Latest on the 1.04 in test now

[Troy6677]

Hi Joel:

Thanks for this great game.  I have been playing as the Axis vs the AI on normal and I am currently on turn 45 and starting my version of Case Blue for the summer of 42 campaign.  Playing on v1.03 overall the game has played great.  The AI has been a challenge.  A 40 year war gaming Grognard this game was my dream back playing the old Avalon Hill board games.  As it is right now it is a super star of operational warfare on the Eastern Front.  Thanks for your efforts (Gary and the whole team too!) and continuing improvements to a game I will be playing for a long time to come.

Mark

[color]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

..........

As for your specific questions, the frostbite percentage didn’t make sense anymore (if it ever did) given that we increased the percent disabled for damaged troops returning to the pool. While we brought this number down, we found that the number of disabled was still very large, and we think this is because of the terrible supply situation the Germans are usually in during the blizzard. We looked at our supply modifier during blizzard and thought it was too harsh, so we adjusted this. We needed to increase the percent of damaged troops returning to the pool that are disabled given the casualty out of action time I talked about above. We also created the concept of a “transit pool” to deal with manpower that recovers fairly quickly but still needs a some time off to account for the time the individual is away from the front. Given all the changes, we also took the time to better rationalize the attrition split between killed and disabled men.

..........

Thanks for the detailed & interesting insight into your reasoning.
As with all your games, this goes to show the amount of thought that goes into WITE.

[Q-Ball]

Joel, thanks for your long explaination! That is great!

For games that might switch from 1.03 to 1.04....clearly the changes will alter the play balance during the Blizzard in favor of the Germans.

On Balance, how do you think 1.03 tilts vs. 1.04 in the 1941 Summer Campaign?

If we upgrade right before winter, is this favoring the Germans too much, or is it about even?

[Commanderski]

Thanks for the detailed explanation and all the hard work you guys are putting into this!

You're support is really outstanding and greatly appreciated by us.

[karonagames]

For games that might switch from 1.03 to 1.04....clearly the changes will alter the play balance during the Blizzard in favor of the Germans.

On Balance, how do you think 1.03 tilts vs. 1.04 in the 1941 Summer Campaign?

If we upgrade right before winter, is this favoring the Germans too much, or is it about even?

I don't think we can give an honest answer, until more testing takes place - Speedy and Jamiam's game got borked by a bug, and the AI tests only show so much.

The breadth and depth of changes are such that I can't look at my spreadsheets and say "changing x and y means the average front line will change by z hexes".

The big change that I can't calculate the direct impact of is the reduction in supply reduction, and how this will feed through to attrition and entrenchment.

Overall, both sides should get to T25 weaker than heretofore, and the attrition "spike" on the Germans should be smoothed out.

Also the swings and roundabouts on entrenchments being linked to supply will need a heck of a lot of testing. My gut is telling me that they don't make a "dig in in September" strategy any more viable than it is now.

There is nothing in the changes that directly reduces the attacking capacity of the sovs during the blizzard, apart from the extra attrition, and the armaments points bottleneck introduced in 1.03, so the Germans still need to weaken and disrupt the Sovs as much as under V1.03.

[Q-Ball]

Thanks for the reply Bob, I am just getting to winter in my AAR, and we need to decide whether to re-do once 1.04 comes out, or just stick to your House Rule suggestion. Either way, I don't think either one of us wants to re-start, so I want to do whatever is fair to both sides. We need an outside opinion on what's "Fair".

At this point I think the Summer Campaign result was "Neutral", so getting to 1942 in "Neutral" shape for both sides should be possible

Your House Rule will help in that I won't get kicked around quite as much, but it doesn't do anything for Winter attrition. I don't want to get to 1942 so weak in Infantry that we're screwed for 1942; I don't think either of us want that.

[karonagames]

I don't want to get to 1942 so weak in Infantry that we're screwed for 1942; I don't think either of us want that.

