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: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments

 
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] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa >> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/4/2016 2:04:14 PM   
willgamer


Posts: 902
Joined: 6/2/2002
From: Huntsville, Alabama
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi Franciscus,

Fair enough. You're not the only one asking for this so I'll add something in for the next update.

Cheers,
Cameron


Any ETA on that?


_____________________________

Rex Lex or Lex Rex?

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 61
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/4/2016 5:42:10 PM   
Tweedledumb

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 12/29/2015
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		I can confirm EXACTLY what Flavius experienced.

In a PBEM++ game I paid 20 PP's to "Admit Crisis" bringing my Soviet PP total to zero.

Zhukov is in Central Front so the Posture cards showed the cost of Defensive Posture as 5 (North), Free (Centre) and 5 (South). I clicked on the "Free" Card and got a communications error and all my posture cards became unavailable. So far, so good.

Then I noticed that I now had 5 PP's.

So the bug may be related to a communications breakdown refunding the "old" amount of PP's required for changing posture even though none were spent.

Hope that helps, Cameron. I don't know how to get a save file from a PBEM protected game!


(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 62
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/6/2016 8:28:46 AM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline 		Hi Tweedlebumb,

Yep, that helps a fair bit.

Thanks,
Cameron

(in reply to Tweedledumb)
Post #: 63
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/9/2016 3:42:53 AM   
RandomAttack


Posts: 235
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		A question on Conscript Garrisons. The Manual (4.12) says they are set to "fight to the death" (retreat at 100%), but I frequently have seen them (AI) retreat from cities as a result of combat. Has there been a change I missed and it's WAD? Not a big deal, just wanted to check.

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 64
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/9/2016 8:27:35 AM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline 		Hi RandomAttack,

Nope, working as intended. A unit that is set to retreat 100% will still be pushed back at times. It'll be hammered, though.

Garrisons outside of their host cities are like lost cats. Never seen again. The giant vacuum cleaner hoovers them up.

Cheers,
Cameron

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 65
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/9/2016 5:35:00 PM   
RandomAttack


Posts: 235
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		Roger that. ANY estimate on when the new shiny official patch will be released? I think a lot of us are waiting for it to start new games...

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 66
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/11/2016 9:15:24 AM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline 		Hi RandomAttack,

An official patch is probably some time off but a new Beta could be reasonably soon.

Cheers,
Cameron

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 67
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/12/2016 3:39:18 PM   
RandomAttack


Posts: 235
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		A question on HQ units. I understand you don't want them to be TOO flimsy, but they rarely seem to die (at least in SP). EX: I attack a lone Soviet HQ with a full-AP Pz Div. It retreats with minimal losses (ok, it's tiny to begin with). I follow it and attack it again-- it retreats again. And again. Once in a very long while I can kill one without surrounding it, but usually they just retreat almost indefinitely. Surprised the AI doesn't just use them as blocking units and let the Germans burn up all their APs attacking them. So is there something about HQ units that make them so resistant to being killed? I can see a gameplay reason for doing so, but one of the fun things about a classic breakthrough is overrunning tiny/weak HQs. I'm basically going to stop wasting time & APs attacking lone HQ units.

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 68
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/12/2016 3:51:15 PM   
Vic


Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline 		@Random,

Keep in mind that combat thats quickly resolved usually takes the same ammount of AP as moving into an empty enemy hex.

The reason that HQs act slightly different in battle is probably because their staff contingent compared to their infantry contingent is actually already quite far behind the combat lines of that hex (and thus will incur less losses if it retreats before even being seriously attacked). Also your human opponent or AI probably has the retreat percentage set to 25%.

Best to cut them off first instead of directly attacking them.

