EF loses seem way too inflated

[KenchiSulla]

Hmmm, first thing to do:

Chill out

Then, could you post a screenshot of the EF box as it is and was before if you have(deployed troops, HQs etc). You are only showing very high losses...
It is possible that you have encountered a bug that inflates the losses for the German player somehow.

If that is the case 2by3 will fix it... No reason to cry to murder and throw your game in the bin.. That's something my 3 year old would do...

Cannonfodder

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Hmmm, first thing to do:

Chill out

Then, could you post a screenshot of the EF box as it is and was before if you have(deployed troops, HQs etc). You are only showing very high losses...
It is possible that you have encountered a bug that inflates the losses for the German player somehow.

If that is the case 2by3 will fix it... No reason to cry to murder and throw your game in the bin.. That's something my 3 year old would do...

Cannonfodder

Well, I'm not you and I'm not a 3 year old. So please stop with the insults. I bought this game with different expectations than you. That seems obvious. I didn't sign up to be a tester.

[KenchiSulla]

Fine, but if you actually expect it be fixed quickly then providing more information might help

This is from the manual:

The Total CV levels required for the
front to be Stable, Fluid or Critical are displayed on
the EF screen and are based on the time of year (lower
intensity periods due to bad weather require lower CV
values to remain Stable or Fluid) and the number of
divisions required (the larger the number, the greater
the required CV to be Stable). Each turn there is a
random factor used when checking to see if the front is
Stable, Fluid or Critical. Just before EF combat is resolved
the EF German CV total is randomized:
Total CV=total+Random(total/2)-Random(total/2);
The revised total is compared to the Stable/Fluid/
Critical limits to determine EF combat results. Note
that having just over the amount needed for the front
to remain Stable does not guarantee that on any given
turn the front will be considered Stable.

There is a function active that randomizes the results (and it might cause issues, depending on the parameters set by developers. It seems to be designed so that it is easy to modify) so I think it is important if you are able to produce more information for the devs. Do you have a screenshot from the turn before the collapse?

[RedLancer]

There is no need for anyone to rant or argue.

Jason - I know that you didn't sign up as a Tester but if you think there is a bug then please do the following. Go back a turn and save just before you end the turn. Run the turn from that save at least a couple of times and see if the same thing happens every time. The more runs you do the better. That is exactly what we will have to do. Anything you can do will save us time and if a fix is required speed things up in producing one. At the same time post a copy of your save so we can have a look just in case the problem is in your setup.

We have done our very best to perfect the game but it is so very complicated that is difficult to spot everything or learn all the nuances. We are continuing to improve things but the tone of your posts helps no-one.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

If you can send the save before the German logistics phase, we can run it through and see what kind of losses we see. Can't exactly say if it's WAD or not, but having the save would allow me to get an answer from Gary. Thanks.

Oh, Sorry. Joel where do I sent it again?

You can either email it to 2by3@2by3games.com, or zip it up and attach the file to a post in this thread. What we ideally need is a save before your logistics phase and one just after. If playing the AI, the one before would be the auto save at the start of the Allied turn before you noticed the high German losses.

Often these things are display bugs only, so the suggestion to look at your East Front forces before and after the losses is a good one to see if your strength dropped as much as the losses indicate. It's very hard to comment without seeing the saves, but we'll take a look as soon as we get them. Thanks for the report.

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Fine, but if you actually expect it be fixed quickly then providing more information might help

This is from the manual:

The Total CV levels required for the
front to be Stable, Fluid or Critical are displayed on
the EF screen and are based on the time of year (lower
intensity periods due to bad weather require lower CV
values to remain Stable or Fluid) and the number of
divisions required (the larger the number, the greater
the required CV to be Stable). Each turn there is a
random factor used when checking to see if the front is
Stable, Fluid or Critical. Just before EF combat is resolved
the EF German CV total is randomized:
Total CV=total+Random(total/2)-Random(total/2);
The revised total is compared to the Stable/Fluid/
Critical limits to determine EF combat results. Note
that having just over the amount needed for the front
to remain Stable does not guarantee that on any given
turn the front will be considered Stable.

