Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Albion99

Quick observation on efficiency of JU87 on first turn airfield bombing - knowing that update no. 32 has reduced effective Sov AA, but surprised to see just how effective JUs are now - 24 planes destroying 100+ on the ground for no loss in one raid (sorry don't have exact stats to hand).

Overall this time round destroyed over 4200+ on T1, best under 1.07.15 was ~3750, so big improvement doing everything the same (fighter sweeps, tired Sov fighters from intercepts etc).

Observed the same on both your posts.

One "gamey" trick still seems to work -- as the Germans, you can still send the army-recon airbases around as mobile fill-up stations for your mechanized units. As long as one of those airbases is adjacent to the fuel-drop target, it gets 100% of the dropped amount.

My suggestion on this would be that in order to get the 100% transfer, the airbase in question would need to have at least one non-recon air unit in it. That would at least force the Germans to use their more valuable ABs. Plus it would make more sense. The Storchs and other light recon a/c do not require a full-scale airbase to take off and land. But JU-52s do, so they should need an AB to which they would be eligible to transfer.

ORIGINAL: BJP III

One "gamey" trick still seems to work -- as the Germans, you can still send the army-recon airbases around as mobile fill-up stations for your mechanized units. As long as one of those airbases is adjacent to the fuel-drop target, it gets 100% of the dropped amount.

My suggestion on this would be that in order to get the 100% transfer, the airbase in question would need to have at least one non-recon air unit in it. That would at least force the Germans to use their more valuable ABs. Plus it would make more sense. The Storchs and other light recon a/c do not require a full-scale airbase to take off and land. But JU-52s do, so they should need an AB to which they would be eligible to transfer.

No, please no.
The Army airbases are WAD, I hope. It's not just a matter of having a suitable landing field, but also of radio communications, etc.

ORIGINAL: morvael

2) Engineer and construction units - simply those offmap units that are visible in CR when you will select "Eng" and "Const" only. Previously any SU in a HQ was eligible to be selected but it didn't make sense for me, to have AT, AA or Tank units assist in fort building.

I understand the reason for do it while it is building but what happens once the fort level 4 is reached. Can they be added then. If not there will be little point in keeping a FR in place once the level is reached.

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: morvael

Perhaps there are also some other changes that affect your game, but most likely it's c) and refit blocking/max 60% CV. No longer the Soviet player can play having all his front-line units on refit (as I did). But as I said above I'm willing to reduce the problem and micromanagement by disabling the 60/70 rule.

I would like to see the 60/70 rule disabled. I had built up a nice front with fresh units other than those that have been in combat and after applying the patch ALL my units are now only at 60% so all my planning has been wasted. I've been rotating entire armies and fronts out of the line to reorganize them. If anything make it so units in enemy zones of control can't go into refit mode. I don't see why units next to enemy units go down to 60%.

One of the problems with applying a patch mid scenario. It doesn't make it right having said that. Units at the front should retain whatever TOE% they had before the patch was applied.

ORIGINAL: Chris H

One of the problems with applying a patch mid scenario. It doesn't make it right having said that. Units at the front should retain whatever TOE% they had before the patch was applied.

Going by Denniss post it doesn't seem like the TOE drops, but rather that the elements switch and then don't refill past the TOE limit for frontline units.

morvael,

will anymore updates to this patch, for example the refit changes you mentioned earlier, be fully compatible with games started with 1.08?

I don't want to start a new campaign and not be able to update it, especially regarding those refit changes.

All game mechanics changes from the .exe will be applied to ongoing games, just the data changes require a new game to take effect.

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: morvael

.

I would like to see the 60/70 rule disabled.

After more thought I have to agree the snowball effect is not HISTORICAL.

Disable

Some of the original concepts by GG may based more of modern (anglo-)amercian thoughts than reflecting the reality.
Both sides reinforced their front troops, sometimes even in fire. Pulling out a whole division was a luxus that no side could afford. But normally, you would expect at least some battalions in local, tactical reserve, which could be reinforced.
A suggestion might be just to slow reinforcement for units in direct enemy contact a bit, at least enough to compensate for attrition and minor casualities.

I can't say that I like or agree with anything that reinforces the replacement shuffle. It's never been clear to me why at the scale this game is played, reinforcement to full 100% can't take place in any given hex, even if adjacent to the enemy. It's just micromanagement hell. This isn't a tactical level game. The effect desired is or ought to be fully modeled by attrition losses, and nothing further is needed.

As others note, this mechanic oddly favors the offense in an IGOUGO game system. Which strikes me as deeply perverse.

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: Chris H

One of the problems with applying a patch mid scenario. It doesn't make it right having said that. Units at the front should retain whatever TOE% they had before the patch was applied.

Going by Denniss post it doesn't seem like the TOE drops, but rather that the elements switch and then don't refill past the TOE limit for frontline units.

to: cato12, I don't think this would be an issue in a fresh 1.08 game as its a product of a one off spring cleaning. Whats happening is:

a) refit routine detects that there is stuff in a formation that doesn't fit the current TOE, so it removes it. This includes old 'light' tanks such as T-26s for T-70s but also versions of rifle squads etc
b) I think the old routine left in all sorts of obsolete rubbish as it upgraded, its clear the new routine does a clean sweep
c) having junked the stuff there, the new routine starts to fill the unit up. If its in refit and >10 hexes and on a rail, this is incredibly fast. But if the unit is in contact, the 60% rule stops most of the recovery.

