1.08.05 Beta

[Icier]

I read that you intended to release Beta update in September..are you able to give a date as yet, as
a couple of us are holding starting new games, until we done the update. [&o]

[Peltonx]

Its done and was sent several days ago.

We are all waiting on Matrix and Steam to post for down load by players.

WitE devs meet our dead line

[Joel Billings]

Dominik and Dennis have done there part and recently submitted files for 1.08.05. We're stretched at the moment getting Torch off to mastering, but hope to be able to get WitE into public beta within the next two weeks. We realize that there are quite a few of you waiting for it so we'll try to move it along.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Dominik and Dennis have done there part and recently submitted files for 1.08.05. We're stretched at the moment getting Torch off to mastering, but hope to be able to get WitE into public beta within the next two weeks. We realize that there are quite a few of you waiting for it so we'll try to move it along.

Thanks

Looking forward to Torch also

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Dominik and Dennis have done there part and recently submitted files for 1.08.05. We're stretched at the moment getting Torch off to mastering, but hope to be able to get WitE into public beta within the next two weeks. We realize that there are quite a few of you waiting for it so we'll try to move it along.

And then Steel Panthers, and then ... [:D]

[Peltonx]

2by3 works hard to get products out and after they are released to get them as close to perfect as possible.

[VigaBrand]

is it possible to get an inoffocial changelog for 1.08.05?
Maybe most people want to start a new game and it will be nice to read something about the changes (majore changes) to rethink strategies or ideas for the next game.

[morvael]

Trying to recover a bit of strength before flame wars (ineviteable after each patch) start [:)]

For now you can ponder this:

29. Added the ability to define some combat or support OBs as multirole. This allows to convert units, using those OBs, between combat and support roles. This operation is allowed only once per turn, disabled for units performing a HQ Build Up, units attached to cities, or support units which changed their HQ this turn. Units involved may not be frozen, routed or loaded. To convert from a support unit to a combat unit, there must be free space in the hex in which the parent unit is located. To convert from a combat unit to a support unit, both units must be located in the same hex.

where the following TOEs are considered multirole:

German 42 Cavalry Squadron
German 41 Panzer Pioneer Battalion
German 42 Heavy Panzer Battalion
German 43 Sturmpanzer Battalion
German 43a Panzer Battalion
German 43b Panzer Battalion
German 43 Heavy Jagdpanzer Battalion
German 43 Heavy Panzer Battalion
German 43c Heavy Panzerjager Battalion
German 43b Heavy Panzerjager Battalion
German 43a Heavy Panzerjager Battalion
German 43 Panzer Pioneer Battalion
German 44 Nebelwerfer Brigade
German 44 Stug Brigade
German 44 Heavy Jagdpanzer Battalion
German 44 Sturmpanzer Battalion
German 44 Heavy Panzer Battalion
German 44a Stug Brigade
German 44 Volkswerfer Brigade
German 44b Stug Brigade
German 45 Jagdtiger Battalion
German 45 Nebelwerfer Brigade

Discuss [:)]

[elxaime]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Trying to recover a bit of strength before flame wars (ineviteable after each patch) start [:)]

For now you can ponder this:

29. Added the ability to define some combat or support OBs as multirole. This allows to convert units, using those OBs, between combat and support roles. This operation is allowed only once per turn, disabled for units performing a HQ Build Up, units attached to cities, or support units which changed their HQ this turn. Units involved may not be frozen, routed or loaded. To convert from a support unit to a combat unit, there must be free space in the hex in which the parent unit is located. To convert from a combat unit to a support unit, both units must be located in the same hex.

where the following TOEs are considered multirole:

German 42 Cavalry Squadron
German 41 Panzer Pioneer Battalion
German 42 Heavy Panzer Battalion
German 43 Sturmpanzer Battalion
German 43a Panzer Battalion
German 43b Panzer Battalion
German 43 Heavy Jagdpanzer Battalion
German 43 Heavy Panzer Battalion
German 43c Heavy Panzerjager Battalion
German 43b Heavy Panzerjager Battalion
German 43a Heavy Panzerjager Battalion
German 43 Panzer Pioneer Battalion
German 44 Nebelwerfer Brigade
German 44 Stug Brigade
German 44 Heavy Jagdpanzer Battalion
German 44 Sturmpanzer Battalion
German 44 Heavy Panzer Battalion
German 44a Stug Brigade
German 44 Volkswerfer Brigade
German 44b Stug Brigade
German 45 Jagdtiger Battalion
German 45 Nebelwerfer Brigade

Discuss [:)]

I am curious about the design philosophy behind this one. The game models small support units by incorporating them with HQs who will be the ones ordering their participation. Deploying more of them on-board as combat units seems to undercut the HQ/commander system philosophy while adding more counter-congestion. I can see the upside in adding flexibility. But it seems a close call, as one can now imagine rear areas carpeted with such battalions in a game which already has sufficient carpet management.

