Matrix Games Forums

Everything should go right over except for the data changes. You shouldn't seen any earth shattering changes from the earlier 1.05 and things should continue just fine. If you are only a few turns into the game and few 47mm AT guns were built, then the Germans will end up with more armaments than they should. If lots had been built, then the Germans will net less than they should have. The breakeven point is 50 47mm AT guns built.

Woot! Thanks! Time to start a new GC. Still cravenly playing 1P atm...[X(]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Ketza

I never knew forts chased away partisans.

LOL

Aaaaah, the human creativity... I guess we will never know who did this cheap -and yet effective- little trick [:D]

Brothers, I have sinned!

I have practiced it, though not with only using a single rail line. I can understand why it is being removed though, if it was open to abuse. I do not feel I was abusing it. I started doing it under that version which had the rear areas crawling with partisans in august 41.

From a realism standpoint, as those forts cost a lot of resources I think it is a tradeoff for the Axis if you want to spend manpower and armaments on securing your lines of communications. But, as I said, if it was abused, then I feel fine with it being removed.

As for who invented it, I learned the trick from Andy (Sabre21) who mentioned it on the forums.

5) Rule Change – Reduced front line attrition by 30-50%. In addition, Static units will now only suffer half of the normal front line attrition.

This seems like a change that could have a pretty big impact! Finally, Delatbabel, here it is! Wishes do come true somtimes!

I think the static thing is good, it gives a reason to put units in static. I have a very long immobile front north of Moscow on my game vs gids, so with this change I am thinkig of putting units in static up there.

Thnks guys for the update!

It does force you to diverse rail line repairs instead of building fort units on the single line.

Well if you are so intent on only allowing one Rail dude per line why allow more than one it in the first place?

Why are you so intent on not allowing the Germans to increase rail security if they so choose?

Sorry this smells of scripting the partisan war. Again I say why have it at all if you are intent on forcing an historical result no matter what the Germans do. Surely a game of this scope that is trying to include a partisan war should allow a greater effort by the Germans to be rewarded. Why no beneift for garrisons that are over 100%? I would suggest a rule change that if a garrison has a level over 100% then it should help hinder partisan ops within a radius of the city.

Its a bit of one way traffic here in favour of Ivan. There should be a way for the Axis to increase his rail security if he so desires. At the moment there is none. Thats why people build forts along the tracks in the first place. You offer no alternative.

The Static rule wasn't discussed at all in advance, and few have noticed, but Tarhunnas did. That is a significant change. This is a reason now for the Germans to put alot of the front in Static mode, which they did historically.

If I am playing Germany, I would make sure though to always keep 100-ish APs in the pool to re-activate units in the event there is a problem.

I think the Soviets will probably not be able to use static much in 1942, except vs. the Finns. But in '43-44, it will allow them to reduce the significant attrition losses they would otherwise suffer along quiet stretches of the front.

I like the rule on surface; there is a good reason now to go on Static

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
2) New Rule – Supplies and fuel will now be moved to cities closer to HQ’s before being sent to the HQ’s and units.

Could someone explain this one please
I'm a fairly new player and I've noticed that during the first few weeks of a 41 GC that my panzers seem to struggle more for fuel than before. example would be Pg Grp4 using the riga gambit move where before i would normally wait until the end of T2 before pulling supplies from Riga via sea routes, now i have to hold back until T3 or T4 before my panzers have fuel to move forward, Pz Grp 2 & 3 are the same once Minsk falls

2) New Rule – Supplies and fuel will now be moved to cities closer to HQ’s before being sent to the HQ’s and units.

I am curious about this too. What is the intention/effect?

Were I the assuming type, I would imagine that it probably is the start of a more in depth supply system.

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

Were I the assuming type, I would imagine that it probably is the start of a more in depth supply system.

I don't want to panic anybody, but I think I found some pretty serious bugs with it. Reported in the beta testers forum. It's a possibility that this is a transitional problem, until the supplies get distributed to the staging cities, but I'm not sure and am awaiting a reply.

Can we please get some more info on this asap? It seems to be a significant change to the supply model.

Issue is with the city supply/fuel lock which doesn't work correctly. It was introduced in 1.05.26 and quick fix should be released today.

So far there shouldn't be any visible changes to the supply model.

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

Were I the assuming type, I would imagine that it probably is the start of a more in depth supply system.

[:D]
If you were, I assume you would assume and not imagine. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

Were I the assuming type, I would imagine that it probably is the start of a more in depth supply system.

[:D]
If you were, I assume you would assume and not imagine. [;)]

I think I used enough fudge words. It is, after all, the wonderful world of beta.

Does 1.05.28 still have this supply bug??

Marquo

Yes, I would wait for 1.05.30, which will be released today, before doing any more turns.

Regards,

- Erik

Can you patch these beta's over version 1.0, boxed game?

Yes, you should be able to do that.