Best wishes,
Vic

< Message edited by Vic -- 2/12/2016 4:52:14 PM >

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 69
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/12/2016 4:01:55 PM   
willgamer


Posts: 902
Joined: 6/2/2002
From: Huntsville, Alabama
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

A question on HQ units. I understand you don't want them to be TOO flimsy, but they rarely seem to die (at least in SP). EX: I attack a lone Soviet HQ with a full-AP Pz Div. It retreats with minimal losses (ok, it's tiny to begin with). I follow it and attack it again-- it retreats again. And again. Once in a very long while I can kill one without surrounding it, but usually they just retreat almost indefinitely. Surprised the AI doesn't just use them as blocking units and let the Germans burn up all their APs attacking them. So is there something about HQ units that make them so resistant to being killed? I can see a gameplay reason for doing so, but one of the fun things about a classic breakthrough is overrunning tiny/weak HQs. I'm basically going to stop wasting time & APs attacking lone HQ units.








Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Rex Lex or Lex Rex?

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 70
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/12/2016 4:45:38 PM   
RandomAttack


Posts: 235
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		Ha! "ACME" Panzers... But the HQs seem more like Ninjas.

(in reply to willgamer)
Post #: 71
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/14/2016 6:03:27 PM   
RandomAttack


Posts: 235
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		I've played a few SP games through to the end, and here's my final take on 1.03B. Some of these items have already been acknowledged, but I'm throwing them all in here. I can see my "normal" mode of play will be Limited Decisions, Normal AI difficulty.

1. Siege Artillery is essentially useless. If confined to German-gauge rail why even include it? You will NEVER get it to Moscow or Leningrad in a useful timeframe. Even Riga and Odessa are a stretch as far as timeliness is concerned. If you want to leave it at "half-strength", fine. But at least make it all-gauge capable.

2. Garrisons. The whole concept, especially MAJOR Garrisons seems tied to the concept of needing to use Siege Artillery to dislodge them. But see above. And Riga (which almost ALWAYS gets one) can only be attacked from 4 hexes-- 2 across a river. Odessa from 4 hexes. Very difficult to dislodge a Major Garrison w/o siege arty--which is pretty ahistorical and will never get to where you need it. I personally would rather see the whole super garrison/siege arty mechanic just go away than continue as-is. Brest-Litovsk actually fell in about a week (about 2 turns in DCB) WITHOUT the need for something like siege artillery, at the cost of about 500 Germans killed. Just try that in this game and see what the butcher’s bill is. Sure it was a tough fight, and the Soviets fought desperately (well, they were surrounded anyway so it was either that or surrender) and well-- notable because it was an EXCEPTION in the early days. But Riga? Sure, they blew some bridges, but a FORTRESS? Hell, partisans rose up all over the Baltic States and hurried the Soviets on their way-- they even recaptured a few cities on their own.

3. Modifiers, modifiers, modifiers. Some (first 4 turns, entrenchment) have been beat to death. Some haven't really been discussed.
- Soviet base & starting morale HIGHER than the Germans?? I'm sorry, but that dog won't hunt. A balancing mechanism I guess, but hard to look at.
- All Soviet HQs seem to start with a leader bonus rating of 50%?? While the "great" German generals are at 65%? Sooo, the vaunted German leadership starts with a net bonus of 15% over the pilloried Soviet purge survivors, toadies, etc., who (even if a few WERE that good) wouldn't make much of a difference as the rest of the army crumbled around them.

I really do understand the need to balance the game to account for the AI, but in all fairness I don't see how *any* AI could do worse than what really happened the first couple of weeks. Make the LATER turns tougher-- more reinforcements, tighter German logistics, etc. I am not a "fanboy" of either side, but while this is a fun game, to me it doesn't have the "look & feel" of what actually happened the first few turns.

On the plus side, the editor at least allows some of this stuff to be tweaked to each persons preference and I thank you much for that!

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 72
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/14/2016 9:47:55 PM   
bobarossa

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 6/11/2002
From: Columbus, Ohio USA
Status: offline 		I was going to disagree with you on the difficulty of taking Brest but Wikipedia's entry on "Defense of the Brest Fortress" says the road, railway, and bridges were all captured on the first day. Fighting for the citadel ended by June 29 and resulted in 500 dead, and >1000 wounded for 45th Infantry. They captured some 7000 Soviets. All-in-all, much easier than the week+ it takes in the game. Stahel claimed the battle wasn't over until July 23 and Glantz said July 12th. Wiki says there was no documented evidence for combat after June 29th except for capture of Soviet lieutenant on July 23rd.