[morvael]

There are two groups of units here: large artillery units and strong armored units plus the odd cavalry squadron.

If the larger concentrations of Soviet artillery are represented by on-map counters (starting with 60+ guns strong brigades), why shouldn't 100+ guns strong German units be represented in the same way?

Strong armored units have CVs up to 5, with average around 2. So they are just like Soviet Light SU brigades which are also on-map units, and way stronger than early war Soviet rifle divisions. Why should the impact of such strong units be limited to always being an off-map units that can't project ZOC, or can't be used as emergency screening force, and be forced to relocate each time a 1-CV weakling will happen to "touch" the HQ they are "in"? Germans are usually low on counters so they should be happy to have some extra counters that can be used to lengthen the front or easily strengthen some crucial position.

The odd cavalry squadron is an on-map unit used in one scenario, which is in fact a very weak unit and should be converted and used as an SU as soon as possible, but is required by that scenario to be on the map on turn 1.

[chaos45]

42 Cavalry Squadron- new unit? dont remember ever seeing such support unit.

As to game effects.....Think adding Battalions is to much, if you do that shouldnt Soviet tank regiments/BN be allowed on map as well? Your creating clutter that will do nothing but hinder movement with ants. Also as to realism- a battalion isnt near enough manpower/equipment to exert Zoc's.....

Im guessing this is to make Soviet breakthroughs even more difficult, like Soviet players already find encircling Germans easy?

The BDEs I can kinda understand and the Soviets are allowed to field BDEs as on-map units so makes sense. As a Stug BDE did have some infantry support intrinsic if I remember correctly and the artillery BDEs then model what Soviet artillery can do. A panzer Battalion/regiment has virtually no infantry support or additional heavy weapons than tanks, shouldnt be an on map unit as it has no additional assets other than tanks.

IMO the Germans can already add SU to every division in their army, you are only allowing gamey German tactics with this change.....as all those new German ants will be used to hold forts from decaying and hinder movement only on defense...and on offense provide zoc/movement hinderance to Soviet counterattack operations to the effect that in 1942 the soviets will be even more powerless.....I cant for the life me think of how this is a better change for the game....its pure gaming the system bonus for Germans.

If you want to make the game- play Germans vs AI Soviets great but pvp as Soviets is already a nightmare for 1941/1942 this is only going to make it worse...and then make what should be an interesting 43/44 for soviets a carpet of German ants holding forts and due to soviet movement penalties no breakthroughs will ever be possible esp with all the additional ants hindering movement in the backfield.

Just read your reply above Morvael- difference is a Soviet tank/SU BDE has infantry support a panzer Regiment/BN doesnt. Even when you look at Bagration when Tigers/panzer divisions were split up to delay the Soviet advance it was done so with supporting infantry arms. Basically for game purposes split up infantry divisions into regiments with 1 SU each as blocking detachments....or a split up panzer divisions into 3 regiments with SU as blocking detachments.

Infantry/supporting arms is the key things to exerting a Zoc....IMO pure tanks shouldnt exert a Zoc. your concentrating to much on CV and not real life combat arms/combined arms tactics. Tiger tanks are fearsome beasts when employed with supporting arms....tiger tanks all alone are easy bait for AT gun ambushes and infantry close assaults. Thats the massive difference.

Yes in the game you will suddenly have to attack a lone panzer/stug bn eating Soviet MP then move into the hex then try to attack again to open pockets most likely...this will be absolutely game breaking IMO when used by skilled players....unless you drastically reduced Soviet movement penalties and I dont think that happened.

German lower Zoc/enemy hex entry allows them to wade through seas of Soviet ants....the Soviets dont have that capability and now you are giving the Germans a bunch more ants to use.....once more your really messing with a massive lever for game balance that is going to drop balance even more in favor of the Axis.

[morvael]

There was a cavalry regiment set to be a subunit of itself (thus assumed to operate with 1/3 strength of a full regiment), but that doesn't work fully for units other than divisions, hence new TOE.

