I am currently playing a game as the axis side, using possum's scenario, which I must say in terms of air power is extremely unbalanced, and I basically reached the objectives I had set for 1941 by early October, and so went onto the defensive, just as the rains started, and dug in.
In early November, believe it or not the blizzards came, and stayed, so my opponent, took advantage of this and launched his major attacks against my well dug in (entrenched) axis forces, which were basically at good strength and readiness, with commanders of good ratings leading them, and Lo and Behold a mass extinction of the axis ground forces occurs, with many of them shattering... Ala "Blizzard Bug" syndrome.
I thought this bug had been eradicated.. Is this the case ? or am I the only one experiencing this problem, for some other reason ?
My very understanding, and accommodating opponent, and I, tested this out using turns where special supply was used and not used with much shattering still taking place in both.
The real disappointing part of this, is that I had units on mountain hexes, all with mountain divs only in them, at a reasonable readiness (say 60-70%) and entrenchments of 3-4, and they shattered like eggs.. These units should have been able to withstand heavy attacks for at least a couple of turns..
Can this be put on the bug list to re-visit and fix please..
..Thankyou ..Shane
The blizzard Bug is Still with Us
You do know that Axis units tend to shatter above 50% rediness?
And if you havnt inflicted massive casulties on the soviet forces they will attack a lot more than you want them to do.
And if you havnt inflicted massive casulties on the soviet forces they will attack a lot more than you want them to do.
A great man ones said "Veni Vidi Vici" and "Alea iacta est"
But a lot other said this "Ave Caesar,morituri te salutant"
But a lot other said this "Ave Caesar,morituri te salutant"
I'm his opponent:) His troops might had high readiness, but the first blizzard turn losses were really insane. 11000 german squads were destroyed, and my armies shattered german korpses where they should have been held easily (150 squad against 150 squad attack with 500+ odds at the end). I have to say I have total air supriority, and I did bomb german troops very hard before my strike, but I think it has nothing to do with this. I do think there is an additional penalty on germans on the first 41 blizzard turn, which should be toned down. My attack was a strong one but I excepted 3000 german squads destroyed. But 11.000 is so much I'm not really pleased.
Interesting. Same problem here.
Playing a 3.2 version (non Possum) PBEM and I (the russian) managed to break on the first blizzard turn through a well dug in german defence. Odds that looked like maybe 5-10:1 turned out to be 400:1 or even 1100:1 !!! and yes...the germans shattered like eggs like someone said on this thread.
I guess we have to start all over on 3.1 version again
Magnno
Playing a 3.2 version (non Possum) PBEM and I (the russian) managed to break on the first blizzard turn through a well dug in german defence. Odds that looked like maybe 5-10:1 turned out to be 400:1 or even 1100:1 !!! and yes...the germans shattered like eggs like someone said on this thread.
I guess we have to start all over on 3.1 version again
Magnno
-
Electricity
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 10:17 am
- Location: Michigan
- Contact:
Blizzard and shattering
I had the same problem against human opponent. I had captured Moscow and was at the gates of Leningrad and Stalingrad. Beginning in Dec. all my units were near full strength and had readiness 99%. I was shocked when my entire front just disappeared on the first blizzard turn. You might as well just pull all German divisions back into HQ during blizzards and let the Russians advance unhindered instead of lossing so many men. This was WIR v3.2
-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact:
Originally posted by Chairman
Hmmm has this popped up now or has it done this all time sins 3.2 come? Or does it happen from time to time?
Do any of you have a save game of this? A game starting on the Soviet turn with all German units pumped up and all Soviet attacks already plotted so that all that needs to be done is to run combat? If someone has this send it to me please.
Ranger - I made some tests with V3.101 and the problem seems to be there, too. I don't know about the other versions.
Chairman - I think it has been there all the time. But it does not always become really visible because the AI and some human players rarely get their units' readiness above the critical level during the blizzards.
It also has to be taken into consideration that some shattering is absolutely normal and sometimes it's not easy to say which is a "justified" shatter and which is not.
I don't have the sort of savegame Ed is looking for. Has anyone else? If not and if I can find the time maybe I could create one.
Chairman - I think it has been there all the time. But it does not always become really visible because the AI and some human players rarely get their units' readiness above the critical level during the blizzards.
It also has to be taken into consideration that some shattering is absolutely normal and sometimes it's not easy to say which is a "justified" shatter and which is not.
I don't have the sort of savegame Ed is looking for. Has anyone else? If not and if I can find the time maybe I could create one.
