Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
I usually don't plan on having the enemy surround my units; that's negative thinking[8D]. When it does happen it is usually kind of unforseen [;)].

Seriously, however near the front I have the army airbase it is unlikely it will be in the exact spot to be included in the pocket (unless I manage to get the whole army surrounded, but that is even more negative thinking).

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
But if you plan ahead enough to put an airbase close to the front where it would supply the pocket, why not plan ahead and just get those guys out of there?

And if you can get an airbase unit IN to the area, why can't you get the troops OUT?

Most pockets aren't really PLANNED is my point. And you need to PLAN ahead to have an airbase in there, generally.

Who does? [:)] With current mechanics, no one. When I said "planning ahead" I was thinking of a situations like the following:



where you "plan ahead" as in:

* I don't want to pull out from there for whatever reason
* I am gathering my reserves to defeat both pincers, but I need time.
* So I move Corps HQ and Airbase into Pogar, and establish a perimeter with infantry until cavalry arrives.

That should give a fighting chance to those divisions, and probably would stall what would be a major push from your opponent.

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
That's debatable Tarhunnas. The difficulties of keeping supplied 6. Armee at Stalingrad - where they had 3 different airports - were more a consequence of the STAVKA massing VVS figher regiments to interdict air resupply when it realized what was going on, the inability of 11 PzD to keep the 5th Tanks Army off the airbases on the Chir river - though they managed to keep 5th Tanks from breaking through - and weather. The LW also tried to supply smaller pockets - such as Korsun - but there they were limited to parachute drops (I think) and it was too common that supply fell in the hands of - also starving - Red Army troops.

True, a lot of things were different at Stalingrad compared to Demyansk or Kholm. Still, the fact remains that it proved possible to supply a corps almost indefinitely by air, but not an army, while with the rule as it appears, it risks the opposite simply because the army has an airbase.

Good point Tarhunnas. If you can't do as above, or you just happen not to have an airbase in the right place, you're screwed.

I agree with people saying that it's a bad idea to need an airbase in the pocket, it would make the rule virtually redundant for the Axis.Much better if HQs did the job and if also you could directly supply any division that is in an open or light woods hex.I don't think it would take long for a division to clear a temporary landing strip if their lives depended on it.

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hello

I would like to know if the data of the Me 109 f4 is corrected. Helpless said something there is an issue. The Data for the Me-109 f2 and Me-109 f4 are the same (except arment).

fb.asp?m=2834472

In beta v 1.04.39 it is the same.


Omat

These aircraft were 99.9% identical. The only difference was afaik that the MG 151 motor cannon had a 15 mm barrel in F-2 and a 20 mm barrel in F-4. It was quite the same gun; there existed merely two different calibre versions.

15 mm was more effective for good shots, 20 mm was more effective for mediocre pilots.

Great revisions to national morale - would like to see further losses ( even if temporary)for Moscow, Stalingrad etc.
All looks good so far.
thanks
Cav.

Great work people!

Just a thought

IIRC the 656th Heavy Panzerjaeger Bn that had the modified Ferdinands-now called Elephants seemed to disappear from the OOB.Since we have them and historically they stayed on the Eastern Front until the end of the war.(apart from 1 coy briefly in Italy) It would be good if we had the 656th Bn.

Also if at least 1 SU Bn could receive the JagdTigers (permanently). After all we`re producing them.Pzjager Abteilung 653

Source:Heavy Pzjagers. Jentz.Doyle & Spielberger.2007

Hello

When I read about Me 109 F2 and F4 it often it is said that the f2 used the DB 601 N engine and the F2 the DB 601E. Maybe I am wrong.

Omat

ORIGINAL: lastdingo

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hello

I would like to know if the data of the Me 109 f4 is corrected. Helpless said something there is an issue. The Data for the Me-109 f2 and Me-109 f4 are the same (except arment).

fb.asp?m=2834472

In beta v 1.04.39 it is the same.


Omat

These aircraft were 99.9% identical. The only difference was afaik that the MG 151 motor cannon had a 15 mm barrel in F-2 and a 20 mm barrel in F-4. It was quite the same gun; there existed merely two different calibre versions.

15 mm was more effective for good shots, 20 mm was more effective for mediocre pilots.

Yeah, never mind that the whole shape of the war from 1942 on is completely out of whack in the game. If we can just get the 505 Hvy Pz Bn and the Me 109 F4 engine number and the 656th Heavy Panzerjaeger Bn fixed we can all sleep soundly again. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hello

When I read about Me 109 F2 and F4 it often it is said that the f2 used the DB 601 N engine and the F2 the DB 601E. Maybe I am wrong.

Omat

ORIGINAL: lastdingo

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hello

I would like to know if the data of the Me 109 f4 is corrected. Helpless said something there is an issue. The Data for the Me-109 f2 and Me-109 f4 are the same (except arment).

fb.asp?m=2834472

In beta v 1.04.39 it is the same.


