Updated - Master List of Issues

[Redmarkus5]

I don't particularly want to micro-manage the partisans, I just want to be able to turn them on/off at a macro level.

I am not convinced that the AI conducts anti-partisan operations effectively and this might be making things easier for the human player.

Let me know how you see this when you reach summer '42 - I'm interested in other players' experiences.

[randallw]

There is an 11th rifle brigade that arrives for the Sovs in late 1941; there is a typo in the name, so it is labeled as the 11*th rifle brigade.

[Helpless]

Need to check, but some historically duplicated units may come with * in the name, ex. 160*th Rifle division.

[randallw]

LOL, oh yes, the Soviet problem of keeping track of their numbers. [:D]

[Joel Billings]

Gary's response to the Chernigov and Cherkassy saves was that the AI was trying to draw you into a trap. Once you advance across the river it would launch a vicious counter-attack. [:)]

Seriously he said that during the spring of 1942 the AI is not in a mode where it is trying to guard the entire front line. This is especially true during mud. His experience is that in the past when he tried to have the AI focus on maintaining lines it didn't do what it needed to do when on the offensive or getting ready for the offensive. He felt living with gaps was better than the offsetting loss in offensive capability. Cities are really not a big deal in the game since the manpower is likely damage and little would be gained by taking it back since you'd only lose it again quickly.

On the other hand, reports of ports being bypassed worries us a lot. If you have saves where Odessa, Riga, or other ports are being left in the rear as the front line marches on please send them to 2by3@2by3games.com (in the case of Riga give the infantry a chance to catch up before calling it a problem). We would like to make sure these ports are not left in the rear.

On a related note, Gary found the smoking gun on why the units had warped out of the almost close pocket. The routine that forces units to use MPs when in certain situations was incorrectly using a routine that doesn't charge MPs while moving down a rail. Since there was a rail in the pocket, a lot of the movement was for free. With the fix, Gary got the results that he and we would all expect (a pile of units jamming up at the exit point and short of it trying to get out of the pocket). This fix should stop some of the warping that has been seen. We still don't have a save with an isolated unit warping. I suggest everyone always use autosave, and if you ever see this, please back up and check for sure that the unit warped out and send us the save. Thanks.

[randallw]

Oooh, clever AI. [:)]

[Redmarkus5]

Brilliant Joel - many thanks.

Good to know that the warping issue is being fixed.

I will send you Axis turn 50 with Odessa still not taken. By turn 55 it had fallen.

On the matter of the AI not defending non-port cities, this is a constant problem and I am not convinced that it's purely linked to the AI needing troops elsewhere for an offensive. I am surprised to hear that "Cities are really not a big deal in the game" given the following observations:

1. Page 296 of the Manual indicates that VPs are awarded on the basis of 5 points for each Heavy Urban hex and 3 points for each Light Urban. Surely this point alone should force the AI to defend them?

2. City hexes have the highest defence modifier of any hexes in the game (+6 for light and +8 for heavy urban). They should therefore be the main points for establishing resistance, ESPECIALLY when there are insufficient troops to create a solid defence line - that's the worst possible time to leave the city hexes empty.

3. In my game, the AI is not attacking in 1942 - it is on the strategic defensive having lost 2.6m men by August '42, but it still ignores many city hexes and often defends right next to them, leaving the city hexes open. Please see my AAR (tm.asp?m=2656364&mpage=3&key=) for details of multiple instances of this in the more recent posts.

All the best,

Mark

[Redmarkus5]

When I disband units the confirmation dialogue does not indicate the AP needed for the action.

[roflbinflood]

In my 1.02 beta 1 game, none of my air units recover fatigue while being in reserve.

[Shupov]

I am playing Typhoon for the first time as the Axis, with Soviets computer controlled. At start of the scenario all the Axis movement factors above the Axis Ally Line are zero. I have to end the turn and let the Soviets play first, but most of the Soviet movement factors are zero as well. In turn two, the movement factors are OK. Is this the correct behavior?

[Klydon]

My guess would be this is intended as Guderian launched his offensive first before the other units during Typhoon. The rest of the army jumped off a couple days later.

