..., that your tanks were superior etc. - which is not only dangerous in wars,
.... ps: you gave up muuuuuch to early against SigUp...
To be fair, I'm not saying the first. There are plenty of comments in the AAR (well before the patch) about how outclassed the T34/76 was by this stage of the war and how that was really pushing up my tank losses. I was losing 4-600 in an active week before the patch (ie more than production) and accepted that as perfectly reasonable.
The problem in the game with SigUp was fundamental. If you added up rail points used I had *enough* HI and Arms Pts, but I didn't have enough HI once the .08.01 patch shifted the basis of industrial strategy. Apart from in very narrow corridors my army was under-supplied. That meant in turn I was not recovering to the shifting NM - don't forget I was fighting the summer with a NM of 38. You try attacking when 70% of your rifle divisions at the end of 1943 are 1 cv (and low on morale) and you even have rifle corps at 4 cv.
Without that I would have carried on - not least you learn a lot as the game moves through its various phases. I didn't/don't care about winning, I play a game this length for the enjoyment and the process. So if in that game the best I might have done was to clear the USSR by mid-45 I'd have been happy to go on. But the supply situation was ridiculous and making it pointless.
I am very conflicted over the patch process. I like the dedication to bug elimination, I like the willingness to bring in new ideas. I realise what 'beta' means but this is something like the 4th massive change in the .08 iterations that really messes around with the game system. Over two patches we've gone from airpower being meaningless to vastly over-powered all to address a non-problem (that most players used a simple house rule to control for). Now apparently the German tanks need to be protected again radically shifting how the game plays out.
Unfortunately this requires a bit of patience, and is risky so that's why I created Patch Archive for those who want to fall back to an earlier version. But all games such as yours offer invaluable feedback that we miss during patch development process, and this feedback is used to tweak new features. Speaking of 1.08.09: with extra protection for German AFVs removed and ability to retreat with little losses reduced the numbers show a certain improvement. Because replacements now prioritise fighting elements over support elements, the battles are more bloody, yet units remain a bit stronger. I will now consider improving repair skills of the Soviets for late war phase, that should help with tank losses in late war a bit.
Don't want to butt in here, but I am a new player and was thinking of starting my first full campaign against the AI. Should I hold off until the problems talked about in this thread have been patched? Just that it is such an huge investment of time and I don't want it to be pointless because of some current problem with the current game. I may have misunderstood what you are all talking about, as it is a bit above my pay grade, so may be worried for nothing, but thought I would ask. Hope you all don't mind my asking it on this thread.
Don't want to butt in here, but I am a new player and was thinking of starting my first full campaign against the AI. Should I hold off until the problems talked about in this thread have been patched? Just that it is such an huge investment of time and I don't want it to be pointless because of some current problem with the current game. I may have misunderstood what you are all talking about, as it is a bit above my pay grade, so may be worried for nothing, but thought I would ask. Hope you all don't mind my asking it on this thread.
you should be fine. This change seems to affect 1941 to some extent with much lower German tank losses at that stage. But I don't think that really matters as 1941 is all about movement not combat. I guess it will help the Germans quite a bit towards the end of the summer as they will have an even stronger tank force than usual but I don't think its game breaking.
With the Soviets, up to the end of 1942 you can't really use all the tanks you produce in any case. So this is really only messing up games that have got into mid-43 or later when the Soviets become much more reliant on their armoured formations.
I haven't started any games since finishing up with Dave, so I don't know first hand what's being experienced with the latest patch.
Having said that, in looking at some of Loki's combat results, what I see are cases where high Soviet AFV losses occurred and there wasn't exactly an overwhelming advantage in attacker numbers.
Top 5 battles involving Soviet AFV losses:
location men ratio sov afv losses Birzai 131179 v 37422 3.5 to 1 138 losses Tetlev 52988 v 32711 1.6 to 1 135 losses Uman 65529 v 37746 1.7 to 1 133 losses Zhashkev 47415 v 32191 1.5 to 1 131 losses Uman 39417 v 23496 1.7 to 1 91 losses
The first battle in my mind makes his point, the other 4 not so much IMHO. Tanks, particularly Soviet ones, are a poor substitute for overwhelming numbers, and in only one of these battles was there a manpower advantage of greater than 2:1. There wasn't a massive application of artillery either, so what I see is a lot of German 43 rifle squads that start showing up in Sept 43 are not suppressed running around with panzerfausts.
If you want to reduce your AFV losses, I suggest applying more men and guns to these battles.
