RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before.

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 >> Tech Support >> RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before.

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 3:16:24 AM

Michael T

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

There should be a limit on how many INF type units are produced per turn. That makes sense. Maybe there is a hidden cap?

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 31

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 5:54:49 AM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I don't know if there is a problem or not. I haven't played a game past early 43.

But I tire of Axis players who think they are entitled to a draw simply because they built a carpet of FZ and put all units in reserve. Kind like a fighter pilot complaining that he can't shoot any planes down when he is in auto pilot.

I don't mind seeing the Axis getting trashed late war. It did happen you know. Now if you have a situation where you have knocked out tons of Soviet ARM and MP and you are getting trashed that ceratinly is a problem. But if you have done less than historical damage to USSR then expect to get smashed late war.

Easy fix. Do better in your 41 and 42 campaign.

I think the problem is still the combat system. The winner suffers only negligible casulties, while the loser is getting hammered. In 41/42 this problem is not that obvious as the Soviets have enough industrial strength to compensate their losses, and there is a blizzard to make up for it (but the problem is very much alive if the Soviet never makes to the blizzard, however). In 43-45 the problem is much bigger for the German. He does not have the industrial strength to compensate continuous retreats. This is like a snowball system. Once it starts it accelerates due to the German getting weaker, while the Soviet, due to negligible losses, is able to pound turn after turn. I have no problem with seeing German retreats, but it is strange to see a German division that was forced to retreat to suffer 1000-2000 men losses plus numerous guns, while the Soviet attacker gets away with the same amount of men, even though he attacked with like 5-10 times the number.

Therefore people build FZ and put units into reserves. It is linked to that problem. Right now the only way to inflict a good amount of losses, even when retreating, is to have a unit committ. So, right now in 43-45 the problem is, either the German manages to turn the Eastern front into World War I, or he is trashed in an ahistoric pace. I think to familiarize yourself with the situation you should take a look at Disgruntled's AAR. In terms of territory he is doing much better than historical. He has not suffered devestating defeats. His army was very strong before the Soviet offensive time began. But still he is doubting whether he even sees 1945. That just isn't right. Historically the Germans survived into May 45 despite suffering Stalingrad, Bagration and other catastrophes. In this particular game the German fears he will not see 1945 and all the Soviet does is just push forward one hex at a time until the Wehrmacht breaks beyond recovery.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 32

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 5:57:33 AM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

I was thinking we are talking about problem when there are both men and armaments in the pool, and units even on refit do not fill up?

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 33

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 6:05:30 AM

SigUp

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

In this case no, as far as I understood, Disgruntled has men, but no armaments.

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 34

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 7:14:48 AM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

If that is so, then there are two choices: reduce retreat casualties (connect this to morale and experience, to not help the Soviets in 41-42) or increase Axis resources/supplies/armaments multiplier for late '43 to '45. Since first option is rather out of reach, because WitE is no longer the main focus of the devs, I'd say it's easier to go with the second option. How does the arms production between '41 and '45 compares to real production numbers between '41 and '45. Speer's reforms yielded rather dramatic increase in output, is it reflected in the ratios between modifiers? Bear in mind that if the game has somewhat unrealistic combat system, it must have somewhat unrealistic production system to compensate and it's not bad, certainly better than having one accurate and one off the mark by large margin, which leads to German army's early demise.

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 35

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 10:25:35 AM

Disgruntled Veteran

Posts: 615
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

In this case no, as far as I understood, Disgruntled has men, but no armaments.

Correct.

I am not crying bug here, I am bringing up an issue that makes the game very unplayable(???) in the late war. The axis armament multiplier increases from 220 to 380 from 43 to 44 and this is very helpful but far short of the required output for the axis to keep pace.

The real culprit here is retreat losses which are way out of whack. I think the armament production is acceptable but my losses (and assumable others) is devastating. I am losing between 100-130k men and 1200-3000 guns a turn. This is largely without surrenders although my last few turns a handful of units are getting trapped as I am unable to hold any coherent line. At this rate I will lose between 400-500k men a month and 4k-12k guns a month. So I guess I'm asking if this should be the standard working model for late war axis players. I am willing to admit my defense was weak as this is my first game and so some of my misfortune is clearly my fault, but the losses still seem outrageous.