[Redmarkus5]

12. When random weather is switched on the summer rains result in mud that extends across the whole of the front. The game needs more granularity in the way weather zones are modelled, possibly with a matrix of zones similar to that used in WiTP.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

12. When random weather is switched on the summer rains result in mud that extends across the whole of the front. The game needs more granularity in the way weather zones are modelled, possibly with a matrix of zones similar to that used in WiTP.

There are 4 different weather zones. Are you looking for more that that?

[Flaviusx]

Shupov, most of the forces in the Typhoon scenario start off frozen, excepting 2. Panzer Army and (most of) Bryansk Front. On turn 2 the rest of AGC activates, and so do the other Soviet Fronts.

The Soviet Reserve armies in the rear activate later on in the scenario.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

12. When random weather is switched on the summer rains result in mud that extends across the whole of the front. The game needs more granularity in the way weather zones are modelled, possibly with a matrix of zones similar to that used in WiTP.

There are 4 different weather zones. Are you looking for more that that?

That would be nice.

When it rains heavy in Santa Rosa, we get some down here in Santa Clara. On the same day in Santa Monica, it could be sunny and warm, yet snowing in the Sierras . California is rather small compared to any of the four zones in the game, and we have much more variety in our weather. The current weather model in the game, where *every* hex within a zone experiences the *exact* same effect is needlessly coarse, and a rather embarassing blemish for a game that gets so many other things right. It really should get more love...[;)]

[Joel Billings]

Well, don't expect a more complex weather zone system. Maybe in a WitE 2.0, but not in this one. [:)]

[usecase]

One point on the terrain value of cities, one of the problems in terms of AI programming is that, unlike Hitler, I'm never going to directly attack an urban hex. I'll just pocket it, wait a turn or two, and then shovel up the remains.

With the possible exception on Leningrad, this is true for all the major cities. Therefore, there seems to be little point in defending the city. This is fine, except it doesn't gibe with the reality of Eastern front operations. I'm not sure I have a solution - the AI is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't.

With respect to VPs, these are only really important when the decisive victory threshold is passed; I'm not sure the AI will be able to make the kind of nuanced judgements needed to be sensible about this - that's as the Soviets. As the Axis, well, once the initiative has passed to the Soviets, it doesn't much matter what calculations the AI does; it's toast.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

12. When random weather is switched on the summer rains result in mud that extends across the whole of the front. The game needs more granularity in the way weather zones are modelled, possibly with a matrix of zones similar to that used in WiTP.

There are 4 different weather zones. Are you looking for more that that?

The 4 zones as laid out look ok I think. One thing I would like to see is when playing with "historical weather" is that instead of having the zones all be the same that there should be some variation between zones based on historical weather.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Well, don't expect a more complex weather zone system. Maybe in a WitE 2.0, but not in this one. [:)]

It's good for WiTE 2.0 IMO. We are just logging it as a change we'd like you to think about. I will now be buying WiTE 2.0 solely to see that change [:D]

Personally, I prefer to PBEM with historical weather and let my opponent find other ways to change history

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: usecase

One point on the terrain value of cities, one of the problems in terms of AI programming is that, unlike Hitler, I'm never going to directly attack an urban hex. I'll just pocket it, wait a turn or two, and then shovel up the remains.

With the possible exception on Leningrad, this is true for all the major cities. Therefore, there seems to be little point in defending the city. This is fine, except it doesn't gibe with the reality of Eastern front operations. I'm not sure I have a solution - the AI is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't.

With respect to VPs, these are only really important when the decisive victory threshold is passed; I'm not sure the AI will be able to make the kind of nuanced judgements needed to be sensible about this - that's as the Soviets. As the Axis, well, once the initiative has passed to the Soviets, it doesn't much matter what calculations the AI does; it's toast.

That's a good point. However, I posted somewhere else that the speed with which units lose CV when trapped in a city hex is too short. I think that a unit should be able to draw basic supplies from a city for at least 2-3 weeks, not to mention its own supply dumps etc.

So, pocketed in rural areas - CV drop is immediate (as in 'next turn'). Pocketed in light urban, CV drop starts on turn 2. Pocketed in heavy urban, CV drop starts on turn 3...?