Recent Artillery Changes...

[DeletedUser44]

I'm pretty much done with the 1st turn vs Soviet AI.

Without delving into the details, I can tell something in the combat routines were modified.

About 40% of what were previously reliable 10-to-1 attacks now resolving at around 7-to-1 instead.

Those stand out because there are certain hexes where Germany cannot afford any combat delays on turn 1.

Is it unbalancing or overwhelming? Honestly, I don't know - way too early to tell.

All I know is that it is annoying and the Soviets should be happy.

Hope it is equally annoying for them during their Winter Offensive.

[GibsonPete]

Good to know.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II
About 40% of what were previously reliable 10-to-1 attacks now resolving at around 7-to-1 instead.

Compared to which version?

[DeletedUser44]

Compared to (v01.02.08Beta) installed on Dec 3rd.

Currently running (v01.02.11) installed on Dec 10th.

Just glancing at the map, I can see about a dozen or so combat delays. I used to be able to avoid almost all of these.

Some of these I reloaded, see if I could do any better. Nah, not getting around any of these.

----

Was still able to achieve the major objectives (Riga, Minsk, Lvov). But as you know, the infantry does the heavy lifting on 1st turn - punching holes in Soviet line, clearing the way for the breakthrough, and then rapidly following up behind the mobile forces.

In this case, the infantry is more bogged down. (16th Army, 9th Army, 2nd Army, all had a rather dismal time of it)

I think I am really going to pay when my mobiles forces become engaged around Pskov & Smolensk and the infantry support is just not there.

Oh yeah, I am going to feel some pain later....

[Erik Rutins]

It's worth noting 1.02.08 Beta wasn't a stable baseline, in other words, we knew that artillery had been tuned up too far and we were working to tune it back down. Comparing to the last official update or even the release version for this type of comparison would be much more useful as we considered the betas to be work in progress.

The goal with the combat changes was to fix various clear issues, some of which were hurting the Axis more, without drastically changing the balance over the course of the campaign. What you described in terms of 100% reliability of 10-1 attacks on Turn 1 sounds to me like something that only existed for a few of those beta updates. If we've overshot, we'll know by comparing to previous official versions.

Regards,

- Erik

[DeletedUser44]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

It's worth noting 1.02.08 Beta wasn't a stable baseline, in other words, we knew that artillery had been tuned up too far and we were working to tune it back down. Comparing to the last official update or even the release version for this type of comparison would be much more useful as we considered the betas to be work in progress.

The goal with the combat changes was to fix various clear issues, some of which were hurting the Axis more, without drastically changing the balance over the course of the campaign. What you described in terms of 100% reliability of 10-1 attacks on Turn 1 sounds to me like something that only existed for a few of those beta updates. If we've overshot, we'll know by comparing to previous official versions.

Regards,

- Erik

No, those 10-1 attacks have been pretty consistent since the beginning. I have evolved a fairly elaborate series of attacks based on them - that has taken way longer than just the last couple of updates.

But its all good. Will play it out and see how it goes.

[Yogol]

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

It's worth noting 1.02.08 Beta wasn't a stable baseline, in other words, we knew that artillery had been tuned up too far and we were working to tune it back down. Comparing to the last official update or even the release version for this type of comparison would be much more useful as we considered the betas to be work in progress.

The goal with the combat changes was to fix various clear issues, some of which were hurting the Axis more, without drastically changing the balance over the course of the campaign. What you described in terms of 100% reliability of 10-1 attacks on Turn 1 sounds to me like something that only existed for a few of those beta updates. If we've overshot, we'll know by comparing to previous official versions.

Regards,

- Erik

No, those 10-1 attacks have been pretty consistent since the beginning. I have evolved a fairly elaborate series of attacks based on them - that has taken way longer than just the last couple of updates.

But its all good. Will play it out and see how it goes.

Do you have a stream or a video somewhere of how you do that first turn? I always look for ways to improve myself and will start a new Grand Campaign shortly as Axis.

And, yes, Germany was definitely nerfed (the last thing the game needed IMHO).

[AlbertN]

And, yes, Germany was definitely nerfed (the last thing the game needed IMHO).

+1

[AlbertN]

*Double post...*

[jubjub]

Germans were buffed on defense. They inflict way more casualties than they used to in the previous official patch.

[PeteJC]

I am halfway through my turn 1 and have noticed that there are more combat delays but not as many as you may have experienced and not in the crucial areas (west of Taurage, 2 clear hexes north of heavy woods north of Grodno and 3 hexes south of Brest). I attack all the crucial hexes with 2 infantry divisions and only Taurage had a combat delay which is not that bad as the 4th Panzer Group units can use teh hex west of it without incurring any MP loss. I have not done my Lvov area attacks yet. The few extra delays I got were on secondary attacks that were just herding Soviet units into the pocket areas.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

And, yes, Germany was definitely nerfed (the last thing the game needed IMHO).

+1

Again, in comparison to which version? I find the current version easier for the Axis than the official release version, or any version up until the combat re-work. The beta updates were certainly easier for the attacker with artillery at times due to some issues, but that's not a one-sided balance issue. In any case, when the balance fluctuates too far one way or another during beta updates, but settles in a different place for the official version, that's not a "nerf".

If players are seeing major blance differences compared to past official updates, I'd be curious to hear more about that and whether it's attacker vs. defender or Axis vs. Soviet.

[Stamb]

In another thread i was complaining about the same, but as Erik Rutins says we probably forgot that it was a BETA versions of the game. And in beta patches developers test different things.
If there will be no changes in a balance of attack/defense then Soviets will have to make attacks. But what will be the front line? Time will tell.