Perhaps some adjustment would be nice?

(in reply to SigUp)

Post #: 36

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 11:36:50 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Are two issues getting confused here?

I mean if you lack ARM but have MP then that is a seperate issue to having ARM and MP.

If you lack ARM then that is not a bug. It may an issue for late war Axis players but its not a bug.

If you have ARM and MP in many hundreds of K in the German pool. If you have all units set to 100% TOE. If you have all units set to refit. If all units are on or near a railhead. If you have all units with good C&C (does disbanding all Corp hurt?). If your units are all below 70% TOE.

Then if your pools are still going up then I would say some investigation is needed. But so far every time someone has offered up a file to look at there has always been an acceptable reason for the blow out.

Pelton anyone can cry 'the injuns are comin' a hundred times and sure once or twice they are coming. But the other 98 times it was just the wind.

Your strike rate is low. Hence you acquire the cry wolf syndrome. Get some credible evidence. i.e. save game files that show the problem.

If there is a problem then I want it fixed as well. But you need to prove it. Just saying its so isn't going to wash it.

What bothers me most about you MT is its seems your unable to read and the same goes for many others.

I have posted 6 different AAR's that are loaded with many many pages of info that is getting ignored by you and other.

Several games (read the AAR's P for the lov of god) have 100,000 + men in pool and 100,000+ of arm pt in pool.

My "miss ratio" is high, its seems low because I have to post and bitch for months before the poeple in charge fix the issue.

Fort decay bug= weeks
1v1=2v1 = months
National Morale = over a yr
Middle earth Blizzard effects = months
armaments issue in Pelton vs Kamil and Wolf vs Bear = months
88mm = weeks no fix yet but on the table
several problems found on other forums= fixed

In every case " Pelton your a retard shut up and go away"

So yes it seem like I miss allot because poeple fight me for months or yrs when the data is showing I am clearly right.

Look at NM issue I posted 20+ turns with data from 30 divisions and was ignored dispite boat loads of data and support from others showing same issue.

The biggest issue as in your case you simply are ignoring the data posted, I know you are because your asking questions that I and other have answered alrdy more then once.

Its like a kid in a class room asking how to do a math problem when the teacher just took 10 mins to explain the answer.

Before asking a problem read the links and posts alrdy up.

Its very frustrating answering the same question 3 times, because someones to lazy to read the posts.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 37

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 11:42:07 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Then if your pools are still going up then I would say some investigation is needed. But so far every time someone has offered up a file to look at there has always been an acceptable reason for the blow out.

Again read the posts we have alrdy answered your question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439

Turn 143 aka Game, Set, Match

Overall
Stalingrad fell this turn. However since I started my turn by that attack (eager like a kid on Xmas eve), I was stuck with alot of partisans on the map at the end of my turn as I was no longer allowed to use railroads.
Alot of screenshots will be posted below.
Brad launched 2 attacks, scoring 1 held and 1 retreat, while we managed to conduct 54 attacks, and scored 8 helds, 28 retreats, 15 routs and 3 surrenders.

USSR units in pockets at start of turn
8.

USSR units in pockets at end of turn
4.

Losses
USSR : 168.000 troops, 3.360 guns, 70 AFVs, 489 AC.
Axis : 49.000 troops, 561 guns, 129 AFVs, 79 AC.

Total Losses
USSR : 15.034.976 troops, 308.738 guns, 37.555 AFVs, 51.361 AC.
Axis : 3.660.731 troops, 50.980 guns, 13.032 AFVs, 9.808 AC.

USSR units lost
3 Rifle Corps, 2 Rifle Divisions.

German units disbanded
None.

Partisans hunted down
8, leaving 8 on the map.

German pools
Manpower : 416.168
Vehicles : 139.180
Armaments : 1.043.248 Hiwi : 173.319

Victory Points
261. Major Axis victory.