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 73
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/14/2016 11:09:28 PM   
ryan1488

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		I'll have to agree that siege artillery isn't much use anymore. I much prefer use on german rail.

What about each turn it takes away say 20% of maximum entrench value. You would have to invest a total of 5 turns to get the old benefit of it. Plus tying it up so it can't zip around city to city.

Just my thoughts so far.

(in reply to bobarossa)
Post #: 74
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/14/2016 11:10:48 PM   
baloo7777


Posts: 1190
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack



quote:

I've played a few SP games through to the end, and here's my final take on 1.03B.


You are talking about 1.03b from a SP view, but I find it also fits in my experience with the 1.03b PBEM games I've been playing. I am in full agreement with your observations. The siege artillery is now mostly useless as the tracks never get to any city with a major garrison as you said. Something in between the Atomic powered siege guns of the original game and the useless ones of this newest version would be welcome.

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 75
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/22/2016 10:28:14 AM   
Vic


Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline 		Uploaded public beta version 1.03 H. See top post for changelist.

Thanks for all the continued feedback.

And be aware we are still working on some bigger extra's behind the stage.

best wishes,
Vic

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to baloo7777)
Post #: 76
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/22/2016 11:01:17 AM   
Vic


Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline 		@Anybody running win10

Please let me know if you see a difference with the new version H.

Best wishes,
Vic

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 77
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/22/2016 2:48:17 PM   
RandomAttack


Posts: 235
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		A couple of quick comments on H:
- Editor is now broken for me. If I try and open it I get a message about "can't find graphics...", then it crashes-- although the game itself works fine.
- Can you elaborate on the Finland fix? Will SP now get penalties for attacking (not moving) across the border?
- I like to play Easy mode just for the extra fuel (and now the Siege Arty)-- can you elaborate on the rationale for the extra -30% defensive (i.e., counterattack) penalty for the entire game? I think most of us were just looking for an equalization of PBEM vs SP for the first 4 turn stuff (e.g., entrenchment values). If I play Easy mode now seems like I will be taking significantly(??) less losses the entire game. Does extra -30% defensive penalty roughly equate to -50% entrenchment in ultimate results, and if so would you consider making it just for the first 4 turns vice all game?

I've been playing C a lot, typically with Easy/Limited Decisions and a couple of minor mod tweaks and have been having a blast. I mostly can win but it's not easy for me. I'm probably one of the lower-tier players posting here and I'm a little afraid Easy may be overdone now.

< Message edited by RandomAttack -- 2/22/2016 3:58:55 PM >

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 78
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/22/2016 3:44:34 PM   
RandomAttack


Posts: 235
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		To clarify on the editor: If I load a scenario I can open the simple editor from that screen. But if I try to open the editor at the main screen before loading a scenario I get a weird graphics message "Did not find J:\Matrix Games\Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa\graphics/Barb\Textures\grass.png". If I continue it just lists more graphics files. If I revert back to 1.03C everything works as expected.

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 79
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/22/2016 4:24:12 PM   
Vic


Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

To clarify on the editor: If I load a scenario I can open the simple editor from that screen. But if I try to open the editor at the main screen before loading a scenario I get a weird graphics message "Did not find J:\Matrix Games\Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa\graphics/Barb\Textures\grass.png". If I continue it just lists more graphics files. If I revert back to 1.03C everything works as expected.


Hold on let me check this and upload a new version.

New upload has an older masterfile (from 1.03c) included. There was some stuff in the previously uploaded masterfile that is not yet ready for testing... hence the missing gfx errors.

best,
Vic

< Message edited by Vic -- 2/22/2016 5:34:34 PM >

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 80
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/22/2016 4:55:49 PM   
RandomAttack


Posts: 235
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		That fixed it--thanks!

