Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

[56ajax]

ORIGINAL: morvael

No, there were no changes to weather in this patch. We're pretty limited in what can be done, with just 4 huge zones and 3 out of 4 weather types representing absolute extremes (clear, mud, blizzard). Random weather is always worse for the Axis when compared to non-random, and the goal (when it was reworked) was to close the gap a bit.

In one sense I agree that random is worse for the Axis in comparison with non random, but don't forget that the AXIS always knows about the weather first and has first use of the weather ie the AXIS has the initiative.

[GPT55]

I just started a game with the new version and am surprised to see the German 1st Cavalry Division now has 50 MPs and for practical purposes is now a mechanized infantry. Is that right?

Never mind--just searched the release notes and see it was changed in the previous version.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: johntoml56
In one sense I agree that random is worse for the Axis in comparison with non random, but don't forget that the AXIS always knows about the weather first and has first use of the weather ie the AXIS has the initiative.

Not if you launch deep penetration, which Soviet player re-opens during his turn isolating your widely spread regiments, and then you can't rescue them and re-close the encirclement again because of mud [:)]

[tyronec]

Have been caught with that one, though difficult for the soviets to take them out if the mud clears after one turn.
Possible benefit for Axis comes if they can pull back units from the front line during mud turns so reducing attrition/fatigue. Having never played late into the game is this a worthwhile tactic ?

[solops]

The public area patch link is not working.

[56ajax]

ORIGINAL: morvael

ORIGINAL: johntoml56
In one sense I agree that random is worse for the Axis in comparison with non random, but don't forget that the AXIS always knows about the weather first and has first use of the weather ie the AXIS has the initiative.

Not if you launch deep penetration, which Soviet player re-opens during his turn isolating your widely spread regiments, and then you can't rescue them and re-close the encirclement again because of mud [:)]

Well you should be watching the weather forecast and as the AXIS you may be disadvantaged for a turn but in 41 nothing can stop you and if the Soviets try and isolate your spear head they are just putting their head in a noose....Mr Tyronec taught me that...

Whereas in my current game, forecast mud but was clear, got 7 units surrounded and nothing stops the AXIS in 42 either...not strong enough for rescue....

See what the new patch brings...

[morleron1225]

Thanks very much. I can't think of another company which supports older games so well. WITE is still one of my favorite games and these improvements will give it yet more life.

Take care,
Ron [&o] [&o]

[Nix77]

Morvael & team, please look more closely into the support squad change:

- Soviet total OOB 4.27M => 3.82M (256k difference in Corps HQs, 200k in armies)
- HQ ToE could be adjusted previously to gain manpower from HQ support squads, if that was the desired effect?
- 215k+ men (!!!) less are gained now in 1.11.01 from disbanding Corps HQs
- German HQ support squads still remain at the same (unrealistic?) levels?

What was the cause for the support squad change? Why German HQ ToE was not changed? If there is a change in support squad numbers, shouldn't the unit's support needs be toned down, or was this previously not working as it should?

I think there's a lot to rethink in this change, please consider this as a bug report for 1.11.01.



EDIT: the picture says "Corps OOB", that's the added figure from CR below the OOB and my additional calculations. I deducted Airborne and Air Command HQs from the calculations since they don't disband automagically.

[morvael]

Turning non-existent staff officers into soldiers might have been too gamey. I don't know.

On the other hand I have recently suggested to Denniss that we could keep corps HQs around for longer, like they were IRL (only Mechanized Corps HQs were disbanded early).

[Kantti]

Even if it has been gamey, game balance has evolved around it as long as I remember playing this game (couple of years). Now you can think that as having 20 empty soviet rifle divisions on around turn 10 instead of having them full. Earlier balance changes have been made presuming that those corps HQ's disband AND ppl get their manpower as replacements. Now they won't get that anymore. That is a huge nerf to Soviet side.

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Turning non-existent staff officers into soldiers might have been too gamey. I don't know.