Your playing kamil ask him about his game instead of simply guessing or building strawmen.

I have provided links to the AAR's take the time like I have and look at the data instead of ignoring it.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 38

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 11:50:45 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

MT if you think that DV should have more men in manpower pool then in units by mid 44 no data will ever change your mind.

If you think by turn 136 GHC should have 400,000 men in manpower pool and 1,000,000 armaments in arm pool no data will ever change your mind.

You don't seem interested in the data you more interested in winning and not getting to the bottom of the issue.

The links are up and the same issue's is going on in all.

growing manpower pools starting in late 43 for no reason = the tempo of fighting is the same and in most case arm pts is not the issue.

Starting in 44 the manpower pools are growing by 20-50k per turn. In some cases GHC has 100,000 of arm and men in pools. In the case where no arm are in pool by the end of 44 there will be more men in pools then at front.

The setting are all different, some guys have everything on 100%, some are disbanding units, some have SU's at 50% and combat at 100% ect ect.

DV has units off the front next to HQ on refit and the units are only getting 2-4% of replasements, in other words 70 toe grows to 74%. Hes left them for several turns.

You can't ignore that.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/22/2013 11:54:31 AM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 39

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 12:25:08 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Pelton there are still a lot of questions, what was his TOE settings? How far from railheads etc.

I recall a similar post from you a way back and after a lot of testing and tweaking different settings you concluded all was fine. What is different this time?

What I and Flaviusx were seeing was the deleivery system had been changed. I was doing things I had done in the past yet they were not working any more. The new system basicly forses GHC to disband HQ's and set TOE to 100%.

So your bitch about disbanding Corp HQ's is wrong. If you do not disband them because of the new system you be out of troops before mid 43.

If you ever get to a blizzard you will see what I mean. Hmm mybee not because you have so little blizzard exp the same goes for 42+

I brought up national morale over a yr ago and how it was not working, but was ignored UNTIL tests (tech forum here ) on witw showed it was broken.

These issue's that are going on here will do the same in witw I am guessing, so bringing them up here is helping in a way test for the next game.

The issue here is allot like the ammo bug ( forgot that one on my list, I know another cry wolf. Hmm thats what 8 times I was right?), the AI is building unneeded stuff and not building things that are needed. The AI issue is new and the Turrhunnas issue old, but worse now then before.

The fact is I see these issue arise because I play far more then anyone / far later into the war then anyone. I do bring them up at first without enough data, but in almost every case i have proven to be right when I get more data from my 6 on going games and several other players that have same issue.

If you play enough past 43 you get a feel for how things should be working and when something has changed or simply not working as designed. NM was not working as designed and I showed the data, 1v1=2v1 ect ect ect.

The little things I am not that great on, but the big picture stuff I can see long before the data piles up. Because as I have pointed out many times, 1 very small tweak can have a huge effect 100 turn later.

I have yet to see anyone say wow can't beleive you were right about NM. I stood my ground because I was right, backed up by data. Dispite all the strawmen and personal attacks I was right and proven so.

I am right about this because it is showing in not just my games, but now many others.

Ignoring the issue is not going to make it go away, only fixing it will.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/22/2013 12:34:13 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 40

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 1:02:35 PM

Michael T

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

Produce some files that the devs can examine Pelton. Evidence is save game files that back up your claims. I reiterate, you have been proven mistaken before.

You also confuse bugs and so called balance issues. They are separate. Like the 1:1 2:1 thing. That was not a bug. It was a WAD mechanism that was changed.

Are you talking about a bug or a design issue? I think both.

If you think there is a bug produce a file that shows the bug. Simple.

If you think there is a design issue then gather some supporters and lobby the devs. I don't think there is a design issue ARM wise for Germany.

If there is a bug. I agree fix it. But prove it with some files. You are yet to do that.

_____________________________

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 41

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 3:02:15 PM

swkuh

Posts: 1034
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline

Brief posts that identify anomalies are respected, but rants aren't useful. Think rants cloud issues that need to be understood just to enjoy the game.

