Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: terje439

The thing is as I see it, the game is being redesigned to match the super turns, not the non-elite openings and moves, and that does not fit my game style, and sorry to say, each patch drives me further and further away. Others might not agree, but for me the game as of now is simply no fun, and this patch to me looks to be sending it further down the wrong (for me atleast) path.

Terje

I can not agree. It is quite opposite. It will have impact on games with the "super" openings when Panzers are hanging on turn 5 around Vyazma, Kharkov etc w/o fuel. If you fail to advance you are close to railheads and there is no reason for fuel airdrop.

Also, bug fix 31) means that 260 light armored cars the Germans have on 22 June give them some bonus 5.5CV in total

Current balance may be really shaken up by the fixes. I count 461 875 men, 10 877 guns and 727 AFVs in Axis support units (minus construction units), that can be now used to their fullest potential in the first period of war, while their counterparts on the other side are still weak and not so numerous (309 915/5 904/79).

Well, guess I see things different from the rest, which ofc is great for the producers and the others, but for me this game is going the wrong way.
 
But as I see it, with a less than perfect T1-5, you will encounter a severe USSR wall at the rivers, placed properly you will have severe issues penetrating it more than 2 hexes wide. Add that a single panzer division will be forced to retreat due to the way combat is resolved (numbers seems far too important early on to me), and you need to stack your panzers. That means fewer surrounded USSR units, which means fewer USSR surrenders, which means a higher USSR OOB. That again gives you further issues down the line at the next river.
 
So, let us all just agree to disagree [:)]

@Sean, sorry, but the game vs BigBaba is my last. I have no fun with this game anymore tbh.
 
 
Terje

How about a phased movement option like was done by John Tiller Games for the Panzer Campaign series to make the game more realistic?

ORIGINAL: terje439

The thing is as I see it, the game is being redesigned to match the super turns, not the non-elite openings and moves, and that does not fit my game style, and sorry to say, each patch drives me further and further away. Others might not agree, but for me the game as of now is simply no fun, and this patch to me looks to be sending it further down the wrong (for me atleast) path.

Terje

I think you have a valid point. If we look at the current batch of AARs, there are a couple of quite implausible axis gains, but in others, it seems if you let the Soviets off the hook, then they can create very solid fronts quite early.

Clearly in here is a mix of skill and attitude. I play for enjoyment and if top class play means fussing over every little detail I am not interested. However, I prefer PBEM as you gain the enjoyment of interaction and the horrible feeling your opponent is up to something nasty.

I'm glad to see this will end/reduce some of the worst abuses of the game engine and a more limited blizzard would be a welcome balance point.

As part of the earlier discussion about reducing supply as a balance, I'm playing a 2nd scenario (the Moscow one that came with Lost Battles) with SigUp as the Soviets. Now that is unrealistic (in that its implausible to see a 1-1 odds on that front in a campaign), but at 75% logistics, its developing rather interestingly. The Axis front in the immediate Moscow sector is holding quite well, but the flanks are breaking up - no idea where its going to end (I've just done my turn 19), but odds on it could leave a powerful axis force not far from Moscow - potentially a nice set up for 1942.

Reason I'm saying this is (a) I really like your AARs; and (b) I think its a case of feeling our way to balances for a given game. I'd be happy to play the Soviets with 95% morale, as if you play the AI and use 85-90% you just don't see the sort of high CV walls that a few AARs have generated. The quid pro quo may be lower supply for both sides to dampen mobility - or not.

and as an edit - should have said, thanks to all for putting this patch together, most appreciated

ORIGINAL: morvael

So it's hordes of 1=1s (Guards and Cav corps change that situation, though) vs 2=3 Germans.

Morvael, well done for all the coding. Congratulations on the changes! For me, the best thing is that one can counterattack - now attacks with 100,000 troops in December and even January may fail to dislodge a single infantry division.

To me, they look good, but there is still the automatic morale decrease for each unit (1 point per turn), which gives significant incentive to send troops back to Germany and fall back as fast as possible (as it also creates strain on Soviet trucks and via reducing supply, reduces mobility of Soviet units). Also, 1=1 is in AI game. I have not played Soviets for a while, but I always had at least 60% units with cv between 2 & 3 (and some elite with displayed cv of 8, so 4 real cv).

Anyway, the changes seem to be in the right direction - kind of getting rid of bomber fuel supply vs somewhat easier blizzard (hard to say how much easier - it may be easier in December, but is it easier in February?) and fixes with HQ buildup, calculation of CV (100 times too high cv, that seems like a serious bug) and better support unit commitment.

Of course, now everyone will bomb half the front to have easier attacks, so the bombers will get some use (before the patch generally the better use of bombers was to supply fuel). And again the army airfields with reckon planes will follow closely all the tanks so the drops will be more efficient...

Once again, splendid job Morvael.

Yes, morale drops 1 per turn, but this is to reduce morale to June '41 levels, because it will be pumped up sky high by summer/autumn victories. Since there is no automatic drop of 1 additional point in lost combat, overall morale must still end up better in the end than before. Taking both away seemed like too big advantage, and the combat one had to be taken off to decrease the incentives to run away.