There is a problem with naming, most Soviet names are "inflated" when compared to what they really represent, while some German are "deflated". On one hand you have the German 41 Elite Motorized Regiment with 6772 men and CV of 7, then you have the German 41 Motorized Brigade with 5677 men and CV of 4.5, and finally on the other side of the scales you have the 42a Tank Corps with 5596 men and CV of 3.2. So why does the regiment has reduced ZOC and increased movement costs, while the Tank "Corps" has full ZOC and normal movement costs? I would love to tie ZOC and movement costs to unit combat power, but that would change the balance too much, as most Soviet ants would be penalized even more, having a CV of just 1 or 2 (or there would be little to no units with penalties).

I always try to alter those rules, where nominal unit size counts, not actual manpower and/or actual combat power. We added missing Panzer Regiment to Demyansk scenario, which was just that - the armored part of a Panzer Division, and this unit of 140+ tanks had a CV of 7. Just because it's called a regiment, should it be made a support unit? A combat unit? And if it should be a combat unit should it's ZOC be weaker than ZOC of a CV 1 rifle division?

StuG "brigades" have about 44-45 AFV and 800-1000 men (CV 1.86-2.02). On average Panzer Battalions have 44-48 AFV and 700-900 men (CV 2.59-3.81). 43a Panzer Battalion has 1764 men and 96 AFV (CV 5.22)! So you want the weakest of those units to be able to become on-map units just on the grounds of having the most pompous name. Let's look at some of their Soviet counterparts: 42a Tank Brigade: 949 men, 50 AFV, CV 1.21; 43a Tank Brigade: 1129 men, 53 AFV, CV 1.59; 44 Light SU Brigade: 1119 men, 63 AFV, CV 2.27.

As you can see units in this range are on-map units for the Soviets, but SUs for the Germans. I guess this won't be much of a problem as you think, because a) for attack you want to put as much strength in the hex as possible, and for that SUs attached to front-line CUs are better; b) units smaller than a division can be routed or shattered more easily, so you don't want to keep them lone in the hex. So IMHO what the multirole units would allow is just a bit more of flexibility and scenario designer friendliness. Also, they will be of use to the players as flexible, mobile, beefs for their frontlines where sometimes you can't put 3 divisions per hex, but want to strengthen one position. Doing this using the SU way is less player friendly, because SUs are invisible when in the HQ (all HQs show a CV of 0, while they can have 0-20 CV worth of assets). The strongest of these assets should be available to be put on the map directly.

By the way - just as I said, once some changes will be revealed, a heated discussion will start and I will spend a lot of time on that alone [:)]

edit: by the way my initial list of proposed multi-role units was longer, but Denniss selected only those you see. I also wanted to put on that list units that were known to operate independently (commandos, recon), and those units that despite low CV (because of low national morale) have a lot of men (for example 41 Ital. CCNN Legion with 1506 men). Denniss reduced that list only to those units which have high CV.

edit2: Truth be told, due to low stacking limits it would be wise to make those smaller Soviet units multirole as well, but:
a) Soviets are already masters of concentration per hex with their corps combat units, which the Germans can't do. Being able to attach brigades to those corps would be way too much.
b) Soviets have no problems with low counter density, they can usually manage to setup more than one line of defense, hence they don't need extra counters.

[chaos45]

You call as the designer, I think the movement penalties and Zoc exertion are going to make the Soviets nigh unplayable in 1942 though with the extra German ants. As German players already run around switching all the hex control they can just to make soviet counterattacks difficult to pull off. Now being able to run a division around switching all the hex control and then moving in a bunch of weak 1 CV BN will make Soviet counterattacks almost impossible is what I think is going to happen. You seem to forget how much MP Soviet tank BDEs spend to move into German hexes....Germans wont have near this issue plus having higher movement points........

I think this is going to be much more powerful and game changing than you think based on your description...such as can a panzer div w/3 SU charge through soviet lines then start leaving behind support units as it moves on? Your description would leave me to believe this is a possibility. Your going to see alot of really gamey German tactics with this and encirclements I can assure you. As the hex control bubbles the German players currently use are already pretty gamey at stopping soviet counterattacks/movements this will make it much much worse.

Also I understand what your saying but manpower isnt equal to combat infantry- Soviet on map tank units have 2-3x the amount of combat infantry as the new German units your adding as on-map.

Huge difference between mechanics/admin/cooks and guys willing to run forward with Smgs/rifles and actually engage the enemy. Most the manpower in German panzer units is support and panzer crew....hardly any infantry.

Anyway I guess Im more looking at 1942 and most of these units arent available until 1943 so maybe it wont be a big deal other than allowing the Germans more fortifications in the backfield.

As to hex concentration of firepower, the Germans probably at least until 1944 have the ability to concentrate the most firepower due to how strong certain panzer units are.

Also again I say if German Panzer BN get on map Soviets should be able to put tank bn/regiments on the map...at full strength a tank bn is 36 AFV a regiment 42 AFV.......