Maybe we could save all the 2 cent pieces being thrown down and paypal them to the developers to fund their work.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 42

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 5:37:42 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Produce some files that the devs can examine Pelton. Evidence is save game files that back up your claims. I reiterate, you have been proven mistaken before.

You also confuse bugs and so called balance issues. They are separate. Like the 1:1 2:1 thing. That was not a bug. It was a WAD mechanism that was changed.

Are you talking about a bug or a design issue? I think both.

If you think there is a bug produce a file that shows the bug. Simple.

If you think there is a design issue then gather some supporters and lobby the devs. I don't think there is a design issue ARM wise for Germany.

If there is a bug. I agree fix it. But prove it with some files. You are yet to do that.

1. I have give files and other poeple area begging to hand them over. Agian I do not see how you need a file when 8+ games all have same issue's There are boat loads of file on server and PBeM's. Ignoring and issue doen't make it go away.

2. Bug, as I have been 100% right about NM bug, 88mm bug , FZ decay rates bug ect ect I have no way and the same goes for players of produsing "files". We simply can give the files to 2by3. They have to find the bad code.
Again we have the files (games saves) and are rdy to hand them in any time.
The national morale bug was clear as day, but until it started screwing up witw it was ignored.

3. Design (balance) issues. I am 100% sure that the german army by design should not have more men in the manpower pool then at the front.

Again simply look at the data, poeple are dumping 100's of hours into a game that appears to be crashing from 2 issues in 1943-44.

There are 2 problems.

1. There appears to be a bug in the AI system as both morveal and Flaviusx think. Others and myself beleive the same now as we have several games with men and armaments in both pools and they grow from turn to turn as the German OOB drops. That one simply speaks for itself as there are many AAR's supporting this.

2. Design issue, which I beleive is linked to the first issue. By Jan 1944 if you have some arm pts in pool the GHc manpower pool grows by about 20k per turn. If by Jan 44+ as GHC your arm pool is negitive the manpower pool grows by 50k+ per turn. I am guessing that 2by3 does not want to have more GHC men in the manpower pool then at the front by mid 44. Just a guess :)
Why does the german manpower pool grow in 43+ when you have a lighter tempo and more armaments then in 41/42?

If the combat engine is the same in witw as wite then the same 2 issues will show up, but worse because of the tighter logistic system they are running.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 43

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 5:44:48 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Brief posts that identify anomalies are respected, but rants aren't useful. Think rants cloud issues that need to be understood just to enjoy the game.

Maybe we could save all the 2 cent pieces being thrown down and paypal them to the developers to fund their work.

Again we are back to personal attacks as with national morale, sad but true.

I know you might not care that poeple are investing 100's of hours in their games only to see this same issue which 2by3 had to hot patch Wolf and the Bear.

Are you saying that our games should not get hot patches or be fixed?

This post has links to 6 other games, I guess you could careless about them?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2792361
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3192826
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3146387
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3202999&mpage=12&key=
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3188951&mpage=10
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3173669&mpage=27&key=

I like this game and want it to work.

When this game came out it was not playable past March 42, GHc won out right in 41 or SHC during blizzard.

TO 2by3's credit the game is now playable to mid to late 43, but then it simply crashs and burns very quickly.

rrbill try and post data and not hate, its not helping the game.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/22/2013 5:50:50 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to swkuh)

Post #: 44

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 5:50:34 PM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

In 9/43 the german inf div TOE changes from ~17k men to ~13k men, excess squads are sent back to pool over time. If all works right they should be mostly absorbed by other low-TOE units.
If things don't work right because units sit on out-of-production squad types and can't get reinforcements, you'll see manpower growing in pools.
If lots of units swap their squads from the types ending in 12/43 to the type starting in 1/43 you'll see lots of arm points absorbed by this (and the old types won't get scrapped until 12/44 or 1/45, blocking arm points).

