Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03 M3 : Last Update 4th april

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am thinking in the context of what Flavius did in our last PBEM. If he were to employ the same strategy again with this latest patch and cover Gorki then I fail to see how he (or any experienced player for that matter) employing the same strategy could lose.

I am happy enough with the changes if the Russian fights forward. But the Russian who runs with everything and just defends the 3 objectives has a pretty solid position for doing the very thing that Stalin would not have tolerated.

I wouldn't do it. Not with 1.03. On the contrary, I'm looking pretty hard on how to cling to objectives well forward as much as possible.

The extra PPs make all the different to me. An increase of 30-40% in my PP budget is a big freaking deal and the only way to bring in the big cards in a timely fashion. I see you want penalties. I believe these are otiose, but wouldn't object to them. Sure, bring em on.

But if you plan as the Soviet on getting out those C&C and defense reduction cards, and affording lots of major garrisons, you've got to fight pretty bitterly forward.

In test play I'm dropping garrisons in Riga and Odessa from the getgo. Kiev of course. Tallinn. Kharkov. Zhukov is doing interesting stuff. By turn 3 the extra points are flowing and if you can stay ahead of the schedule will keep flowing.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi,

Somebody asked at what point do Reinforcements arrive configured to a Defensive posture?

It's when the objective city in that front is under threat. When's that?

It's deliberately undefined to prevent people trying to game the system.

If you were living in Moscow at the time it's about where you'd expect it to be at the point where you'd start packing your suitcase.

Cheers,
Cameron

Heh.

I've seen it happen so far in front of Moscow. The trigger point seems to be somewhere along the x axis near Vyazma, possibly just east of it.

So far I haven't seen it trigger elsewhere yet. You've got to get pretty close to Leningrad for this to happen near as I can tell, past Luga and Narva is my guess. Rostov, no clue.

[etsadler]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am thinking in the context of what Flavius did in our last PBEM. If he were to employ the same strategy again with this latest patch and cover Gorki then I fail to see how he (or any experienced player for that matter) employing the same strategy could lose.

I am happy enough with the changes if the Russian fights forward. But the Russian who runs with everything and just defends the 3 objectives has a pretty solid position for doing the very thing that Stalin would not have tolerated.

Perhaps not surprisingly I like my idea of granting VP each turn. The great Soviet Skeedaddle will cost them the game by VP if all they hold are the three objectives under that scheme.

[Tweedledumb]

I'm playing the Soviets on June 22nd in a 1.03b PBEM game and every single Army did not activate.

That's par for the course, but they all have only 40 AP.

I thought they would get 50 AP in this version?!

The divisional reports say: Army not activated -60 AP

Ignore this POST - I didn't properly update barbarossa.dc3

Sorry for the inconvenience...

[Falke]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Are the bonus PPs working as intended then? I confess not entirely understanding how this amount is calculated as it doesn't seem to match +1 per active city objective. I was getting bigger numbers than that.

I am getting exactly what is in the staff Report but:-

Game started with 1.03 then upgraded to 1.03b (in case this is relevant)

4th July Germans took Minsk - I still got 1PP for Minsk - Could be WAD
8th July - I Still got 1PP for Minsk.

Have to Abandon this game though, since the Zhukov/Def.Card fix seems to Need a restart

[Orm]

Siege Artillery restricted to German gauge rail
Siege artillery base delay % now increased by a small amount (round # / 3) to represent the increasing inability of the converted rail to handle very heavy trains
Siege Artillery now reduces entrenchment levels to 100 (halved), rather than 0

NOTE: Siege artillery was overpowered and has been place on a more realistic footing. It's still very useful but no longer a silver bullet.

Somehow I doubt this statement.

For me to use the siege artillery against Odessa I would have to direct the German rail conversion, and eventually the supply route, through Odessa and then wait for the workers to change the rail gauge and then wait even longer for the siege gun to actually arrive. All this time I have to either use another, now secondary, supply route or wait to move my supply chain forward. And waiting for the siege artillery to invest Riga seems even worse.

And considering that these cities (or so I assume) will generate extra political points while waiting for the siege train arrives makes me doubt that I will have much use for the train. Maybe sending it towards a city that already has German gauge leading up to it.

And what is the earliest, practical, date that you can even have the German gauge to a main objective?

And if you plan to use the siege artillery you must push the rail conversion as fast forward as possible. You can then forget any options that slows this (and I liked selecting 'em).

But what do I know? I am still learning how to play this game. [:D]

[DTomato]

So the consensus is that the game favors the Germans? Because almost all of these changes seem to favor the Soviets.

[barkhorn45]

Unintended consequences,in order to get siege artillery to Riga you now are forced to set agn route to go to riga which I don't find optimal prefer the kaunas route.
Your right s.a.is now virtually useless.