Stug BDE is 44 AFV........

So numbers wise of AFV almost the same......

An yes as a soviet player I would always want the option for more counters makes German movement and magical hex switching even harder. Many, many times have I wished for just a couple more units to create Zoc's to slow german movement prevent hex control changes. Esp when they only cost 1 AP to create instead of 5 AP for a BDE.

[morvael]

Don't worry, ZOC emission and MP costs are still unchanged, Soviet CV1 ants are still better than German CV7 regiments. Just because the impact on balance would be too severe.

I guess early war will be unchanged. How many "41 Panzer Pioneer Battalion" are there? Most of these units won't be there before summer '43 and that's already after the Germans have switched to the defense.

CV is not equal firepower really, so Germans are at a disadvantage here a bit. They can't concentrate that.

There are regiments of as little as 21 AFV too (Light SU Regiment). Early war I actually prefer my Soviet Tank Battalions to be part of HQs and take part in more than one combat per turn as well as be able to evacuate with the HQ instead of being lost in an encirclement. And when I'm in '43 I don't have to keep fourth line of defense, instead I want to put as much rifle corps per hex as possible. So I think there is less use for Soviet multirole units.

[Commanderski]

Added the ability to define some combat or support OBs as multirole. This allows to convert units, using those OBs, between combat and support roles. This operation is allowed only once per turn, disabled for units performing a HQ Build Up, units attached to cities, or support units which changed their HQ this turn. Units involved may not be frozen, routed or loaded. To convert from a support unit to a combat unit, there must be free space in the hex in which the parent unit is located. To convert from a combat unit to a support unit, both units must be located in the same hex.

Was the AI on either side able to use this function?

[morvael]

Forget the discussion. No TOEs will be defined as multirole in the official data.

[chaos45]

Well was interesting and I think for the BDE level German stuff acceptable.....looking forward to seeing the change log for further debate [:)]

[morvael]

Define BDE... Now we will (still) have on-map CV1 BDEs with 21 AFVs that exert ZOC and off-map CV5 BNs with 96 AFVs that rout with parent HQ without combat. We also have German on-map artillery brigades with 50 guns and German off-map rocket brigades with 100 tubes. Somethings not right IMHO. People are too much tied to what the name implies instead of the actual strength. In that regard this is bad design. But there are other reasons for which this feature must be disabled, and I understand them.

looking forward to seeing the change log for further debate

No thanks [:D]

[chaos45]

Also I support the German Artillery units being brought on map if they want. All it really does is give guarnteed artillery support at the cost of it maybe not assisting other fights. An would probably support certain/select german combat units as being on map as well.

One easy fix is to give HQ units a CV and not make them auto rout...would probably increase HQ losses a ton when they got assaulted tho.

As to your 96 AFV battalion- think your talking about the panther regiment from Kursk....that was basically combat in-effective in real life...something like over 50% disabled from breakdown/mines after just 1-2 days of "action"

Also and again as my above statements almost no infantry support....that to me is the key difference between a stug/pz battalion and a Soviet tank BDE. The tank BDE althought being a piece of junk CV wise still have supporting infantry and light artillery/mortars (76mm guns/82mm mortars). So the tanks operate with at least some supporting arms and that is the key thing with a unit being able to exert a Zoc. They have actual boots on the ground with at least some indirect fire capabilities. - Soviet tank BDE = closer to a weak combined arms Regiment in western armies, basically an infantry BN with a tank BN.

I understand th size difference and how Soviets exaggerated unit size, same as the Germans with the Stug BDE which was nothing more than a glorified Stug BN...it was pure naming to confuse allied intel briefly as to the amount of stugs the germans had on hand. Again it comes down to a tank BDE was closer to a combined arms unit when compared to just a German tank unit- panzer bn/stug bn. The panzers/stugs were extremely effective mainly when used as part of a combined arms force.

Perfect example of what happens when German tank units operated without combined arms was the panzer bde counterattacks on the western front. These attacks where horribly coordinated and defeated in detail by a smaller allied force due to lack of combined arms. The BDEs were very ill trained and the infantry/tank forces had never trained together so ended up fighting and losing the battle fighting as individual units instead of as a combined BDE on the battlefield.

[morvael]

I agree in general, though this game specifically states that CV is boots on the ground, and those BNs have higher CV (partly because they are all tank and each tank has a (0.0)9 CV base value, partly because of higher morale and experience) than combined-arms brigades. Don't blame me for how the CV is calculated and what it stands for here. It seems combined arms units which high percentage of line troops should get higher CV due to synergy to make them better than mono-type units.