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 45

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 5:56:29 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

In 9/43 the german inf div TOE changes from ~17k men to ~13k men, excess squads are sent back to pool over time. If all works right they should be mostly absorbed by other low-TOE units.
If things don't work right because units sit on out-of-production squad types and can't get reinforcements, you'll see manpower growing in pools.
If lots of units swap their squads from the types ending in 12/43 to the type starting in 1/43 you'll see lots of arm points absorbed by this (and the old types won't get scrapped until 12/44 or 1/45, blocking arm points).

That could be one of the issue's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Disgruntled Veteran

Turn came back. Less and less men getting to the front. I told A-Game I'm likely to have a 1 million man army with a million in the reserve pool by mid 44 if the current rate continues. Really getting annoyed at this right now. Only a handful of units refit a turn. I have 2 mech divisions that have been waiting to withdraw for 5 straight turns (meaning they are past the withdraw date but cannot get the extra 2-3% TOE needed to withdraw.) This last turn I passed 500k men in the reserve pool. Is this common for post 44 players? Should I report this as a bug or is this supposed to be historical? I disbanded 10 pioneers , some rockets, and a panzer regiment this turn to keep them from sucking up armaments. Hopefully this helps. This AAR won't reach 45 if this continues.

As DV points out even units off the front lines on rail heads with HQ's persent are not getting replasements.

The snowball starts in mid 43 and really jumps as of Jan 1944, dispite the fact that GHC gets 40% more armament points. In my game it has jumped 100k in 5 turns and I have armament points in the pool.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 46

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 7:18:37 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

130

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 47

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 7:19:08 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

136

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 48

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 7:19:34 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

130

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 49

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 7:20:00 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

136

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 50

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 7:20:34 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

130

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 51

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 7:20:58 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

136

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 52

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 7:26:14 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

Turn 130 to 136
As of turn 136 I have 3300 armaments in the pool not many, but a positive number. I am 3 turns into January and about the same point as DV vs A-game. By Mid February GHC has 500,000 in manpower pool. + 50k per turn.

Panzer and Infantry TOE is set at 93% same for HQ's, SU's are set at 85% and FZ at 71%. These have been same setting all along per snowballing of manpower pool.

GHC total loses over 6 turns: 211,000(kia/captured/disabled) or 35,000 per turn. I have been with drawing 1 hex per turn along most of the front to keep tempo very low.

Replasements per turn =18,274 +( 1% from the disable pool) 18,000 ish = 36,000 + per turn into the replasment pool. This almost covers my total turn by turn losses.

German OOB from 130-136 = -173,000 or - 34,600 minus per turn. During this time 4 divisions and 1 regiment arrived and 1 division and 2 regiment left or a positive of 40,000.

Manpower pool went from 213,000 to 340,000 and increase of 127,000

So my OOB dropped - 173,000 Why?

My total losses were 211,000

My total OOB dropped - 173,000

Yet I recieved and extra 3 divisions 40,000, my manpower pool grew by 127,000 and I recieved 36,000 replasements per turn or 216,000., I have armaments in the pool.
As I have been saying the numbers simply do not add up.

DV vs A-game is much worse then mine.

Stuff simply is not getting built by the system.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/22/2013 7:27:59 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 53

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 7:43:44 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

I also went back to turn 126 as to check between turns 126 through turn 130

Manpower pool on turn 126 was 226,000 with 6400 in armament pool.

Losses 132,000 over 5 turns not 6. over 6 would be 160,000 about 60,000 less then 131-136

OOB 3,528,000

So basicly between turns 125 and 130 manpower pool is static, OOB static and arm pts up a little.

So for ssome unknown reason betwen turn 131-136 GHC OOB crashed 173,000 dispite +3 divisions,enough armament points in the pool and my manpower pool grew 127,000.

Ok there are the dam numbers refute that.

Keep in mind this is not the worse case DV vs A-games is a disaster, Kamil vs Mike ect ect

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2792361
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3192826
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3146387
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3202999&mpage=12&key=
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3188951&mpage=10
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3173669&mpage=27&key=

You can thank MT for getting me to dig as deep as possible.