[AlbertN]

@Erik

In comparison to which version: Beta Patches. Right now the only recollection I had of last non beta patch it was that the Soviet Assault armies were too mighty, and that Germans were stopped too easily. My mind somehow do not really count that. I ditched my games early as Smolensk was ever in Russian hand by T8 to T11; and I got ditched by German player when I tried my first time the Soviets in absolute. I cannot really 'compare' present status with that. But I've neither started a new game with present final patch, just continueing the AAR I've ongoing

As posted in my AAR to me it is an Attacker vs Defender and Axis vs Soviet both.

In my AAR I've shown how numbers invert depending who is the attacker and the attacker. -- But that to me is a first Axis nerf in a '41 campaign at least since they ought to attack. If they attack less and gain less and inflict less losses; they Soviets will just snowball their advantages.

Then I feel it is an Axis nerf because the Axis guns have a hit per element ratio similar to matching calibers of the Soviets or only lightly superior -- Which means to me the 'quality difference' is not enough marked in general in the game. (But then again I have my own ideas as well regarding Axis minors National Morale and the fact that German NM is too low for '43 onward).

I think it would do a lot of good for the 'visuals' of the game and understandings that the damaged elements are added in the quick show summary at the side of destroyed elements too.

[Jango32]

As I've said in another thread, I think Erik is right that there needs to be more data gathered before deciding if the changes need a revision. And Axis players need to play their campaigns for as long as possible to gain a good picture of the overall system, not just a 1941 start balance.


I have my own worries about balance changes, but I have to see if they materialize in the server human vs human game I've got going and the 4 vs 4 PBEM that I'm a part of.

[Joel Billings]

I do like the idea of adding in the damaged somehow. I don't know if it's possible, but what people think of having the damaged numbers show up next to the destroyed in parenthesis. It could probably be made to fit (might have to move things over a bit), but it would clutter up the display. Not something we're likely to do anytime soon, but it's something we could consider down the road.

[Stamb]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I do like the idea of adding in the damaged somehow. I don't know if it's possible, but what people think of having the damaged numbers show up next to the destroyed in parenthesis. It could probably be made to fit (might have to move things over a bit), but it would clutter up the display. Not something we're likely to do anytime soon, but it's something we could consider down the road.

It would be nice to have leaders checks displayed somewhere in percentages or 250/300 (succeeded/total) in an after battle report. So players will know that is was not their day or this is a maximum what you can get from that situation.
As right now in case of close battles there are always comments like "some bad rolls for a leader".

[AlbertN]

@ Joel

I believe it will do lots of good because an amount of the recent uproar on 'artilleries' I feel it was due to ... seeing 0 destroyed or very little amount.

If a player does not open the details, they won't see the damaged at all.

And considering 1 squad of infantry is composed by 10 men, to have 10 infantry squads damaged signals 0 destroyed - BUT it's like 5 men per squad perished in action, just not the full 10. But it goes under the radar of most of the players. Thus it gave a semblance of 'omg I am getting destroyed without doing anything'.

Etcetera.

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

@ Joel

I believe it will do lots of good because an amount of the recent uproar on 'artilleries' I feel it was due to ... seeing 0 destroyed or very little amount.

If a player does not open the details, they won't see the damaged at all.

And considering 1 squad of infantry is composed by 10 men, to have 10 infantry squads damaged signals 0 destroyed - BUT it's like 5 men per squad perished in action, just not the full 10. But it goes under the radar of most of the players. Thus it gave a semblance of 'omg I am getting destroyed without doing anything'.

Etcetera.

If you think that the noise was caused from scratch, you can always go behind the USSR and see what the German hasty attacks are doing with the Soviet divisions on those patches, you will see how the Soviet division is being disbanded. It is divided by zero.
If you think this is how it should be, then congratulations. German propaganda worked so well that you still believe in it today.

In the game, Germany is too strong (41 years old), relatively real. And not by 10-20%, but only by 200-300%. Judging by the losses, the German players manage to find some kind of shortcomings in their opinion that they are supposedly weaken. You are actually playing imba. I personally know at least 2 people who understand so well the mechanics of the game and how the battles are held that it is simply not possible to play against their Germany.


It is impossible to defend Leningrad, there is no way to defend Moscow in 1941 if Nemets acts correctly, realizing all his possibilities.
Are you ready to defend the USSR if you lose Leningrad and Moscow by turn 18?

[AlbertN]

I am not an expert but I believe I've time as Soviet against ... one of your friends, or even yourself?
He may faceroll me out of my lack of experience, and I'd learn loads from the game.

I'll drop the answer here - and not discuss further as I think we had enough discussion in the other thread.

I can play as Soviet, and see how I feel.
For now folks who said yes to play as Germans bailed out post latest patch. So I'm okay with a new Soviet game.

Then I underline the skill level difference. Here on the forums we've HYLA who is a very strong German player. Who also has knowledge in and out of the game and its mechanics out of ... experience.
And there are other players that are at the top of the pyramid of players. I assume beta-testers or people who play extensively.
They may have an edge - of which size I know not of - over other players. But I base the game on average vs average player.

I play relatively fast presently, do not want to micro excessively or at all except selective assets (ie. German siege guns). That puts me in inferiority vs someone who has either more time for the game, takes longer to do turns, etc.

If Player-A does 1 turn a week, that is a too short rate. And probably the person spends excess of time micromanaging everything.

So my 'level of comparison' for the game is between average players (I think myself as roughly average or past-novice toward average), with a rather lighthearted approach to the game. Keeping it as a 'game' and not a 'scientific study'.

Ultimately at words we can chit and chat here to no end. If one can squeeze 2, favorably 3 turns a week, I am game. Would you like the challenge yourself ShaggyHik? You Axis, me Soviet - Theather boxes management on!