I haven't looked at how the new armaments points numbers change things - in the AI tests, the infantry numbers are recovering OK - the AI leaves everything on 100% and doesn't micromanage TOE%s.

[karonagames]

We need an outside opinion on what's "Fair".

Personally, I would carry on with 1.03 with the house rules, but with some flexibility - if the Sovs can "only" make 20-30 attacks with 4 fronts, I would give them a bit more flexibility - remember, less than 45 retreats per turn and the Axis are "winning" the blizzard; 60+ and they will be crucified.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

We need an outside opinion on what's "Fair".

Personally, I would carry on with 1.03 with the house rules, but with some flexibility - if the Sovs can "only" make 20-30 attacks with 4 fronts, I would give them a bit more flexibility - remember, less than 45 retreats per turn and the Axis are "winning" the blizzard; 60+ and they will be crucified.

Even if you're giving up ground? Because you have the option of limiting attacks by running. Or at least pulling back a hex or two.

[karonagames]

I never tested a "retreat first strategy" I always went through the blizzard on the basis of making the Sovs fight for every hex, and retreating only to avoid being cut off.

[Manstein63]

Joel in a future patch what would be the chances that there would be a button or some other mechanism that would alow the german & russian player  to get into the aircraft reserve directly & without  having to go to an airfield & then clicking on assigning aircraft to get there.
Manstein63

[lazydawg]

ORIGINAL: Manstein63

Joel in a future patch what would be the chances that there would be a button or some other mechanism that would alow the german & russian player  to get into the aircraft reserve directly & without  having to go to an airfield & then clicking on assigning aircraft to get there.
Manstein63

You can get a list of reserve aircraft groups via the Commanders Report.

[Aditia]

OK, so I am very new to the game (Panzer Campaign veteran), only bought it a few days ago, and was browsing on the forums to learn the game other than playing some turns myself (PBEM play is what I want to do).

Now, after reading almost every post in this thread, I was thinking the following:

It seems as tho the main issue in the game in the current official version (1.03), is that opening play on both sides too greatly influences the further course of the the entire campaign, and worse; has players resort to very gamey, micro managing, play instead of focusing on making strategic decisions on where to advance, where to defend, how much ground to give, etc. etc. Whereas I am sure the developers want to provide their costumers with a game that demands and rewards strategic decision making and tactical play.

Now, I cannot say anything about the changes that are being tested for 1.04, I want to make a different kind of suggestion:

- How about modifying the mechanics that influence the soviet side depending on how well the germans are doing, during the first phase of the war, as to simulate the depth of the sense of panic/crisis in the Soviet political and military high command? At least reducing the ability of the Soviets to crush the Axis in the beginning of 1942 if the Axis achieves weak results in 1941 (and perhaps increasing the ability of the Soviets to hold the line if the Axis player achieves spectacular results)

To explain; in general, the course that any military conflict takes has an effect on the mindset of the people in charge politically and militarily. Historically, the sense of crisis in Stalin's mind during the second half of 1941 was so great, that he seriously considered surrender to Nazi Germany (Anthony Beevor; Stalingrad) and made him, quite uncharacteristically be more trusting towards the advise that his top soldiers and administrators gave him. Basically, military disaster usually has the effect of forcing leadership to rethink its ways, increases the urgency to correct inherent faults, results in the swift replacement of commanders, etc. etc. Vice versa, military succes usually enforces a belief in the correctness of oneself, hubris, the lack of urgency to asess the shape and effectiveness of the armed forces, etc. etc.

In my opinion, WITE is suited to simulate this in one and maybe two ways:

- firstly through the system of administration points. I'd like to suggest a system wherein the the magnitude of the sense of crisis within the Soviet command structure is simulated by the succes of the German advance in 1941 by decreasing the Soviet AP allowance if the Axis advance in 1941 is weaker than normal. This would simulate a less effective Soviet political response to the events of 1941 due to Stalin not recognizing the extent of changes needed to shape the Red Army into an effective fighting force.
- secondly through delaying the introduction of new/more effecient weapons and command structures to simulate the same thing.