On the other hand I have recently suggested to Denniss that we could keep corps HQs around for longer, like they were IRL (only Mechanized Corps HQs were disbanded early).

Gamey or not, this is an actual reduction of 215000 men in the Soviet OOB in late summer '41, quite critical phase I'd say. The disbanded Corps HQ went to the manpower pool, they weren't non-existent staff officers in the previous versions.

Also if the HQ +1 admin roll is still in effect as it used to be (support squad #/1000?), the chance for Soviet HQs to pass that ever have become really low.

You're now changing "gamey" stuff to realistic levels, should we start talking about Opel Blitz fuel consumption...?

[morvael]

Let's wait for Denniss, I'm not in charge here.

[morvael]

If we'll keep rifle corps active until the end of the year, then this manpower will be still unavailable in the early phase, regardless of corps size.

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Let's wait for Denniss, I'm not in charge here.

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: morvael

If we'll keep rifle corps active until the end of the year, then this manpower will be still unavailable in the early phase, regardless of corps size.

The Corps HQs have disbanded during the late summer, and that's when their manpower appears in the pool. In many games, the initial soviet manpower pool (800000 men) is drained dry at this point, and the men from HQs go directly to the fresh or returning divisions. So it's a direct hit to the Soviet late summer / autumn defense.

I'm not claiming the corps HQ disbanding is the correct way to handle the manpower pool, but it's just as Kantti said: it has been this way for quite a while and the balance has been built around these numbers. Not sure what would be the best way to fix it, but changes like this need to be investigated with care and with balance in mind. Just like all other data changes of this caliber. 200000 men disappearing is a huge change.

[morvael]

No balance change should be looked at in isolation. With higher forts, less accurate tactical bombers, reduced Axis repair rate, and reduced HQBU rate, less Soviet men will be killed in the period of easy victories. That offsets corps size change, obviously without 1:1 guarantee. All patches are tested so that no drastic balance changes will occur. Smaller balance chances are possible and actually welcome, since changing meta means the game is fresh, and there is always something new to discover, new roads to victory. I know many things are unrealistic, including Opel Blitz fuel consumption or lack of horse economy, but my policy was to always allow for changes made on historical ground (one small step towards accuracy), unless they lead to drastic balance changes, even if I can't make all things to be more accurate in one go. Denniss makes data changes, and very rarely I voice dissent. Let's see what he will say.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: morvael
That offsets corps size change, obviously without 1:1 guarantee. All patches are tested so that no drastic balance changes will occur. Smaller balance chances are possible and actually welcome

I know earlier comments were this patch was a deliberate re-balancing towards the Soviet side - on the assumption that there were too many Axis captures of Leningrad and Moscow in September 1941. I know I felt the HQBU change was particularly dramatic and the fortification change would mean changes in game play. Would I still be right in assuming with this coming the other way it is still a re-balancing to the Soviet side. But maybe less so than we thought?

[morvael]

At this point I'm for example thinking about adjusting too many attackers penalty that will remove the supreme killing power from regiments, by assuming they are overextended when alone. It's also possible to remove morale penalty from failed Soviet attacks to promote more aggressive playstyle.

[Stelteck]

ORIGINAL: morvael
At this point I'm for example thinking about adjusting too many attackers penalty that will remove the supreme killing power from regiments, by assuming they are overextended when alone. It's also possible to remove morale penalty from failed Soviet attacks to promote more aggressive playstyle.

Interesting idea the morale thing. But a point to consider.

The problem for aggressive soviet playStyle and morale is not the soviet morale looses for me (you can recover the morale by resting), but the fact that the german gain morale by being attacked by the soviet !!! So attacking the german forces can easily make them stronger. 99 morale german units are a joke.

If you want to promote more aggressive play style i suggest to allow morale increase only when a formation is on the offensive (and winning).
I do not think it is unrealistic. Being attacked by the enemy is usually more a bad news than a morale building thing.

[morvael]

Yes, perhaps only attacking and winning should result in morale increase, and defending and losing in morale decrease.