Omat

These aircraft were 99.9% identical. The only difference was afaik that the MG 151 motor cannon had a 15 mm barrel in F-2 and a 20 mm barrel in F-4. It was quite the same gun; there existed merely two different calibre versions.

15 mm was more effective for good shots, 20 mm was more effective for mediocre pilots.

I have a reference book at home, which I am unable to check right now, but AFAIR, the F-4 had both the upgraded 20 mm cannon (vs 15 mm) and a slightly more powerful engine than the F-2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschm ... F-1.2C_F-2

So the 1:1 --> 2:1 rule remains in the game?

Probably was a wet dream, but I really thought this sci fi rule was announced to get eliminated... I definitly hoped to see this gone with 1.05, at least come spring '42. [&:]

So the 1:1 --> 2:1 rule remains in the game?

No, it was replaced to 0:1 -> 3:1 and we changed the side who receives the bonus.

ORIGINAL: Helpless

So the 1:1 --> 2:1 rule remains in the game?

No, it was replaced to 0:1 -> 3:1 and we changed the side who receives the bonus.

Oh my, I DID touch a soft spot, hm? Good thing I didn't post Peltons pig pic with my question. I sincerely apologize for my impertinence, to your highness, your wife and offspring, to your ancestors, etc etc.

And believe it or not, I do appreciate the effort you put into this game, but I admit I have problems. One of them being the inability to share your assessment of the implications of said rule. But you won't drain me of my longing to see this rule gone. Sooner or later. Obviously later...

ORIGINAL: Helpless

So the 1:1 --> 2:1 rule remains in the game?

No, it was replaced to 0:1 -> 3:1 and we changed the side who receives the bonus.

LOL! [:D]

No, it was replaced to 0:1 -> 3:1 and we changed the side who receives the bonus.

That will make all the German fanboys happy.....ah no on second thoughts only the 'Germany wins button' would do that [8|]

First off, let me set the record straight. Pavel (Helpless) has never supported the Soviet Doctrine rule. I think Gary added it in when Pavel was busy with other things and Pavel never focused on it before release. Once it came up after release, he was always in favor of removing the rule. However, he acknowledged it had play balance implications and couldn't be removed without some thought and additional work on other parts of the game. Gary is the one that continues to feel that there were doctrinal differences that could justify a rule, but Pavel has argued that morale/experience/leader skill and OB accounts for doctrinal differences. Gary has conceded that the public dislike of the rule justified altering it, although without Pavel's arguments there's a greater chance it would have remained unchanged. We have come to a tentative agreement to remove the rule sometime after the first winter, and I expect the change will be in the game before the 1.05 goes public. It will have an impact, but the exact impact is as of yet unknown. Be careful for what you wish for.

Thanks Joel for setting the record straight on 1:1 rule, its nice to know the developers care enough to listen to what the public is discussing.[;)]

As Joel said, Pavel has been the main champion on the development team for removing this rule. I also have some reservations about removing it instead of adjusting it, but the current plan based on our internal testing is to remove it for the 1.05 public beta, so we'll see how things go.

Regards,

- Erik

Well of course an "adjustment" is correct as the rule was an attempt to emulate Soviet casualty-accepting doctrine to win a piece of terrain. If simply extricated from the code, what will emulate this ability to win a 'hex' for a few thousand dead? The rule was actually simplistically elegant, but of course could be exploited strategically.
I suggest the Soviets get a combat bonus/casualty penalty in deliberate attacks. "Deliberate" meaning NKVD Machine gun teams in the rear and General officer firing squads on stand by. The 1v1 rule was ( I think) an surgical way to emulate this, but since it is so apparent and (mis) understandable, the emulation needs to be buried in the calculations.

The F4 had 150hp more ! top speed was 388mph the F2 did 373mph...the f4 was the fastest climbing fighter in the world at this time! with an initial climb of
4,290fpm the 2 planes only look the same! 99% the same my ASS.

ORIGINAL: Captain

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hello

When I read about Me 109 F2 and F4 it often it is said that the f2 used the DB 601 N engine and the F2 the DB 601E. Maybe I am wrong.

Omat

ORIGINAL: lastdingo




These aircraft were 99.9% identical. The only difference was afaik that the MG 151 motor cannon had a 15 mm barrel in F-2 and a 20 mm barrel in F-4. It was quite the same gun; there existed merely two different calibre versions.

15 mm was more effective for good shots, 20 mm was more effective for mediocre pilots.

I have a reference book at home, which I am unable to check right now, but AFAIR, the F-4 had both the upgraded 20 mm cannon (vs 15 mm) and a slightly more powerful engine than the F-2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschm ... F-1.2C_F-2

Wiki is like a corn flake packet you never know what u will get...30% of it is just rubbish.

I have come around, and I for one am now in favor of removing the rule. The Red Army has too easy a time of it after '41.

The next version will be interesting; I was worried about the Germans with the reduced forts, but I think they have a late-war chance now for sure, if the 1-1 rule is gone, as well as the other changes. In fact, I think some lesser Soviet players are going to start hitting brick walls and get frustrated.