Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Losses during airbase attacks have come down at least twice during the past few months. The most recent reduction was probably mostly due to the restriction on airfield attacks that the air group must have flown less than 1/3 of their available miles to fly the mission (this had been 1/2 before the recent change - other smaller changes probably had a minor impact here and there). There was always debate internally on what the appropriate loss numbers on turn 1 should be. A human player that knew what they were doing was usually able to kill more aircraft than the historical numbers. The AI, which isn't quite as smart, would kill less, but was still usually over the historical total. Of course there was always some price to using up your aircraft flying airfield attacks as you were limited in your ground support. We think the numbers that can be achieved on turn 1 are still in the right historical range, although there's no doubt debate on exactly what that number should be. We felt the reduction on turn 1 was ok, and wanted to further limit the problems that were being reported with the abuse of airbase attacks during the rest of the game.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Losses during airbase attacks have come down at least twice during the past few months. The most recent reduction was probably mostly due to the restriction on airfield attacks that the air group must have flown less than 1/3 of their available miles to fly the mission (this had been 1/2 before the recent change - other smaller changes probably had a minor impact here and there). There was always debate internally on what the appropriate loss numbers on turn 1 should be. A human player that knew what they were doing was usually able to kill more aircraft than the historical numbers. The AI, which isn't quite as smart, would kill less, but was still usually over the historical total. Of course there was always some price to using up your aircraft flying airfield attacks as you were limited in your ground support. We think the numbers that can be achieved on turn 1 are still in the right historical range, although there's no doubt debate on exactly what that number should be. We felt the reduction on turn 1 was ok, and wanted to further limit the problems that were being reported with the abuse of airbase attacks during the rest of the game.

Is there a plan to address the 'March madness' problem in the next release?

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I would have thought that the WiTP December 8 start would provide the obvious answer to this problem. Start the game on 23 June 1941 with the historical soviet losses on the ground already applied. Then there is no need for a complex set of calculations that attempt to replicate an anomaly - just abstract it.

Losses during airbase attacks have come down at least twice during the past few months.

Start the game on 23 June 1941 with the historical soviet losses on the ground already applied.

ORIGINAL: Helpless

1. Will the split now happen?

It should happen.

Also the morale of AG B is 50 or so now (it should be the opossite if AG A was the new HQ created).

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Also the morale of AG B is 50 or so now (it should be the opossite if AG A was the new HQ created).

HQ morale is not used much. You can ignore it.

Then why not make it 70 at start (german NM in 1942)?

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I would have thought that the WiTP December 8 start would provide the obvious answer to this problem. Start the game on 23 June 1941 with the historical soviet losses on the ground already applied. Then there is no need for a complex set of calculations that attempt to replicate an anomaly - just abstract it.

This solution would make a lot of folks unhappy. They actually like to micromanage the Luftwaffe strikes and run up the score, it is practically its own minigame. (I'm one of these people who considers the whole air war a bother and am not fond of micromanaging it, but tastes vary.)