Have to agree with Brian as well. I only play soviets vs german AI, no serious vs humans going on, but still with the latest patches, german losses are very low, no matter what I try. Deep into 1942. Playing full blizzard doesn't really make a difference. Winning the battles is not the point nor the problem, but german losses are meager at best and without doing real damage, advancing in the blizzard is just going to ruin the trucks. Doesn't reflect the actual war at all. I know this is a model for a game, and a fairly good model, but this issue could be really improved upon.!)
Have to agree with Brian as well. I only play soviets vs german AI, no serious vs humans going on, but still with the latest patches, german losses are very low, no matter what I try. Deep into 1942. Playing full blizzard doesn't really make a difference. Winning the battles is not the point nor the problem, but german losses are meager at best and without doing real damage, advancing in the blizzard is just going to ruin the trucks. Doesn't reflect the actual war at all. ...
here's an attack from my PBEM vs stef78. So the German unit retreated a total of five hexes, through two zocs. I outnumbered it 10-1. Naturally no tanks were even damaged never mind destroyed.
I think routs are not affected by combat events, but multiple hex retreats might be. The rationale is that with those low stacking limits, based on artificial parameter like counters, not something more realistic like number of men and equipment, such long retreats are unrealistic. There is no effect of ZOC during retreat, if there are friendly units the hex is shielded (ZOC in such case affects only MP cost, but this is not accounted for retreats). I'll look if attrition is properly calculated for every hex of retreat (as it should be) and whether it's possible to disable bonus from fighting withdrawal in case of retreating through ZOC.
edit: by the way, those rules will be disabled for units suffering First Winter and for all units during mud.
One thing to note - you're showing Wiking SS here. The problem with retreat rules (in general, without the effect of combat events) is that they are based on experience. With high experience units (and elite SS motorized units are the best you can get in WitE) the rules produce no retreat losses. For a short while there was odds modifier in losses involved that would have some impact on those SS guys, but I took it out, since it didn't work good for those random combat CVs that from a 2:1 combat could produce 300:1 final odds. This was one of the things that produced higher losses between 1.08.05 and 1.08.07. So retreat rules are back to what they once were, and this means high exp units take no extra losses when retreating.
< Message edited by morvael -- 3/18/2016 12:40:27 PM >
13. Fixed a bug where routing reserve units, units retreating to a hex in enemy ZOC, and units retreating across unfrozen rivers could benefit from fighting withdrawal losses reduction.
I think an alteration was required to fix loss ratio (too much focus on retreat losses previously, with none for the attacker), all it needs is just balancing.
Lets not forget the HORRIBLE past of 2by3 never ending crap patches.
Why were the crap? because they did not address all the exploits Russian and German - Hopefully we don't see same **** with 2.0, but the facts are its the same good old boys club of the past. They asked none of the exploit boys to help test 2.0 - so you can expect the same bullshit exploits 2.0.
Just a guess you know me its not a guess.
Anyways back to 1.0.
Morveal has made game playable 41-45 which 2by3 never did and I am guessing 2.0 is the same
The retreat rules address the combat issues that 2by3 refused to address.
With out question morveal needs to rebalance them.
At least he is on the right track and not being negative like RL.
Same info in same info out.
Here we go again 2.0
No out side the box thinkers = same sht release 1.0 as before.
Hopefully they let morveal fix sht after release and not 3+ yrs after
< Message edited by Pelton -- 3/20/2016 11:26:40 PM >
Just before the German unit retreated I saw approx. 1050 damaged German ground, then after the retreat damaged dropped to around 950 and the destroyed number went up.
I thought retreat would just add to both.
Thus I wonder if the code change for retreat was done correctly and maybe there is bug glitch: such as maybe not adding more casualties but just moving them to destroyed?
< Message edited by BrianG -- 3/21/2016 4:01:44 AM >
This is correct. Elements still ready at the end of combat can remain ready, or become damaged or destroyed. Elements damaged at the end of combat can remain damaged, or become destroyed. It's easier for damaged elements to become destroyed, than for ready elements to become damaged or destroyed. The net result is damaged drops, destroyed grows at the end of combat.
I think an alteration was required to fix loss ratio (too much focus on retreat losses previously, with none for the attacker), all it needs is just balancing.
well its good that the patch is so favourable to Pelton - but its wrecked yet another of my games - this couldn't have happened without 30+cv Pzr divisions ... and they won't have happened if this patch hadn't effectively eliminated German losses:
I just wish the altering of core game systems would stop. I don't care if after 4 iterations its more 'realistic'. As I have made clear before this endless radical patch process, tested by Pelton, has finished my interest in bothering about the WiTE campaign game. I've had to put up the 40 NM, the invincible Luftwaffe and now the invincible Pzr to see 18 months of gameplay down the drain.
Could I carry on? Yes. Can I be bothered. No
This approach to patching a mature game has lost me as an active player.
Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010 From: Bristol, UK Status: offline
OMG! Is that your game vs Viga? The armies in the Northern pocket are in serious trouble. In the South you possibly have an opportunity to destroy his army there.
I agree that this shouldn't be possible in 44. I think Axis mobile divisions should probably have their maximum MPs reduced from 50 in 44/45 to reflect the fuel supply problems they had in the later war period.
to be honest, I give up on WiTE. The patching process is now out of control and I'm not interested in being told that the next patch will bring things back under control. I've been raising this over the last 3-4 patches and it makes no difference.
Its affecting the whole game. Before the recent patches we only ever saw Moscow lost in Pelton's tethered goat AARs. Now its happening in game after game - Stef78 will take it in my other game.
What we need is each patch broken down into three parts:
a) sort out bugs that were affecting the game b) rebalance the changes introduced in the last patch c) special new rules designed to satisfy Pelton - who will have tested them as the Axis player over the opening turns and decided that give him a nice advantage
Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010 From: Bristol, UK Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: loki100 The patching process is now out of control and I'm not interested in being told that the next patch will bring things back under control. I've been raising this over the last 3-4 patches and it makes no difference.
Its affecting the whole game. Before the recent patches we only ever saw Moscow lost in Pelton's tethered goat AARs. Now its happening in game after game - Stef78 will take it in my other game.
The problem is that we are in effect beta testing these patches and this is what beta testing is like. I do think that it should be made clearer that these patches haven't been thoroughly tested and people should beware, especially of game balancing issues.
I agree that the game has swung too far towards the Axis in 1941. I was hoping that this patch would tug it back some but now there's this new problem Frankly if Soviet 1941 national morale is lowered back to 45 in 8.09 I wouldn't touch a Soviet campaign with a 10 foot pole.
< Message edited by timmyab -- 3/21/2016 11:58:54 PM >
Frankly if Soviet 1941 national morale is lowered back to 45 in 8.09 I wouldn't touch a Soviet campaign with a 10 foot pole
But 45 is where it should be. And always should have been.
The Axis have been nerfed and nerfed and nerfed some more since day one. The game is finally heading in the right direction.
A lot of top players departed the scene years ago, disillusioned with the state of the game. That being totally in favor of the Soviets.
What we see now is a correction. Soviets players need to lift themselves up a notch (something Axis players have had to do since forever), rather than rely on a totally biased game handing them win after win.
IMO playing Soviet has never even once been a challenge at all. Maybe now you have to work for it. Bohoo sob sob
Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010 From: Bristol, UK Status: offline
Ah ha! But I play both sides. The Soviet side was way too easy when the game was first published and I consistently said so. Now I say it's swung the other way. I'm only talking about 1941 here, I only know about the later game from what I read in AARs. Try playing just the first half dozen turns or so against a top Axis player and maybe you'll agree with me. This latest patch is better balanced than the last one I think except for this problem with Axis losses.
I know you play both sides. But morale will be right at 45. Retreat losses are being adjusted. I do agree that mild winter is too mild. I have never played with it, and won't be anytime soon unless it's watered down.
But for the first time in 2 years I am actually looking forward to playing again. And I am like you. I play both sides. But only one side has been a challenge the other a cake walk.
Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010 From: Bristol, UK Status: offline
I actually agree that 45 is about the sweet spot for 41/42 NM. At NM 40 the Soviet army basically just routs under serious pressure and at NM 50 it's unbreakable because hardly anything routs. I even prefer the higher industry railing costs of 8.07. I think the problem is more that the Germans are too strong than that the Soviets are too weak. If it was possible I would target German mobility to balance the game. I think pz division CVs may be too strong as well.
Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010 From: Bristol, UK Status: offline
Agree that Soviet C&C is way too good and again I've been vocal about that right from the start and it's never been touched. The first turn surprise rules are the only nod towards it, but Soviet command problems should extend well into 1942. Of course the Germans had their own high command woes as well. You have to end up with a game that is balanced though and that's my main concern. At the end of the day remember the Germans lost for a reason and I would suggest that the logistical nightmare that was Operation Barbarossa was a large part of that.
Posts: 315
Joined: 1/17/2016 From: My Secret Bunker Status: offline
Setting aside which side may or may not be advantaged, I have to agree with Loki that the patching approach is dangerous. I say this as a very senior software professional myself.
Patch releases ought to contain only bug fixes, security upgrades and fixes for the most egregious exploits. There should ideally never be controversy over a patch.
I accepted the principle I saw here that patches ought to be immediately incorporated by both sides in a game based on the above assumption. I think now we are all advised to wait until further play testing is conducted by the community at large.
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: New retraet rules are no treat 
RE: New retraet rules are no treat - 
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