Both effects can be based on losses suffered, losses inflicted and the ownership of victory hexes.

These suggestions would hopefully result in a reduction of the Soviets' ability to mount a decisive offensive in the first months of 1942, altho perhaps the changes that you are testing for 1.04 already fix that issue.

In the mean time I am looking forward to learn the game better and getting some PBEM games in

Cheers,

Adi

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL:  Aditia

OK, so I am very new to the game (Panzer Campaign veteran), only bought it a few days ago, and was browsing on the forums to learn the game other than playing some turns myself (PBEM play is what I want to do).

Welcome!

ORIGINAL:  Aditia

It seems as tho the main issue in the game in the current official version (1.03), is that opening play on both sides too greatly influences the further course of the the entire campaign, and worse; has players resort to very gamey, micro managing, play instead of focusing on making strategic decisions on where to advance, where to defend, how much ground to give, etc. etc. Whereas I am sure the developers want to provide their costumers with a game that demands and rewards strategic decision making and tactical play.

Have to disagree here. No question the Russian position is generally more forgiving of mistakes, especially in the south. The Germans have to come up with an overall objective for 1941, figure out how to do it and then stick with the overall plan. Most of the time, this involves trying to capture Leningrad because it frees the Finns up to help with the first winter and releases a significant number of German troops for other assignments. There is absolutely no question the Axis need a good opening. It must be well thought out and executed. Failure to do so leaves too many Russians dug in and the Axis not far enough along progress wise from a geographic stand point of view. This is also why there has been a lot of time spent working on Axis openings (see the war room for general help and Axis openings in particular. Cookie Monster is also working a wiki page as well). If these things are not making strategic decisions as far as what to defend and where to attack, I am not sure what is.

It could be that you are refering to the need for both sides to fix command and control issues from the start in terms of command structure in their respective armies. This does take extra "work" but especially in the case of the Russians, it is realistic as the entire Russian command structure underwent a reorganization very early in the war (disbanding of corps HQ) and also trying to balance the command structure to deal with a full mobilization and trying to deal with all the reenforcements that the Russians get is a balancing act a Russian player gets to deal with in 1941 and the ones that are good at feeding in just enough troops here and there and knowing when to send what where will do better than Russian players that have no plan. Weeding out crappy Russian leaders (if they don't get killed first) is something the Russians had to do historically and one which the Russian player gets to decide who is going where for command.

The Axis also has some command issues that most players like to fix (infantry units in panzer corps as an example) and will also face some reorganization of their support units to fit into their overall invasion plan. (sending extra engineers to 18th army for the assault on Leningrad would be an example). The Germans also have some commanders that are not exactly that hot and have several excellent commanders waiting in the wings to bring in.

I can't speak for everyone, but likely what a lot of players see as issues with 1.03 are to do with the winter and the almost universal butt kicking the Axis takes during the 1941 blizzard. If you look at 1.04, there are a lot of things to address this with some being very obvious and others not so obvious.

As far as some of your points and ideas, it is worthy of discussion. One of the reasons that v Manstein was able to launch the back hand blow as because Hitler was still in shock over Stalingrad and was not on his usual bender about holding every single piece of ground and so v Manstein had more leeway in setting things up. (Not to mention v Manstein kept reminding Hitler that army group A was in danger of being lost unless he was given a free hand). An example with Stalin was Zhukov was able to convince him to wait on the second Stalingrad offensive against the Italians due to the bad decisions in widening the winter offensive in 1941/42.

[cookie monster]

bump.

guys were wondering about 1.04's ETA

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

bump.

guys were wondering about 1.04's ETA

Aw, you just got me and 5 other guys reading this hoping there was something new [:(]

[cookie monster]

There is something new...

my post.[:D]

Gotcha!!!

