New v1.02.39 Public Beta Now Available!

[PeteJC]

wow lot of good changes. Thanks!

[aMaschina]

Thank you. Tanks breaking down while being railed was annoying and led to week long delays in early 1942 because you had to wait for snow levels to melt away. Can this be applied to an ongoing campaign?

[Stamb]

thanks so much for accounting players feedback and making such a great patch!

[Wild]

Great work guys!

Can't wait to try out the new changes. The Rename tab is excellent.

Thanks for fixing the sound!

[Veterin]

I've just updated the first post with the change list for the new 1.0.2.39 public beta update.

Thanks for all the work that goes into these changes. I think it looks really positive!

[Hardradi]

Thanks for the Beta patch.

[Hardradi]

Thanks for the Beta patch.

[ncc1701e]

That’s quite a significant change in CPP management. Thanks a lot. Let’s go with the testing.

[Jeff_Ahl]

Good to see that CPP has been changed and there is alot of other interesting changes as well. Well done. Will be interesting to test.

[56ajax]

I always get excited about a new release.

Thx.

(In the new editor when you open a scenario there is a typo, FUNCTOINS)

[Jango32]

Increased general front line attrition (damage/destruction of ground elements in units next to an enemy controlled hex).

By how much and under what circumstances? Will 3 full strength divisions of the opposing side suffer increased attrition if they are hugged by an understrength, unready regiment/brigade just the same as if it were 3 full strength divisions instead of the regiment/brigade?

[Joel Billings]

It doesn't matter what is opposite you for front line attrition. As long as a unit is adjacent to an enemy unit in their logistics phase, they will take front line attrition damage.

[malyhin1517]

It doesn't matter what is opposite you for front line attrition. As long as a unit is adjacent to an enemy unit in their logistics phase, they will take front line attrition damage.

It would be correct to complicate the formula for calculating depletion losses. They should depend on the size of the enemy and the terrain. After all, these are the losses of low-intensity battles, and not just non-combat losses.

[Jeff_Ahl]

It would be correct to complicate the formula for calculating depletion losses. They should depend on the size of the enemy and the terrain. After all, these are the losses of low-intensity battles, and not just non-combat losses.

+1

[AlbertN]

For all I can read even a -vacant- enemy hex will increase attrition.

Latest patch 'killed' my games (both I and opponent are unwilling to play with this beta and these attrition changes and other things - the CPP change is good though).

[Joel Billings]

I asked Gary today about the front line attrition and he said the unit has to be next to an enemy unit to suffer these losses.

[FortTell]

It doesn't matter what is opposite you for front line attrition. As long as a unit is adjacent to an enemy unit in their logistics phase, they will take front line attrition damage.

It would be correct to complicate the formula for calculating depletion losses. They should depend on the size of the enemy and the terrain. After all, these are the losses of low-intensity battles, and not just non-combat losses.

Seems sensible, but where do you stop?
Right now, the rules for frontline attrition are simple. If next to an enemy unit, take more damage in logistics phase. We start taking into account division/brigade/regiment size and number of units, ok. Then people start complaining how unfair it is that a 35 exp division is equal to a 95 exp one when attrition damage is concerned, and step by step we would end up with full-on battle simulation?

Now, I am probably commiting a slippery slope logical fallacy here, but is there a satisfactory point that does not diminish verisimilitude and also does not make the logistics phase even more complicated?

[Stamb]

AFAIK, units with different experience should suffer different attrition already

[DesertedFox]

It doesn't matter what is opposite you for front line attrition. As long as a unit is adjacent to an enemy unit in their logistics phase, they will take front line attrition damage.

It would be correct to complicate the formula for calculating depletion losses. They should depend on the size of the enemy and the terrain. After all, these are the losses of low-intensity battles, and not just non-combat losses.

Seems sensible, but where do you stop?
Right now, the rules for frontline attrition are simple. If next to an enemy unit, take more damage in logistics phase. We start taking into account division/brigade/regiment size and number of units, ok. Then people start complaining how unfair it is that a 35 exp division is equal to a 95 exp one when attrition damage is concerned, and step by step we would end up with full-on battle simulation?

Now, I am probably commiting a slippery slope logical fallacy here, but is there a satisfactory point that does not diminish verisimilitude and also does not make the logistics phase even more complicated?

This is from WITE#1 and I assume it would be the same for #2.

9.5.2. FRONT LINE ATTRITION
The higher unit morale and ground element experience level, the fewer
combat attrition losses.

[Joel Billings]

Yes, it is impacted by experience/morale ratings.