ORIGINAL: Orm

Siege Artillery restricted to German gauge rail
Siege artillery base delay % now increased by a small amount (round # / 3) to represent the increasing inability of the converted rail to handle very heavy trains
Siege Artillery now reduces entrenchment levels to 100 (halved), rather than 0

NOTE: Siege artillery was overpowered and has been place on a more realistic footing. It's still very useful but no longer a silver bullet.

Somehow I doubt this statement.

For me to use the siege artillery against Odessa I would have to direct the German rail conversion, and eventually the supply route, through Odessa and then wait for the workers to change the rail gauge and then wait even longer for the siege gun to actually arrive. All this time I have to either use another, now secondary, supply route or wait to move my supply chain forward. And waiting for the siege artillery to invest Riga seems even worse.

And considering that these cities (or so I assume) will generate extra political points while waiting for the siege train arrives makes me doubt that I will have much use for the train. Maybe sending it towards a city that already has German gauge leading up to it.

And what is the earliest, practical, date that you can even have the German gauge to a main objective?

And if you plan to use the siege artillery you must push the rail conversion as fast forward as possible. You can then forget any options that slows this (and I liked selecting 'em).

But what do I know? I am still learning how to play this game. [:D]

[Michael T]

So the consensus is that the game favors the Germans? Because almost all of these changes seem to favor the Soviets.

It did for sure. But now? Maybe the other way. They did not address the Soviet run away strategy.

[barkhorn45]

Have they been able to stop it in wite?And it's been out for how long?

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: DicedT

So the consensus is that the game favors the Germans? Because almost all of these changes seem to favor the Soviets.

It seems that the problem that's being fixed here is directed towards pbem, and within pbem, toward helping SU against very good German players.

Solo player vs. the SU AI will have a tougher go at it since the AI plays by different rules that can actually put up more defense than a human, e.g. garrisons in every city.

Since Vic's metrics shown that 94.5% of solo player is at the normal level, and many of those games are abandoned, I hope the devs will consider some love for solo non elite German players.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: barkhorn45

Unintended consequences,in order to get siege artillery to Riga you now are forced to set agn route to go to riga which I don't find optimal prefer the kaunas route.
Your right s.a.is now virtually useless.

So coastal red dot cities, with unlimited supply, may simply be impregnable. [X(]

[RandomAttack]

I understand the need/desire to balance this as much as possible for PBEM. But are some of these changes having a disproportionate effect on single-player? Siege artillery in particular? I haven't played enough to have a strong opinion yet, I just hope the single-player experience isn't ignored/subordinated. Frankly, I'm having a tough enough time (Germans) as it is. Or maybe even have a "vanilla" version with just engine/mechanics-type fixes but not all the buff/nerf stuff. In short, if you tailor the game too much to the 1-percenter's that are warrior gods, not sure how much fun it's going to be for us mere mortals.

[lancer]

Hi,

Nope, you've not been forgotten. The single player experience is the main focus of the game.

Very few of the changes affect the German vs. Soviet AI game. We made a series of big changes to the Soviet reinforcement schedule (and a few other things) back in the last official update to ease the burden if you're playing German single player.

The Soviet vs. German AI has been improved with this recent update.

With all balance changes it's an ongoing process.

Cheers,
Cameron

[WingedIncubus]

ORIGINAL: willgamer
So coastal red dot cities, with unlimited supply, may simply be impregnable. [X(]

In the South I don't mind if Odessa or Sevastopol hold out indefinitely. It took months and dozens of thousands casualties to the Romanian Army to finally capture Odessa. Sevastopol wasn't even threatened until October 1941.

In the North I agree that there should be a supply limit in Riga if the city is cut out, because the Baltic Sea was controled by the Kriegmarine. But it is theorically possible for the German player to breakthrough with 4th Panzergruppe and race to Riga before the Soviet places a major garrison, as per history.

Neglecting Riga might now prove a serious thorn in AGN's side if the Soviet player bottles a lot of divisions there, but that's a wider problem to discuss : Hexes should have stacking limits in themselves. It shouldn't be possible to stack so many divisions (like 8 Divisions and over) in a single hex without serious supply and defensive penalties, even in a city.

[barkhorn45]

Here's a interesting discussion on rail conv.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=2304

[RandomAttack]

I posted this in a Tech Support thread, but really think it's better here, with a couple of edits:

This is kind of interesting for those so inclined. Start a new game of 1.03B as human vs. human. FOW *must* be off. Speed thru the first turn screens. Pick a Soviet Inf Div in the open with 100 entrenchment and attack with two German Inf Divs. Look at the battle details. Lo and behold, all the expected modifiers seem to be fully applied!

My takeaways are:
1) People playing PBEM/hotseat are getting MUCH different battle results than those playing against the AI. Battles seem MUCH more decisive (due to the application of *all* bonus/penalties). So people that play mostly PBEM are having very different experiences/results than those playing the AI. Apples and oranges. I think this is where a lot of contradictory opinions are coming from.