Seriously though it's better casual forum members post in this thread rather than create others discussing ''So when's the patch due''

[kirkgregerson]

ORIGINAL: Aditia

OK, so I am very new to the game (Panzer Campaign veteran), only bought it a few days ago, and was browsing on the forums to learn the game other than playing some turns myself (PBEM play is what I want to do).

Now, after reading almost every post in this thread, I was thinking the following:

It seems as tho the main issue in the game in the current official version (1.03), is that opening play on both sides too greatly influences the further course of the the entire campaign, and worse; has players resort to very gamey, micro managing, play instead of focusing on making strategic decisions on where to advance, where to defend, how much ground to give, etc. etc. Whereas I am sure the developers want to provide their costumers with a game that demands and rewards strategic decision making and tactical play.

Now, I cannot say anything about the changes that are being tested for 1.04, I want to make a different kind of suggestion:

- How about modifying the mechanics that influence the soviet side depending on how well the germans are doing, during the first phase of the war, as to simulate the depth of the sense of panic/crisis in the Soviet political and military high command? At least reducing the ability of the Soviets to crush the Axis in the beginning of 1942 if the Axis achieves weak results in 1941 (and perhaps increasing the ability of the Soviets to hold the line if the Axis player achieves spectacular results)

To explain; in general, the course that any military conflict takes has an effect on the mindset of the people in charge politically and militarily. Historically, the sense of crisis in Stalin's mind during the second half of 1941 was so great, that he seriously considered surrender to Nazi Germany (Anthony Beevor; Stalingrad) and made him, quite uncharacteristically be more trusting towards the advise that his top soldiers and administrators gave him. Basically, military disaster usually has the effect of forcing leadership to rethink its ways, increases the urgency to correct inherent faults, results in the swift replacement of commanders, etc. etc. Vice versa, military succes usually enforces a belief in the correctness of oneself, hubris, the lack of urgency to asess the shape and effectiveness of the armed forces, etc. etc.

In my opinion, WITE is suited to simulate this in one and maybe two ways:

- firstly through the system of administration points. I'd like to suggest a system wherein the the magnitude of the sense of crisis within the Soviet command structure is simulated by the succes of the German advance in 1941 by decreasing the Soviet AP allowance if the Axis advance in 1941 is weaker than normal. This would simulate a less effective Soviet political response to the events of 1941 due to Stalin not recognizing the extent of changes needed to shape the Red Army into an effective fighting force.
- secondly through delaying the introduction of new/more effecient weapons and command structures to simulate the same thing.

Both effects can be based on losses suffered, losses inflicted and the ownership of victory hexes.

These suggestions would hopefully result in a reduction of the Soviets' ability to mount a decisive offensive in the first months of 1942, altho perhaps the changes that you are testing for 1.04 already fix that issue.

In the mean time I am looking forward to learn the game better and getting some PBEM games in

Cheers,

Adi

I like the idea of the campaign game being more flexible for both sides depending on how the war goes. For one I believe that had Moscow not been so threaten and the Soviets doing fairly well along the fronts there's a chance the Siberian transfers don't occur or maybe not in such depth. It would not be easy to code and even harder to test/balance, but if this game flexibility were to ever be added and tested it would make this game truly a pioneer in the realm of war games.

I go back to an idea that I think abulbulian had about adding some variant cards that could be purchased by APs.
Thus, these variant cards are added to a players hand based on how the war is going for them. Axis player is struggling in the south in 41-42, maybe a card to purchase(APs) another Rom or Hun army is made available. The Soviets find Moscow in real danger of being lost in 41 (based on near cities take or some formula on axis CV strength near city), then a AP card for additional Siberian troops becomes available. I personally think it's a great idea and could add so much variation to each and every game!

[Lrfss]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

ORIGINAL: Aditia

OK, so I am very new to the game (Panzer Campaign veteran), only bought it a few days ago, and was browsing on the forums to learn the game other than playing some turns myself (PBEM play is what I want to do).

