal of the war.

Most of the Soviet front line should shatter on turn 1. That is what happens when you are taken by surprise. No need for a "Lvov Pocket" which never happened in history.

Then the race is on.

The Soviets should have to struggle to construct a defensible line, as they did in the war. As it is, Soviet players can bog down AGS well before they reach Kiev... and that also is totally inaccurate.

Don't get me wrong, I love the game. But it's modeling of the operational aspects of the war seem to be way off, especially in the South.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 24

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 5:13:47 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

You can get off the mark in AGS, but I think only by forming a giant pocket around Lvov. Failing to do that will get you bogged down, because the Reds have alot of units down there.

If you do that, Southwest Front will be short for a few turns, so I can't see getting bogged down in front of the Dnepr.

Railing units away from the Germans isn't as easy with the new Factory move rules; you have to use that selectively. Plus routed units can't be railed, which used to be standard practice. These are positive changes.

_____________________________

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 25

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 5:24:39 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

You can get off the mark in AGS, but I think only by forming a giant pocket around Lvov.

The Germans didn't have to do it... why should we?

In fact, the Lvov pocket, even well executed, results in a scattering of your mobile forces and lost momentum in the direction of Kiev. The Axis should be in Kiev by turn 3... the turn when the Soviets start getting lots of reinforcements.

The Soviet south should shatter and fall apart on initial contact. The Axis should be in Kiev by turn 3 and then the real operational decisions starting becoming available to both sides in how they want to change history.

But without that start... with all the dilly dallying around Lvov, there is no "Southern strategy" because you have lost the initiative and are already well behind the time line.

Thus, the game has generated into whether you can take Stalingrad or not. As I have said before... not very interesting from an operational POV. And disappointing for a game of this caliber.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 26

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 5:39:11 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

Historically, though, the Germans didn't take Kiev until September. They didn't even attempt it until the 2nd week of August, after the Uman Pocket was cleared, or approx. Turn 8-9. Turn 3 would have the Germans in Kiev the first week of July!

Southwest Front historically didn't shatter, and gave the Germans alot of trouble. The leadership down there was generally more on the ball, and the Soviets put most of their T-34s and top units down there, to support what they thought would be the primary theater.

In game, I think this works pretty well; the best at-start units for the Reds are in the South, as they should be. Some of the Mech Corps are pretty nasty.

There's alot you can do beside gunning for Stalingrad....

_____________________________

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 27

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 5:51:42 PM

hfarrish

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

I think it is because good Soviet players rail their folks out of range of the "plodding" (in comparison) German offensive. Totally inaccurate portrayal of the war.

As a mostly Soviet player, I actually think you do better by using the units in the South to bog down the Germans (and hopefully get in an isolated counterattack or two) rather than railing them out to form a line somewhere else. This is probably even more true now if fortification build is being slowed. Seems like some of the better/experienced Sov players on the forum also follow this approach.

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 28

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 5:53:13 PM

Angelo

Posts: 87
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

You can get off the mark in AGS, but I think only by forming a giant pocket around Lvov.

The Germans didn't have to do it... why should we?

In fact, the Lvov pocket, even well executed, results in a scattering of your mobile forces and lost momentum in the direction of Kiev. The Axis should be in Kiev by turn 3... the turn when the Soviets start getting lots of reinforcements.

The Soviet south should shatter and fall apart on initial contact. The Axis should be in Kiev by turn 3 and then the real operational decisions starting becoming available to both sides in how they want to change history.

But without that start... with all the dilly dallying around Lvov, there is no "Southern strategy" because you have lost the initiative and are already well behind the time line.

Thus, the game has generated into whether you can take Stalingrad or not. As I have said before... not very interesting from an operational POV. And disappointing for a game of this caliber.

Yea a bit of a disappointment...but really 'it's the only game in town' as nothing else out there comes close.

I've found that the GC's are all about how many units and men the germans can destroy. If the soviet can keep these numbers down they will have a chance at a decisive win. The axis need really large numbers, way above historical to win decisively. I'm looking at 10 to 1 in all casualties rates, which is unlikely against an experienced soviet player.

Taking out production and recruiting centers helps but holding victory locations means very little, except near the end game.

So, like many games min/max is the name of the game and large number of surrenders, as captured troops don't filter back to the enemies army.

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 29

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 7:21:57 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

The Germans didn't do an early Lvov pocket in part because it was not the operational plan to do so. The original campaign called for a strong thrust from the 6th Army left short of Dnepr and to follow the river bend, netting the Russian units to the west of the river. Essentially, the Uman pocket is the end of the first phase of the operational plan. The Germans did not count on the Russian ability to have substancial additional reserves east of the river nor on the Russians to give such a spirited defense in the area. As Q-Ball mentions, the better troops in the Russian army were down there and there were far more T34/KV1 tanks there than in center and up north.

As far as the rest of the Russian frontier army not going away, anyone that thinks there are any good amounts of troops left after a good open by the Axis in the North and Center, need to start up a game with humans as both players, do an Axis turn and then look at what the Russians have to work with north of the swamps. This is generally a few units that are trashed, some frozen corps, and not much else. This has caused some German players to claim "Sir Robinov" especially in the north when the fact is there just isn't much left to work with up there.

From what I have seen, it is tough for the Axis to duplicate the 1941 campaign simply because the Russian player will play better than his historical counter part and also the Axis players generally try to get ready for the blizzard instead of trying to continue to advance, even in mud and snow. Not saying this is smart or not, but in the short term, it does explain why the Axis rarely achieve historical gains. They certainly usually do not achieve historical casualties, but this is again due to better Russian play.

(in reply to Angelo)

Post #: 30