Game Suggestions:

[Tarhunnas]

Now I am a bit fed up with the casualty counter resetting at random times. It can be virtually impossible to get a picture of what your losses were during the enemy turn. I also suspect that the counter can reset if you save the game in the middle of a turn and then reload. Really, how hard can it be? Sorry, that didn't sound too constructive... But how about skipping that thing with showing losses during the enemy turn first and just have it like this? (The numbers are identical because I copied the columns, but they would of course be different in reality).

The non-combat loss values seem almost random, so those can be removed to save space.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: saintsup

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

There is a tendency for very deep defensive belts to be constructed by the Soviets as soon as the front is stable. The Soviets can do this because they have plenty of units to dig. This will tend to give things a WW1 feeling in 1942. It is notable that the defensive lines put up by a Soviet player will be far more extensive than those the Soviets are given at the start of the 1942 GC.

To limit the use of very deep defensive lines, I suggest some limit on how much fortifications can be built. There has to be a balance her, it should be possible to build Kusrk-like defensive belts, but OTOH we don't want the whole map to look like Kursk.

So, some alternative suggestions.

1. Limit fortifications to level 2 fortifications for hexes not adjacent to enemy hexes unless either within say 2 or 3 hexes from a city or in a hex with a FZ. This would still make it possible to build defensive lines, but it would take the expenditure of APs for the FZs.

2. Make it cost something to build fortifications. After all, it is more than just dug trenches, they require mines and barbed wire and concrete. Make it cost 1 AP for each level 3 or more fortification. Maybe not practicable, because you would need some kind of interface for the playe to control this.

I second the statement. I made a very good 41 against a PBEM noob (Leningrad + 4,5 M losses) and I'm facing a Kursk like front in summer 42 that I cannot break, including massing 4 Pz armies, all aerial support, all pioneers, ...

Not very sure about the solutions though ...

What version was this game played with? 1.04 has lower fort building and many other changes.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: saintsup

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

There is a tendency for very deep defensive belts to be constructed by the Soviets as soon as the front is stable. The Soviets can do this because they have plenty of units to dig. This will tend to give things a WW1 feeling in 1942. It is notable that the defensive lines put up by a Soviet player will be far more extensive than those the Soviets are given at the start of the 1942 GC.

To limit the use of very deep defensive lines, I suggest some limit on how much fortifications can be built. There has to be a balance her, it should be possible to build Kusrk-like defensive belts, but OTOH we don't want the whole map to look like Kursk.

So, some alternative suggestions.

1. Limit fortifications to level 2 fortifications for hexes not adjacent to enemy hexes unless either within say 2 or 3 hexes from a city or in a hex with a FZ. This would still make it possible to build defensive lines, but it would take the expenditure of APs for the FZs.

2. Make it cost something to build fortifications. After all, it is more than just dug trenches, they require mines and barbed wire and concrete. Make it cost 1 AP for each level 3 or more fortification. Maybe not practicable, because you would need some kind of interface for the playe to control this.

I second the statement. I made a very good 41 against a PBEM noob (Leningrad + 4,5 M losses) and I'm facing a Kursk like front in summer 42 that I cannot break, including massing 4 Pz armies, all aerial support, all pioneers, ...

Not very sure about the solutions though ...

What version was this game played with? 1.04 has lower fort building and many other changes.

It was 1.04 all along, upgrading as beta patches came out

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: saintsup

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

There is a tendency for very deep defensive belts to be constructed by the Soviets as soon as the front is stable. The Soviets can do this because they have plenty of units to dig. This will tend to give things a WW1 feeling in 1942. It is notable that the defensive lines put up by a Soviet player will be far more extensive than those the Soviets are given at the start of the 1942 GC. (snip...)

What version was this game played with? 1.04 has lower fort building and many other changes.

Started with 1.04, continously upgraded to latest beta, now on 1.04.24.
AAR: fb.asp?m=2792361&go=last

You can see the same tendency in 76mm and Ketzas AAR, but that was started under 1.03 I think.

[Great_Ajax]

The problem here is that the commander of the Autotransportabile Corps is Gen. Francesco Zingales. This is the same guy who commands the XXXV Ital. Corps that arrives as a reinforcement in June 1942 in Southern Russia. I can't have this guy assigned to two different commands.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hello

I don`t know where to post this problem there for I post it her. In tech forum it seems the wrong froum because nobody reacted.

GC 1941-1945 the Italian "Autotransportabile IT Corps" don’t have a leader assign. Therefore never a leader can be assgigne to this corps...3 solutions:

- delete this corps from the GC 1941-1945 or
- assign a leader even if it not historically the right one or
- change the code. If this happen it should be possible to change the leader for free

Here are some pictures and a save where you see the problem:

tm.asp?m=2832703

Omat

I'll get it noted over on the tester forum.

[Lieste]

Surely better to make one up (with a suitable notation) rather than have no possibility of a commander? Assuming that no commander is a bad thing on average?

[Great_Ajax]

The Autotrans. Corps should almost never be activated anyways and even if it does, the player should be able to assign one easily enough.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Surely better to make one up (with a suitable notation) rather than have no possibility of a commander? Assuming that no commander is a bad thing on average?

[Lieste]

I might have misunderstood, but Omat appears to say that the player cannot assign a commander, because it doesn't have a slot to fill???