2) In SP the AI side seems completely buffed. If you are the Germans, the Soviets get FULL entrenchment which significantly impacts your advance. Seems like the Soviet casualties are about HALF what they are in hotseat/PBEM. If you are playing as the Soviets you get the entrenchment PENALTY, as well as seeming to be more hobbled as to how many units you can activate, etc.

So a straight SP experience isn't even attractive to me at this point. I'll just play hotseat to get a "fair" game, although that is not what I wanted. I would REALLY like to see Vic & Cameron come up with a SP mode that quits buffing the AI so much. Let's use the same rules for both! For me it isn't just about winning or losing, but "feeling" some kind of historical parallel. Let ME decide the level of difficulty, and the BASELINE should be same as PBEM/hotseat.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I posted this in a Tech Support thread, but really think it's better here, with a couple of edits:

This is kind of interesting for those so inclined. Start a new game of 1.03B as human vs. human. FOW *must* be off. Speed thru the first turn screens. Pick a Soviet Inf Div in the open with 100 entrenchment and attack with two German Inf Divs. Look at the battle details. Lo and behold, all the expected modifiers seem to be fully applied!

My takeaways are:
1) People playing PBEM/hotseat are getting MUCH different battle results than those playing against the AI. Battles seem MUCH more decisive (due to the application of *all* bonus/penalties). So people that play mostly PBEM are having very different experiences/results than those playing the AI. Apples and oranges. I think this is where a lot of contradictory opinions are coming from.

2) In SP the AI side seems completely buffed. If you are the Germans, the Soviets get FULL entrenchment which significantly impacts your advance. Seems like the Soviet casualties are about HALF what they are in hotseat/PBEM. If you are playing as the Soviets you get the entrenchment PENALTY, as well as seeming to be more hobbled as to how many units you can activate, etc.

So a straight SP experience isn't even attractive to me at this point. I'll just play hotseat to get a "fair" game, although that is not what I wanted. I would REALLY like to see Vic & Cameron come up with a SP mode that quits buffing the AI so much. Let's use the same rules for both! For me it isn't just about winning or losing, but "feeling" some kind of historical parallel. Let ME decide the level of difficulty, and the BASELINE should be same as PBEM/hotseat.

I think both AI's work very different in SP in version g. I noticed as the Germans the Russians do stand up a little better than in the past. I started a game as the Russians and German attack after attack results in heavy losses for me and no losses at all for the Germans, even against full strength Russians behind rivers. It early in the game, 4th turn, so maybe things will change as the initial shock effects wear off but it is different than previous versions.

[ChuckBerger]

Yep, it appears to me that the AI gets a range of benefits to compensate for its less-than-human performance in a range of areas, like stacking bonuses and strategic positioning.

As the Germans, you'll find it hard going indeed if you are not encircling and destroying large numbers of soviet divisions. Large pockets can and must be created in this game. In the centre, plan carefully and use your 2 PzGs in tandem to cut off chunks of 10-20 divisions at a time. Attack with 4 panzer/motorized units, ideally with blitz or luftwaffe bonuses or both. Often a stack like that can slice 2-3 hexes straight into the soviet lines, even along a single-hex frontage. Look for where the geometry of the lines helps you out a bit. I've gotten pockets easily as big as the historical Kiev pocket against both AI and human players. Careful planning and setup is the key. You can't just wing it from turn to turn. Plan on where you want your PzGs to be in 1/2/3 turns time to set up a major pocket.

[lancer]

Hi,

Here's a copy of a post I've made on the bug forum. It's probably just as relevant here.

---

To clear up a bit of confusion here's how the early turn penalties work.

If you're playing a Soviet Player (human) they receive the blitzkrieg penalty and an entrenchment penalty. There are exceptions for units in cities and on the Finnish, Hungarian and Romanian borders. Soviet units in forests and swamps also gain an adverse terrain bonus (even at the start) but this doesn't apply on the Finnish border.

If you're playing the Soviet AI at normal AI level the Soviets receive a combined defensive penalty rather than the individual blitzkrieg and shock penalties as per the manual. This equates to a -65% defensive combat penalty on the first turn and decreasing amounts thereafter. The Soviet AI units aren't configured to a particular posture instead this is built into the combined off/def penalties/bonuses so the -65% def penalty encompasses this as well.

Overall the Soviet AI gets a better deal here than a Soviet Player, but not excessively so. A human Soviet player will, in general, outperform a Soviet AI hence the AI needs a small advantage to remain competitive.

The same exceptions that apply to the Soviet player also apply to a Soviet AI so if you are looking at a Soviet unit, for example in the 9th Army down south, it'll have no early turn penalties as it's in the Romanian border region however in the centre, 10th Army for example, they'll be penalised heavily.

In 1.03b there is a small bug remaining that ensures that on the first campaign turn the Soviet AI receives a -45% penalty instead of the -65% but it's not a big deal as the values were transposed and on turn 2 the -65% kicks in.

Cheers,
Cameron