Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

To me, the most important thing about future updates is that they not require me to do a full re-start of a campaign.
If that cannot be helped, all I would ask is to be notified so I could stop playing my current game, possibly. I still find Turn 1 daunting as the Axis.

I can wait and wait (I mean, we did already) for updates.

All the changes are minor really from what I see, nothing that will effect any games.

I believe from here on out, unless something crazy is found.

I noticed something strange with regards to displayed CV. Using the GC 41 with better CV approximation I noticed there are quite a few units, all in open terrain, that have less defensive CV than offensive CV when displaying both on the counter.
Is that a bug in the calculation of the displayed CV or can units in fact have less CV on the defensive than on the offensive? I think I never saw that with older patches so I guess it is new. The units in question are German, I first noticed it on Mot and Arm divisions but after some looking I also found Inf divisions with that oddity.

I've seen the same: some Soviet units show an attack cv of 9 and defend of 7.

Its an interesting mode but I'm not sure it would be my display of choice, its fascinating to see how leadership affects things, but you pretty quickly get to stack of XX vs stack of XX. But it really helps for trying things out and testing ideas as you have better feedback.

This is correct (higher attack CV than defensive CV) due to the ability to get a doubled CV during attack after passing a single (per unit) leader combat roll, which applies only to the attacker.

I'm considering dividing the alternate CVs by 2 to get lower values so that X will be less common.

Would that require a restart? I guess not since you only change the calculation routine?
Also is the possibility to get doubled CV included in the CV approximation? E.g. a 50% chance of passing that test gives 1.5 the displayed CV that a 0% chance would give?

No restart required as it is only code change.

That's how exactly the "alt CV" is calculated - by following the random CV routine (used in combat) and substituting random rolls with expected values.

Is that CV double also included in the unmodified CV that is shown in the combat result screens? I had quite a few combats where my CV was halved in a deliberate assault with no enemy air forces and little to no artillery.

Also I had a strange combat result (forgot to take a screenshot...) where the attacker lost, inflicted minor casualties on the defender (~180 men) but no losses at all for the attacker. No idea if that was just a possible but unlikely result or if that might be an indicator of a possible problem.

As a player choosing NOT to use the enhanced CV routine, I want to note that the existing (i.e. normal) CV calculation/display under 1.08 seems to be very accurate of performance.

When you will take a look at the OOB , I believe that the "Alpini" Italian Divisions (Julia, Tridentina , Cuneense) would deserve the "elite" status.
They were indeed, able to break the encirclement at Nikolaevka (during operation "litlle Saturn") operated by 1st Guards Army and 6th Army.
A famous document from Stavka said that the Italian "alpini" Corps was the only axis corps that could say to go out of Soviet Union being not defeated.

Kind Regards

Roberto Carrosio

Published Sources:
Giulio Bedeschi: "Centomila gavette di ghiaccio"
Mario Rigoni Stern : "Il sergente nella neve" (English Version : "the Sergeant in the snow"
David Glantz: "Endgame at Staliongrad: Book Two- December 1942/February 1943)

That's it. I want my elite Italian alpine unit pronto!

Morale 86

Did the Soviets lose 2 of their 4 IL-2 plants? The ones in Moscow are now gone, on top of the fact factory build limit dropped from 54 (not 50 as stated in specific aircraft change 220) to 44. If so, that slashes weekly IL-2 production from a max of 216 to 88.

I think the Mig-3 1942 you mentioned in other thread has something to do with IL-2 production.

I pulled up the '42 scenario and think I get it, but the way the upgrade path is portrayed is rather messy. Someone can correct me, but...

It looks like the MiG-3 is supposed to upgrade to a MiG-3 1942. But that is a phantom aircraft which is not produced. Instead, it upgrades in January to an IL-2, so if Moscow is in danger of capture, the Soviet player NEEDS TO EVACUATE THE MiG-3 PLANTS IN MOSCOW IF IT IS TO RETAIN FULL IL-2 PRODUCTION.

Contrary to what the upgrade path shows with MiG3, there is no evidence that later it upgrades to the Yak-1B in '42.

Factory upgrade is what factories turn into. Normal upgrade is about air groups changing aircraft from one model to the next (it's easier to swap to "upgrade" than completely unrelated model).

edit: I'm sure you need to ask Denniss for an explanation on how it works.

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

I pulled up the '42 scenario and think I get it, but the way the upgrade path is portrayed is rather messy. Someone can correct me, but...

It looks like the MiG-3 is supposed to upgrade to a MiG-3 1942. But that is a phantom aircraft which is not produced. Instead, it upgrades in January to an IL-2, so if Moscow is in danger of capture, the Soviet player NEEDS TO EVACUATE THE MiG-3 PLANTS IN MOSCOW IF IT IS TO RETAIN FULL IL-2 PRODUCTION.

Contrary to what the upgrade path shows with MiG3, there is no evidence that later it upgrades to the Yak-1B in '42.

Intention was historial production + to force the soviet player to move facs or face the danger of losing valuable production. Il-2 facs did not magically appear in the Urals, the machinery had to be taken from somewhere.
Yak-1B is the unit upgrade path so MiG-3 in air units try to switch to Yak-1B once available.
The same need for evacation is the LaGG-3 fac in Taganrog, maybe some more ....[:D]

Query:
Why can't the AI opponent stage it's airbases better?

N. Vatutin appears to be missing in the Blau scenario.

Put him back in a future patch please [:)]

Hi guys,

Axis FZ (forts) AP cost in .08.

FZ #1-50 cost 4 AP
FZ #51-100 cost 5 AP
FZ #101-150 cost 6 AP

Is this correct? thx

I don't think so. Don't have over 150 FZ and the current costs for a new one is 46 APs.

1-50: 4
51: 5
52: 6
53: 7
150 max