-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact:
Hi Micha,Originally posted by Micha
Ranger - I made some tests with V3.101 and the problem seems to be there, too. I don't know about the other versions.
Chairman - I think it has been there all the time. But it does not always become really visible because the AI and some human players rarely get their units' readiness above the critical level during the blizzards.
It also has to be taken into consideration that some shattering is absolutely normal and sometimes it's not easy to say which is a "justified" shatter and which is not.
I don't have the sort of savegame Ed is looking for. Has anyone else? If not and if I can find the time maybe I could create one.
Yes its always been there, but it only seems to show up when people pump up their corps to a real high readiness.
I've talked with Arnaud about this, but he's never seen it either. He asked for a save game but I don't have one for the right time period and have been a little too busy to make one myself. So, if someone already has one, or someone has the time to play long enough to set one up (or use the editor to create it), I will show it to Arnaud and we'll work on it.
G'Day Ed, I have a save game for this, where I setup my units for defence, including some special supply, executed the combat phase, and then I emailed the zipped files to my opponent, as we always do, and where-upon during his turn the mass extinction of das heer took place.. Will email the zip file to you..
Please let us know what you are able to find out, as basically this game is unplayable during the first blizzard period if you happen to be the axis side.
Why should the axis player be punished for ceasing offensive actions prior to the rain period, and then digging in & gaining good to high entrenchments, improving the readiness of his well intrenched troops, and doing all of this well before the blizzard hits.
The axis player who does this, is not following the actual historical events, in that he/she is not having his forces still attacking and advancing during the blizzard, so should be rewarded for this, and be able to accrue benefits from being in well defended positions, with excellent supply and readiness, ie.. bleed the soviets white, when they attack.
To circumvent this blizzard bug, I have now being forced to withdraw my very well defended and supplied axis units westwards for no other reason than to prevent then from being wiped out, by the totally unacceptable effects of the blizzard bug.
Anyhow enough of my whinging I will send these save files to you..Shane
Please let us know what you are able to find out, as basically this game is unplayable during the first blizzard period if you happen to be the axis side.
Why should the axis player be punished for ceasing offensive actions prior to the rain period, and then digging in & gaining good to high entrenchments, improving the readiness of his well intrenched troops, and doing all of this well before the blizzard hits.
The axis player who does this, is not following the actual historical events, in that he/she is not having his forces still attacking and advancing during the blizzard, so should be rewarded for this, and be able to accrue benefits from being in well defended positions, with excellent supply and readiness, ie.. bleed the soviets white, when they attack.
To circumvent this blizzard bug, I have now being forced to withdraw my very well defended and supplied axis units westwards for no other reason than to prevent then from being wiped out, by the totally unacceptable effects of the blizzard bug.
Anyhow enough of my whinging I will send these save files to you..Shane
I got a save game a couple of days ago on this, and suspect I know what is going on. First the blizzard issue is not a "bug", but a serious design issue, as the game is doing exactly what the design says it should, which is totally screwy in the first place. One possible fix was suggested when this was first identified, but Arnaud instead tweaked the design rather than replacing it, so it is still present as a problem but not, believe it or not, as bad as it was earlier.
I am still digging into the issue, but I believe the reason it is standing out in 3.2 is because of the definite bug where divisions do not lose any readiness in combat, thus making it very easy to end up with high readiness for divisions. To review the "design" in the 1941 blizzards, the game will reduce Axis division readiness (except Finns), to 1/3 of normal as the penalty for blizzard, with a minimum level of 25%. However, losses are based on the full readiness so the common result is for high readiness units to lose essentially all "ready" manpower/equipment from the readiness penalty adjustment and thus shatter as no strength is left. The penalty used to be a reduction to 1/4, so that was the change Arnaud made, and keeping readiness low basically eliminates the problem because of the 25% minimum making it harder to lose most of the strength. Thus, it is the design that is the problem, and it is completely counterintuitive, but Arnaud did not want to change it. By the way, the Soviets undergo the same problem in the early going of the game, where the higher the readiness the more likely a shatter is. I lost Leningrad to a Finn attack once because of this. When Arnaud releases the fix to the division readiness bug, it will help this problem, but it will still be counterintuitive to keep readiness low in blizzards.