There is a function active that randomizes the results (and it might cause issues, depending on the parameters set by developers. It seems to be designed so that it is easy to modify) so I think it is important if you are able to produce more information for the devs. Do you have a screenshot from the turn before the collapse?

I understand this. So thanks for nothing. You obviously haven't read all on my initial post. Here's the major issue I have with what has occurred the last two weeks on the east front (late Feb - Mar)

- had almost 2x combat value > Stable + threshold (thus, I read that as good chance to hold line and take less loses)
- Sov Potential was on the previous turns to the ef slaughter were 21 and 15 respectively.
- current line is not yet into Europe
- lost 2,000 tanks and assault guns in 2 weeks on east front with these parameters ... 2,000!
- lost 2,00 planes also for these same 2 weeks on east front

So please be the first person to tell me that seems ok and I should relax. Then please answer me the simple (many sources) question on how many tanks and assault guns the German lost on the EF during period of Kursk July 4 - July 11 (even count the 12th.idc).

I'm a little frustrated and more so after buying WiF one year ago (game still is not right for PvP). Have spend at least 50 hours on WitW and the current campaign game. Managing all my troops and air each turn. Going in with a strategy to put many good units on EF hoping it will reduce my loses and I might be able to pull those troops back. Now I find out that this is not the case and I just threw away all my good units on the EF for nothing. So game is basically done now and I'm suppose to just accept it? Ok sure, I guess I'm naive to think game software is in the realm of if you buy at release date, it's buyer beware. So I gambled and lost. I'll take that responsibility.

Even if this game hits my shelf for several patches/months, I'm still happy to contribute with my purchase to 2by3. They will be making many more games and my purchase (for my mind) will be investment in them eventually making the grandiose WitW and WitE combat game.

I appreciate everybody's constructive help.

[Joel Billings]

Jason, did you see my note asking for saves. We agree it doesn't look right to have those kinds of losses given the info you are posting. Assuming these are real losses and not a logistics report display bug, your army should be getting smaller and you should be able to see it from turn to turn in the EF box screen. If I get the saves, we'll look into it right away. Clearly you shouldn't have those kinds of losses given the Stable situation and the fact that Soviet Potential is not being used up.

[cmunson]

I've just finished playing through Feb44 as Axis in 43 Campaign. I did not notice any losses out of the ordinary.

This is the last turn in Feb44.

[cmunson]

In reading the above posts something doesn't add up. How can the Axis have 2x the "Stable" value in CV's on the EF at this point? That would be almost 8k in CV. That would mean a massive VP penalty for garrison requirements not being met. Also a lot of admin points required to move that many troops east.

I understand peoples frustration when the game doesn't behave the way players expect. The requests from the developers and moderators are not meant to make anyone a beta tester. The information is needed to see if behavior is WAD or a bug. If a bug, identifying and documenting it helps produce a better game for everyone.

Here is the summary at the end of Feb for EF in my game. Now I have a turkey in the oven to attend to. Merry Christmas.

[LiquidSky]

Hmm..comparing the two screens, it seems that jzardos has only a few more toys in his EF box then chris, but his losses are definitely way worse. I'm thinking I will avoid the use of the EF box when I play the Germans to avoid losing the game to the Russians in 1944.

[Joel Billings]

We have the saves from Jason now and Gary will be looking at why the Stug IIIg turn losses show 392 when the game total only went up by about 70 from Jason's previous turn. It would appear that the turn loss totals are suspect, as this turn, Jason's AFV's in the EF box only declined by about 150 yet the turn count shows losses around 1000. Based on the game total of the stug's, I'd bet the turn total is wrong.

As for the CVs, I think Jason is misunderstanding the numbers. He had around 3700 CV's which was just below the Stable threshold. So he had about a 55% chance of being in the Fluid range for the turn. On the next turn, the weather improved and the CVs required went way up and he was in the mid range, closer to Critical than to Stable. Something is wrong, but I can't say yet if it's just a display issue. It's very hard to sort this stuff out, but seeing the turn total plus the last game total not adding up to the new game total for an item is something we can focus on to try to find what's going wrong. Thanks to Jason for providing the saves for 3 turns in a row so we can try to get to the bottom of this.