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 81
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/23/2016 2:48:58 AM   
Tweedledumb

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 12/29/2015
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

Uploaded public beta version 1.03 H. See top post for changelist.

Thanks for all the continued feedback.

And be aware we are still working on some bigger extra's behind the stage.

best wishes,
Vic


Thanks for the continued support of this amazing game.

Have been playing 1.03B PBEM since it came out and only the Zhukov bug has surfaced.

Will check out 1.03h ASAP.

Looking forward to those "bigger extra's behind the stage"!!!

All the best.

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 82
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/23/2016 10:00:15 AM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline 		Hi,

The Finnish border changes fix the problem people were having with getting violation penalties when they shouldn't.

Single Player attacks across the border didn't make the cut as it popped up too late. It's on the list.

Easy mode probably needs to be easier for first time players based on feedback, hence the -30% def penalty, however you can offset this by selecting the 'Tougher Soviets' option.

Whether that would give you the same level of challenge as before is hard to judge but I suspect it wouldn't be far off. Perhaps you could let us know.

Cheers,
Cameron

(in reply to Tweedledumb)
Post #: 83
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03 H : Last Update... - 2/23/2016 1:48:10 PM   
Templer_12


Posts: 1700
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:

Ranks corrected, eg. Kol.Gen -> Gen.Obst., MajGen -> Maj.Gen.

NO!
It's Gen.Maj.! (Generalmajor)

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 84
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/23/2016 3:57:51 PM   
RandomAttack


Posts: 235
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

Easy mode probably needs to be easier for first time players based on feedback, hence the -30% def penalty, however you can offset this by selecting the 'Tougher Soviets' option.


That sounds reasonable-- I'll give it a spin like that and provide some feedback. Thanks!

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 85
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/23/2016 11:08:46 PM   
RandomAttack


Posts: 235
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		A couple of things:
- It seems to take a lot more time to process the new turn-- like about double. Same settings for AI (normal) I always use. Not a scientific test or anything, but it takes noticeably longer.
- Your suggestion about "Easy" (def penalty) & "Tougher Soviets" roughly offsetting each other seems spot on. Seems like I take noticeably less casualties when attacking the first couple of turns, but the reinforcements feel about "normal". I really like this combination.
- Just for giggles, I relocated the Siege Arty during free setup-- it was then reported destroyed/overrun at the beginning of round 2. I just had to try...

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 86
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/24/2016 2:54:54 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline 		After updating to the 1.03h patch, I am unable to log into the PBEM++ system. Error reads as follows...

Checking serial number...
Checking username+password...
Your serial is verified as registered already.
You still need to login though.

Then, after clicking OK, I get the login page with my username, pw and serial displayed and after logging in I get...

Checking user/pass...
You could not be logged in.
Error report: 'Login/pass is wrong for serial number. [10]'

Has anyone else had this problem with resuming a PBEM++ game after updating?

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 87
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/24/2016 3:39:14 AM   
baloo7777


Posts: 1190
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline 		I thought you were taking longer than usual with the turn. Guess I'll hold off updating to 1.03h!

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 88
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/24/2016 5:05:53 AM   
WingedIncubus


Posts: 512
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

After updating to the 1.03h patch, I am unable to log into the PBEM++ system. Error reads as follows...

Checking serial number...
Checking username+password...
Your serial is verified as registered already.
You still need to login though.

Then, after clicking OK, I get the login page with my username, pw and serial displayed and after logging in I get...

Checking user/pass...
You could not be logged in.
Error report: 'Login/pass is wrong for serial number. [10]'

Has anyone else had this problem with resuming a PBEM++ game after updating?


Got the same problem after updating to latest beta patch.

Contacted Slitherine support through e-mail.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 89
RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adju... - 2/24/2016 6:31:01 AM   
nukkxx5058


Posts: 2932
Joined: 2/3/2005
From: France
Status: offline 		Just installed it ! I love the free setup. Fantastic !

One question:
What is "Commanders Report - Supply added " ?

Thanks

(in reply to barkhorn45)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa >> RE: Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03b : Balance Adjustments Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

9.719