Anyway, I will dig further, but I think this is it based on what I have seen in the game I am looking at. We can propose a new design solution to Arnaud again. Since he didn't accept my first suggestion, I guess we need another. Here is my thought -
Rather than reducing the readiness to a third, but capping it at 25% (Arnaud wanted to keep this to give the Soviet attack some chance in the winter, but it should be the low readiness units penalized, not high), I suggest 2 things. First, square the readiness for the Axis, so a readiness of 50% is penalized to 25%, a 90% stays at 81%, and a 25% drops to 6.25%, with no minimum level as there is now. Second, reinstitute the Axis 1941 blizzard readiness penalty that I believe Arnaud removed, at a level of 10%. This way, a unit at 90% would drop to 81%, then be squared to 65% or so, while a unit at 50% would drop to 45%, then squared to 21% or so.
This would result in the high readiness units not shattering, while the medium level ones should still be okay, close to the current effect, with probably a few shatters, and a low readiness will shatter almost for sure. Definitely seems like it would play more realistically. Let us know. Arnaud may still not do it, but the above is fairly simple to do.
I am still digging into the issue, but I believe the reason it is standing out in 3.2 is because of the definite bug where divisions do not lose any readiness in combat, thus making it very easy to end up with high readiness for divisions. To review the "design" in the 1941 blizzards, the game will reduce Axis division readiness (except Finns), to 1/3 of normal as the penalty for blizzard, with a minimum level of 25%. However, losses are based on the full readiness so the common result is for high readiness units to lose essentially all "ready" manpower/equipment from the readiness penalty adjustment and thus shatter as no strength is left. The penalty used to be a reduction to 1/4, so that was the change Arnaud made, and keeping readiness low basically eliminates the problem because of the 25% minimum making it harder to lose most of the strength. Thus, it is the design that is the problem, and it is completely counterintuitive, but Arnaud did not want to change it. By the way, the Soviets undergo the same problem in the early going of the game, where the higher the readiness the more likely a shatter is. I lost Leningrad to a Finn attack once because of this. When Arnaud releases the fix to the division readiness bug, it will help this problem, but it will still be counterintuitive to keep readiness low in blizzards.
Anyway, I will dig further, but I think this is it based on what I have seen in the game I am looking at. We can propose a new design solution to Arnaud again. Since he didn't accept my first suggestion, I guess we need another. Here is my thought -
Rather than reducing the readiness to a third, but capping it at 25% (Arnaud wanted to keep this to give the Soviet attack some chance in the winter, but it should be the low readiness units penalized, not high), I suggest 2 things. First, square the readiness for the Axis, so a readiness of 50% is penalized to 25%, a 90% stays at 81%, and a 25% drops to 6.25%, with no minimum level as there is now. Second, reinstitute the Axis 1941 blizzard readiness penalty that I believe Arnaud removed, at a level of 10%. This way, a unit at 90% would drop to 81%, then be squared to 65% or so, while a unit at 50% would drop to 45%, then squared to 21% or so.
This would result in the high readiness units not shattering, while the medium level ones should still be okay, close to the current effect, with probably a few shatters, and a low readiness will shatter almost for sure. Definitely seems like it would play more realistically. Let us know. Arnaud may still not do it, but the above is fairly simple to do.
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
Thanks RickyB for the detailed reply, I agree in principle with your proposal, but I also believe that the entrenchment value should be included in the equasion some how, as this very important aspect of defence is quite often overlooked..
Axis units that have ceased attacking will start to build up their entrenchment values, and consequently their readiness values, so these units should be rewarded, for being stationary and digging in, in a timely manner, ie.. before the onset of winter, by suffering even less the effects of the blizzard..
A fair assessment of actual events in late 1941, would be that if the axis had moved over to the defence after reducing the vyasma / bryansk pockets, around mid october, and dug in, built up their supplies, winterised themselves and their equipment, the soviets would not have achieved the extensive penetrations of the MLR as they actually did against a tired, under nourished, inadequately equiped, and over exposed army still trying to attack during a blizzard, instead of being in safe, warmer, and protected defences.
The german army would be far better able to withstand the shock of the soviet counter attacks from these defences, than they would be able to, stuck out in the freezing cold. So this option should be available to be modelled, as any axis player choosing to forgo offensive operations, to enable the axis units to dig in (entrench) and build up supplies (readiness) in a timely manner should not be penalised by the blizzard bug readiness write downs.
Different strategies must always be allowed to be taken in this game, otherwise whats the use of trying something different, and playing this game, if no matter what you do (ie.. say gain entrenchments of 6 and readiness of 90), you end up always being fined for being a good wise commander, by the arbitary losses placed on you by the blizzard bug.
Again enough of my whinging ..Thanks Shane
For those interested, I have included the last game turn that started this all of for me..