Don't worry about the CVx100 bug, it was just something that was broken in one place but compensated in the other so actually this fix changes nothing to the end user, except engine being cleaner (2 out of 3 places didn't multiply CV by 100).

The bug was not about support units commitment. It was about support units (and German army airbases) failing all, some or more often than they should their leader rolls.

We'll see how the PBEMs will go with the patch, then you will decide whether to thank me or curse me

I'm not too sure about that automatic morale loss. I think it is perhaps 4 turns too many.

I'm not too sure about that automatic morale loss. I think it is perhaps 4 turns too many.

Could we maybe play the new patch first before we start demanding more changes? [:D]

Perhaps I misunderstood the manual, but with the blizzard effects running through March 42 it would equate to a 16 point morale loss. For an average 75 morale infantry division, I doubt it will go higher than 85. Meaning a 16 point drop-off would lead to weaker units, even before factoring in combat morale losses. But well, let's see about it first.

Yes, but how much weaker they would be with every lost combat removing additional 1 point?

Also, more morale will be preserved for the summer, because the automated loss of 1 point in lost combat is disabled.

This was very frustrating indeed.

ORIGINAL: terje439

The thing is as I see it, the game is being redesigned to match the super turns, not the non-elite openings and moves, and that does not fit my game style, and sorry to say, each patch drives me further and further away. Others might not agree, but for me the game as of now is simply no fun, and this patch to me looks to be sending it further down the wrong (for me atleast) path.

Terje

Terje, this blizzard fix isn't aimed at the 1%. It's for the 99% of people who aren't using fuel exploits to crush the Soviets in 1941 and must therefore deal with the blizzard for real.

This most certainly includes you.

Not seeing how you could possibly object to this, it's dealing with a very longstanding problem in the game. I don't know if it will work, but it can hardly be worse than the vanilla blizzard which has been utterly broken more or less from the getgo.

[&o]
I finished a blizzard as Soviets a few weeks ago and as German last week. Neither was fun.

ORIGINAL: morvael

Yes, but how much weaker they would be with every lost combat removing additional 1 point?

I don't doubt that. My point is, that they are perhaps still too weak in terms of morale. But this will clear up once human vs. human tests come in.

Something I don't think is being considered are all of the changes that came in 1.07.10 (the current public beta) that made some major changes in the way morale rules work. They will put the Soviets in a worse situation in 1942 (lower morale units and harder to get the morale up) while the Germans will have opportunities for their units that are below NM to regain to NM faster. If anything, the potential is for quite a scary time for the Soviets in 1942. We won't really know for sure until players get that far using the new rules, but I would expect 1942 to have a much different feeling.

As for the airbases and refueling, in WitW we have fixed airbases on the map, but in WitE we don't have that. Yes, clearly you will have to take some airbase units with your Panzers if you want to maximize your air transport capabilities. The AI will never do this and will suffer for it. A human player can and should, but it will cause a little more difficulty as you might find yourself having to protect an airbase. The big change is not being able to bring fuel in the heavy bombers, so there's only so much the transports can do.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: terje439

The thing is as I see it, the game is being redesigned to match the super turns, not the non-elite openings and moves, and that does not fit my game style, and sorry to say, each patch drives me further and further away. Others might not agree, but for me the game as of now is simply no fun, and this patch to me looks to be sending it further down the wrong (for me atleast) path.

Terje

Terje, this blizzard fix isn't aimed at the 1%. It's for the 99% of people who aren't using fuel exploits to crush the Soviets in 1941 and must therefore deal with the blizzard for real.

This most certainly includes you.

Not seeing how you could possibly object to this, it's dealing with a very longstanding problem in the game. I don't know if it will work, but it can hardly be worse than the vanilla blizzard which has been utterly broken more or less from the getgo.

I think he is not objecting to this, but rather to the restrictions on aerial resupply.

+1

About the best news lately! The dev support remains superior as always. Thanks also to Morvael for this much needed rule alternative. I almost envy you guys for being allowed to look into and modify the source of this gem. I am very curious how the new blizzard will feel like. Sounds like with this the realism of the game just made a gigantic jump forward.

It is like moravel said : 2-3 cv for infantry and 4-6 cv for panzers but :

Had to give up two hexes per turn in december (AI only scored 2-4 atacks per turn that month)
Panzers were kept in the citys in the rear where i planed to make a stand in february :

Ivanovo-Vladimir-Ryazan-Lipesk-Voronej-Vorosilovgrad

Got out of Tambov,Murom,Bogusar in the last moment , againt a humman oponent at least 6 divisions would be toast.
Had trown 12 infantry divisions to the slaughter, to slow the soviets down in january , now ( turn 50) they sit in army groups reserve because their morale is below 67.

But the air supply stuff is hardly going to affect him. He never min maxed air supply in the first place or has ever been in a position to truly abuse fuel exploits. The only people affected by this are the MTs and Peltons and Mktours of the world who were bypassing the entire logistical system.