You can follow the numbers or

< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/22/2013 7:51:35 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 54

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 7:50:38 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

126

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 55

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 7:52:52 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

126

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 56

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 7:58:53 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

What magicly changes a little in mid 43 then drops of the hill in Dec 43, then drops of a mountian in Jan 44 I have no idea. But something in all the mid 43+ games is wrong simply making the game unplayable by (guessing) mid 44.

The game farthest into 44 is this one:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3192826&mpage=6

Is this what we all have to look forward to?

< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/22/2013 8:06:51 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 57

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 8:05:34 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

In case of high manpower+high arm in the pool, I blame the auto-production procedure, whereas in case of high manpower+low arm in the pool I'd look for ground element upgrades as the culprit. I believe the current representation is bad, especially in case of squad upgrades, of which there are huge numbers (and needs), high turn-to-turn rotation (a lot of damaged elements) and low per-squad cost (which means it will be produced as priority before the heavy guns, that have higher cost, from what I have gathered). Namely it follows as this: get a squad from the front and send them to Berlin, order them to stockpile their 8 Mausers + 1 MG in Central Berlin Depot. Then send the men on vacation. Then order the factories to build 8 new Mausers + 2 new MG, find some men of vacation and order them to take those weapons and send them to the front. All of these steps, instead of just sending 1 new MG to the front for each squad. And since the pools of obsolete elements empty very slowly starting _next_ year, that means a high number of ARM pts is wasted and "frozen" in those unused elements, as Deniss said.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 58

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 8:16:18 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

In case of high manpower+high arm in the pool, I blame the auto-production procedure, whereas in case of high manpower+low arm in the pool I'd look for ground element upgrades as the culprit. I believe the current representation is bad, especially in case of squad upgrades, of which there are huge numbers (and needs), high turn-to-turn rotation (a lot of damaged elements) and low per-squad cost (which means it will be produced as priority before the heavy guns, that have higher cost, from what I have gathered). Namely it follows as this: get a squad from the front and send them to Berlin, order them to stockpile their 8 Mausers + 1 MG in Central Berlin Depot. Then send the men on vacation. Then order the factories to build 8 new Mausers + 2 new MG, find some men of vacation and order them to take those weapons and send them to the front. All of these steps, instead of just sending 1 new MG to the front for each squad. And since the pools of obsolete elements empty very slowly starting _next_ year, that means a high number of ARM pts is wasted and "frozen" in those unused elements, as Deniss said.

Nice info. I did not understand what you 2 have been talking about, but do now.

Ok that explains the designed disaster that starts in mid 43.

Basicly GHC armament production is not 380% in Jan 44.

It is really 190% by design, as 1/2 or more of the points are simply wasted on building **** thats already built other then the one MG per squad.

What do the 8 Mausers and 1 MG get shipped off to Middle Earth?

quote:

And since the pools of obsolete elements empty very slowly starting _next_ year, that means a high number of ARM pts is wasted and "frozen" in those unused elements, as Deniss said

Wow just simply Wow, lol thats a huge design flaw. In other words almost all of the 380% is wasted thrown away until 45. But the said fact is the games over because the GHc system can't build units.

Ok that explains the fact that MT ran a 44 test and it looked fine. A correct test has to start in Dec 1942 to test Jan 1944.

Wow man great info.

So basicly by design almost all of the armament points in 1944 are sent to Middle Earth until 1945. ( 8 Mauser and 1 MG per squad plus many many other upgrades to tanks,guns ect).

I guess under the current flawed design all GHC manpower pools will have 500,000 men in manpower pools by spring 44 and close to a million by late 44 and only 2 million in the field. Thats best case.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/22/2013 8:29:17 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 59

RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 8:27:14 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

This old set of weapons awaits to be recycled into arm points but it will take year(s) to do it, so late in the game it may actually mean never.

That's why I'm saying any problems with combat or production system that yield ahistorical results must be countered by ahistorical production capabilities, historical accuracy be damned. If other aspects are not following history, then another one cannot stick to it, to the detriment of players.

Bear in mind that these are all my personal opinions based on what I have seen in the game (haven't played much, but with attention to detail) and what I have read on these forums. So I may be wrong.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 60

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

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Tech Support >> RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before.