Axis units that have ceased attacking will start to build up their entrenchment values, and consequently their readiness values, so these units should be rewarded, for being stationary and digging in, in a timely manner, ie.. before the onset of winter, by suffering even less the effects of the blizzard..
A fair assessment of actual events in late 1941, would be that if the axis had moved over to the defence after reducing the vyasma / bryansk pockets, around mid october, and dug in, built up their supplies, winterised themselves and their equipment, the soviets would not have achieved the extensive penetrations of the MLR as they actually did against a tired, under nourished, inadequately equiped, and over exposed army still trying to attack during a blizzard, instead of being in safe, warmer, and protected defences.
The german army would be far better able to withstand the shock of the soviet counter attacks from these defences, than they would be able to, stuck out in the freezing cold. So this option should be available to be modelled, as any axis player choosing to forgo offensive operations, to enable the axis units to dig in (entrench) and build up supplies (readiness) in a timely manner should not be penalised by the blizzard bug readiness write downs.
Different strategies must always be allowed to be taken in this game, otherwise whats the use of trying something different, and playing this game, if no matter what you do (ie.. say gain entrenchments of 6 and readiness of 90), you end up always being fined for being a good wise commander, by the arbitary losses placed on you by the blizzard bug.
Again enough of my whinging ..Thanks Shane
For those interested, I have included the last game turn that started this all of for me..
- Attachments
-
- turn22.zip
- (33.63 KiB) Downloaded 19 times
Hi,
I was the one sending the file to Rick Bancroft and now I start to get the grip how the game is built up. I agree with Shane056 above that entrenchment should have a role in this massive shattering effect.
One thing I still don't understand though is the odds calculation. A battle on the first blizzard turn that should turn out to be, for example 5:1 or 10:1 (looking strictly at the forces that contribute to the battle) turns out (displays in the lower left corner of the screen) odds like 400:1 or even 1100:1. I don't understand how this can happen. Anyone knows why?
Magnus
I was the one sending the file to Rick Bancroft and now I start to get the grip how the game is built up. I agree with Shane056 above that entrenchment should have a role in this massive shattering effect.
One thing I still don't understand though is the odds calculation. A battle on the first blizzard turn that should turn out to be, for example 5:1 or 10:1 (looking strictly at the forces that contribute to the battle) turns out (displays in the lower left corner of the screen) odds like 400:1 or even 1100:1. I don't understand how this can happen. Anyone knows why?
Magnus
Shane and Magnus,
I agree about the entrenchment, which was a large part of my initial proposal to Arnaud. I don't remember the details anymore (one of those aging issues, for any of you that come close to my age
), but it would have had only a small effect on entrenchments at 3 or 4 and higher, and in cities (where you are as vulnerable as in the open, no matter what the rules state). Anyway, if we can get some more feedback, the issue will be raised with Arnaud again to take another look at. I agree we should add in entrenchment to the equation also, so that will be done in some way if Arnaud agrees this time.
Magnus, regarding the odds. The fire phases take place BEFORE the odds are calculated, so losses to fire are applied. That is what causes the problem, because the Axis units are losing to fire like they are at full readiness, but the losses are taken fromt he reduced readiness due to blizzard and nothing is left for the odds calculation. Thus, a strong looking force only fights with one third of its force, loses it all, and thus shows up with 1 squad or something. Arnaud gives us a way of tracing this calculation which is how we found it in the first place.
I agree about the entrenchment, which was a large part of my initial proposal to Arnaud. I don't remember the details anymore (one of those aging issues, for any of you that come close to my age
), but it would have had only a small effect on entrenchments at 3 or 4 and higher, and in cities (where you are as vulnerable as in the open, no matter what the rules state). Anyway, if we can get some more feedback, the issue will be raised with Arnaud again to take another look at. I agree we should add in entrenchment to the equation also, so that will be done in some way if Arnaud agrees this time.Magnus, regarding the odds. The fire phases take place BEFORE the odds are calculated, so losses to fire are applied. That is what causes the problem, because the Axis units are losing to fire like they are at full readiness, but the losses are taken fromt he reduced readiness due to blizzard and nothing is left for the odds calculation. Thus, a strong looking force only fights with one third of its force, loses it all, and thus shows up with 1 squad or something. Arnaud gives us a way of tracing this calculation which is how we found it in the first place.
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
-
Supervisor
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:00 am
This email is more for benefit of Ed Cogburn or other programmers who can review the attached game file.
Germans captured Leningrad, Orel and Dnepropski. Russians still hold Poltava. Dnepropski is expected to fall to Russians by January 42. The German airforce(fighters) have been destroying most Russian air attacks before being part of the land combat to date.