Now, after reading almost every post in this thread, I was thinking the following:

It seems as tho the main issue in the game in the current official version (1.03), is that opening play on both sides too greatly influences the further course of the the entire campaign, and worse; has players resort to very gamey, micro managing, play instead of focusing on making strategic decisions on where to advance, where to defend, how much ground to give, etc. etc. Whereas I am sure the developers want to provide their costumers with a game that demands and rewards strategic decision making and tactical play.

Now, I cannot say anything about the changes that are being tested for 1.04, I want to make a different kind of suggestion:

- How about modifying the mechanics that influence the soviet side depending on how well the germans are doing, during the first phase of the war, as to simulate the depth of the sense of panic/crisis in the Soviet political and military high command? At least reducing the ability of the Soviets to crush the Axis in the beginning of 1942 if the Axis achieves weak results in 1941 (and perhaps increasing the ability of the Soviets to hold the line if the Axis player achieves spectacular results)

To explain; in general, the course that any military conflict takes has an effect on the mindset of the people in charge politically and militarily. Historically, the sense of crisis in Stalin's mind during the second half of 1941 was so great, that he seriously considered surrender to Nazi Germany (Anthony Beevor; Stalingrad) and made him, quite uncharacteristically be more trusting towards the advise that his top soldiers and administrators gave him. Basically, military disaster usually has the effect of forcing leadership to rethink its ways, increases the urgency to correct inherent faults, results in the swift replacement of commanders, etc. etc. Vice versa, military succes usually enforces a belief in the correctness of oneself, hubris, the lack of urgency to asess the shape and effectiveness of the armed forces, etc. etc.

In my opinion, WITE is suited to simulate this in one and maybe two ways:

- firstly through the system of administration points. I'd like to suggest a system wherein the the magnitude of the sense of crisis within the Soviet command structure is simulated by the succes of the German advance in 1941 by decreasing the Soviet AP allowance if the Axis advance in 1941 is weaker than normal. This would simulate a less effective Soviet political response to the events of 1941 due to Stalin not recognizing the extent of changes needed to shape the Red Army into an effective fighting force.
- secondly through delaying the introduction of new/more effecient weapons and command structures to simulate the same thing.

Both effects can be based on losses suffered, losses inflicted and the ownership of victory hexes.

These suggestions would hopefully result in a reduction of the Soviets' ability to mount a decisive offensive in the first months of 1942, altho perhaps the changes that you are testing for 1.04 already fix that issue.

In the mean time I am looking forward to learn the game better and getting some PBEM games in

Cheers,

Adi

I like the idea of the campaign game being more flexible for both sides depending on how the war goes. For one I believe that had Moscow not been so threaten and the Soviets doing fairly well along the fronts there's a chance the Siberian transfers don't occur or maybe not in such depth. It would not be easy to code and even harder to test/balance, but if this game flexibility were to ever be added and tested it would make this game truly a pioneer in the realm of war games.

I go back to an idea that I think abulbulian had about adding some variant cards that could be purchased by APs.
Thus, these variant cards are added to a players hand based on how the war is going for them. Axis player is struggling in the south in 41-42, maybe a card to purchase(APs) another Rom or Hun army is made available. The Soviets find Moscow in real danger of being lost in 41 (based on near cities take or some formula on axis CV strength near city), then a AP card for additional Siberian troops becomes available. I personally think it's a great idea and could add so much variation to each and every game!

+ 2, like what both of these guys say...

[karonagames]

Joel is busy with translation stuff atm, but Andy is close to turn 25, in his schizophrenic hot seat game, and this should gives us some good 1.04 blizzard data - he is good at defending and attacking in the Blizzard.

There is another test PBEM game which I think is at about turn 8, that has raised a couple of other issues that are being looked at.

Can't really give an indication on when Joel will want to go public, but he should have plenty of data to look at when he gets back to WITE.