In an ongoing game you're not going to have so much obsolete stuff cluttering up your units so in principle the 60% rule is good. Just on swapping to 1.08 it really disrupts the OOBs.

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

Some of the original concepts by GG may based more of modern (anglo-)amercian thoughts than reflecting the reality.
Both sides reinforced their front troops, sometimes even in fire. Pulling out a whole division was a luxus that no side could afford. But normally, you would expect at least some battalions in local, tactical reserve, which could be reinforced.
A suggestion might be just to slow reinforcement for units in direct enemy contact a bit, at least enough to compensate for attrition and minor casualities.

agree in part, ie both sides chucked battalions/regiments into a formation in contact to refill it (eg the Soviet feeding in of reserves at Stalingrad). But every account of the war from the Soviet perspective mentions 'xxxx army was drawn into Stavka reserve'. This seemed to happen after a major battle or when the Soviets were building up and shifting reserves. So I think the Soviets did pull complete armies off the line, or rotate the in contact divisions on a quiet front, in order for them refit, reinforce etc.

Loki, in practice, what is going to happen is the player attacking is going to be able to refit on the front line and the defender will not. (Unless the defender deliberately chooses to sacrifice units to remain in contact.)

Only in static portions of the line will both sides be forced to rotate units.

I question how realistic this all is. And bottom line: it's not fun. It's busywork.

It causes a snowball effect which is in fact in any game called and exploit of the rule set.

Most people on these forums call it CHEESE

As we have seen over the years somethings that look historical or are WAD simply don't work in a game and get exploited and trash a game.

We all want historical feel to a game, not let me see how fast I can roll the snowball.

A fix would be to move the replacement phase after the moving side hit the done button before the others movement phase.

I don't know if that's even possible to code.

That way if one side is tring to retreat they can get replasements.

Easy fix is to turn it off all together.

can't say that I like or agree with anything that reinforces the replacement shuffle. It's never been clear to me why at the scale this game is played, reinforcement to full 100% can't take place in any given hex, even if adjacent to the enemy. It's just micromanagement hell. This isn't a tactical level game. The effect desired is or ought to be fully modeled by attrition losses, and nothing further is needed.

As others note, this mechanic oddly favors the offense in an IGOUGO game system. Which strikes me as deeply perverse.

Agree. I think the 60% rule is as artificial as ATTACK+1. A hex is roughly 10x10 miles. It's inconceivable why a division would be stuck at 60%. I have not played past turn 2 with the new patch so I can't say what the long term effects are but I can already tell that troops are not going were I want them to go and Russian manpower pool is twice as high as under 1.07.15.

ORIGINAL: Oshawott

can't say that I like or agree with anything that reinforces the replacement shuffle. It's never been clear to me why at the scale this game is played, reinforcement to full 100% can't take place in any given hex, even if adjacent to the enemy. It's just micromanagement hell. This isn't a tactical level game. The effect desired is or ought to be fully modeled by attrition losses, and nothing further is needed.

As others note, this mechanic oddly favors the offense in an IGOUGO game system. Which strikes me as deeply perverse.

Agree. I think the 60% rule is as artificial as ATTACK+1. A hex is roughly 10x10 miles. It's inconceivable why a division would be stuck at 60%. I have not played past turn 2 with the new patch so I can't say what the long term effects are but I can already tell that troops are not going were I want them to go and manpower pool is twice as high as under 1.07.15.

It will be like under 1.05 and 1.06 where the German side will have 200,000 armament points and 1 million men in manpower pool in late 43 or early 44 - not good.

The SHC gets enough units to atleast get men into new units or units off the front, but the down side is the front can be cracked easly and once that happens the snowball is rolling.

I will start updating the code to make 1.08 Service Pack 1 this week. But I don't know when the hotfix will be published. You must be patient. I agree 60/70 as a micromanagement+snowball enchancing routine must go.

ORIGINAL: morvael

I will start updating the code to make 1.08 Service Pack 1 this week. But I don't know when the hotfix will be published. You must be patient. I agree 60/70 as a micromanagement+snowball enchancing routine must go.

Thank you!
Good discussion, btw.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I can't say that I like or agree with anything that reinforces the replacement shuffle. It's never been clear to me why at the scale this game is played, reinforcement to full 100% can't take place in any given hex, even if adjacent to the enemy. It's just micromanagement hell. This isn't a tactical level game. The effect desired is or ought to be fully modeled by attrition losses, and nothing further is needed.

As others note, this mechanic oddly favors the offense in an IGOUGO game system. Which strikes me as deeply perverse.

I logged in just to support this! Maybe I'm just too lazy, but rotating tons of units is NOT FUN. This situation needs a rethink.

While I'm at it, I notice I get bored with reconning too. So I don't do that much either. But if you're playing Gamesaurus Rex, there is no need to recon. His line is outside Vladivostok.