The 2nd blizzard turn of the game has arrived. My opponent of NewZealand gratefully agreed NOT to do attacks on the blizzard turn of November.
Our house rule was that the Russians had double saves from Aug 10, 41 through Oct 30, 41. This increased their "operation points", likely production and entrenchment as well.
German units are entrenched between level 4 - 6 in most cases. Readiness has been reduced to 63-70% in most cases.
I await the Russian return to discover the impact upon German troops due to Blizzard and russian aggression.
Germans captured Leningrad, Orel and Dnepropski. Russians still hold Poltava. Dnepropski is expected to fall to Russians by January 42. The German airforce(fighters) have been destroying most Russian air attacks before being part of the land combat to date.
The 2nd blizzard turn of the game has arrived. My opponent of NewZealand gratefully agreed NOT to do attacks on the blizzard turn of November.
Our house rule was that the Russians had double saves from Aug 10, 41 through Oct 30, 41. This increased their "operation points", likely production and entrenchment as well.
German units are entrenched between level 4 - 6 in most cases. Readiness has been reduced to 63-70% in most cases.
I await the Russian return to discover the impact upon German troops due to Blizzard and russian aggression.
-
Supervisor
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:00 am
Shatter in Blizzard
According to Rick? above, the Russians also suffer from this calculation in early 41.
Would it not be simpler
to eliminate this calculation. Inserting a limitation of say 75% for readiness, the readiness MAX can be adjusted...would leave the combat calculation as normal. Retreats and Shatters would follow normal combat rules(such as they remain hidden[groan]). The extra code space could be used to improve combat summarization reports(good vs poor command, ID of attacking/defending Korps), a summary report such as "alt x" for PBEM.
Would it not be simpler
to eliminate this calculation. Inserting a limitation of say 75% for readiness, the readiness MAX can be adjusted...would leave the combat calculation as normal. Retreats and Shatters would follow normal combat rules(such as they remain hidden[groan]). The extra code space could be used to improve combat summarization reports(good vs poor command, ID of attacking/defending Korps), a summary report such as "alt x" for PBEM.-
Supervisor
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:00 am
Shatter in Blizzard
According to Rick B above, the Russians also suffer from this calculation in early 41. My first game saw Kiev shatter with high quality units on turn 4 (or was it 8)i believe. I never did recover. I conceded the game on about turn 16.
Would it not be simpler to eliminate this calculation. Inserting a limitation of say 75% for readiness, the readiness MAX can be adjusted...would leave the combat calculation as normal. Retreats and Shatters would follow normal combat rules(such as they remain hidden[groan]). The extra code space could be used to improve combat summarization reports(good vs poor command, ID of attacking/defending Korps, instead of pictures of tanks in combat, name ID could be shown), a summary report such as "alt x" for PBEM.
I find that many of my sub units - artillery, flak, anti-tank etc have readiness of 15-35% while my infantry and tanks are at 70%. Keeping the sub units around seems logically dangerous as it somehow reduces the average readiness. If not on a railroad, i cannot move them out of the korps. On other hand, if i special supply them...then the inf and tank divisions readiness becomes more than 70% . The german cannot get it right...if you have a separate subsidiary combat calculation for shattering in blizzard 41.
I note that the attacker at medium detail knows the air losses of death vs damaged via individual reported air combats...but the summary report poorly reflects this detail. Hence, the defender only sees the summary[again GROAN].
Would it not be simpler
to eliminate this calculation. Inserting a limitation of say 75% for readiness, the readiness MAX can be adjusted...would leave the combat calculation as normal. Retreats and Shatters would follow normal combat rules(such as they remain hidden[groan]). The extra code space could be used to improve combat summarization reports(good vs poor command, ID of attacking/defending Korps, instead of pictures of tanks in combat, name ID could be shown), a summary report such as "alt x" for PBEM.I find that many of my sub units - artillery, flak, anti-tank etc have readiness of 15-35% while my infantry and tanks are at 70%. Keeping the sub units around seems logically dangerous as it somehow reduces the average readiness. If not on a railroad, i cannot move them out of the korps. On other hand, if i special supply them...then the inf and tank divisions readiness becomes more than 70% . The german cannot get it right...if you have a separate subsidiary combat calculation for shattering in blizzard 41.
I note that the attacker at medium detail knows the air losses of death vs damaged via individual reported air combats...but the summary report poorly reflects this detail. Hence, the defender only sees the summary[again GROAN].