[Omat]

Hello

It seems to be a problem with this game only.. I have managed to activated the Italien army again in a new game on turn 3 and here I can change now the corps leader....but with this game witch is attached here tm.asp?m=2832703 (you can load it or simply look at the sreeshots), it is not possible...so may be a bug which not in every game occur.

An other topic is why I managed know 3 times to activated the whole italien army...but I haven`t a save game before this happend..sadly

Omat

ORIGINAL: Lieste

I might have misunderstood, but Omat appears to say that the player cannot assign a commander, because it doesn't have a slot to fill???

[squatter]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Now I am a bit fed up with the casualty counter resetting at random times. It can be virtually impossible to get a picture of what your losses were during the enemy turn. I also suspect that the counter can reset if you save the game in the middle of a turn and then reload. Really, how hard can it be? Sorry, that didn't sound too constructive... But how about skipping that thing with showing losses during the enemy turn first and just have it like this? (The numbers are identical because I copied the columns, but they would of course be different in reality).

The non-combat loss values seem almost random, so those can be removed to save space.

Absolutely +1.

This screen is a joke. Surely adding up a bunch of numbers correctly is not beyond this game.

[sven6345789]

this regards buildable soviet units
a) if you built a support unit in a HQ (like STAVKA), you can view the TOE of the unit before building it, thus knowing what you will get before you built it.
b) if you built a soviet unit on map via shift b (next to moscow, for example), you get the admin cost but you have no idea of the TOE of the unit before you built it unless you check similar units on map or use the editor;

suggestion: make it possible to view the TOE for on-map buildable soviet units so that you know what, for example, a breakthrough-artillery-division looks like before you built it.


regards,

Sven

[traemyn]

A lot of weather suggestions that I agree with including some variations on the random weather or something like a forecast feature.

However I would like to add a separate, somewhat smaller request hopefully, that at least the First Winter Rule apply to any Blizzard turns in random weather. Currently a Soviet player can have a blizzard turn in Oct and Nov 1941 and yet get no bonus from the rule and it just doesn't make any sense to the player honestly.

[cpt flam]

this could be hurting as even with random weather from december to february only blizzard will occur

[wpurdom]

Having ZOC's control vast swathes of territory regardless of the size, quality or mobility of the attcaker and the defender seems a problem Of course, any adjustment would tend to tip things toward the Axis whereas in the present build the Axis seems too strong, if anything.
If a weak, poor-morale, small force is against a strong, mobile, high morale force there should be a good possibility of the ZOC failing, especially on the scale of the east front map.

[delatbabel]

A recent rule change in 1.04.28:

4) Rule Change (section 7.5.4.1) – Static units may no longer use rail, naval or amphibious movement.

Please reverse this rule.  It makes the 1942 and 1943 campaigns unplayable for the Soviets.

Either that or make it logistically possible to bring units out of static mode.  Currently it costs approximately 2x the build cost of a mech, tank, or motorised unit to bring it out of static mode, so that the only option is to move the units around by rail.  Preventing the static units being moved by rail basically paralyses the Soviet army.

I have to ask -- was this rule extensively playtested?

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

A recent rule change in 1.04.28:

4) Rule Change (section 7.5.4.1) – Static units may no longer use rail, naval or amphibious movement.

Please reverse this rule.  It makes the 1942 and 1943 campaigns unplayable for the Soviets.

Either that or make it logistically possible to bring units out of static mode.  Currently it costs approximately 2x the build cost of a mech, tank, or motorised unit to bring it out of static mode, so that the only option is to move the units around by rail.  Preventing the static units being moved by rail basically paralyses the Soviet army.

I have to ask -- was this rule extensively playtested?

Part of the intent is to limit the Soviet capability. If they could too easily reactivate units or move them all over the battlefield, then the Axis couldn't possibly get even close to historical results. This also helps reduce the gamey ability to quickly move static units into the front of an Axis advance in hopes that any attack on them will kick them out of static mode for free.

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

A recent rule change in 1.04.28:

4) Rule Change (section 7.5.4.1) – Static units may no longer use rail, naval or amphibious movement.

Please reverse this rule.  It makes the 1942 and 1943 campaigns unplayable for the Soviets.

Either that or make it logistically possible to bring units out of static mode.  Currently it costs approximately 2x the build cost of a mech, tank, or motorised unit to bring it out of static mode, so that the only option is to move the units around by rail.  Preventing the static units being moved by rail basically paralyses the Soviet army.

I have to ask -- was this rule extensively playtested?

Part of the intent is to limit the Soviet capability. If they could too easily reactivate units or move them all over the battlefield, then the Axis couldn't possibly get even close to historical results. This also helps reduce the gamey ability to quickly move static units into the front of an Axis advance in hopes that any attack on them will kick them out of static mode for free.

When they get kicked out of static mode for free do they get trucks for free as well? I have had Soviet mech units knocked out of static and I have put them back into static and they reap trucks and APs all over again. Is this WAD?

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

A recent rule change in 1.04.28:

4) Rule Change (section 7.5.4.1) – Static units may no longer use rail, naval or amphibious movement.

Please reverse this rule.  It makes the 1942 and 1943 campaigns unplayable for the Soviets.

Either that or make it logistically possible to bring units out of static mode.  Currently it costs approximately 2x the build cost of a mech, tank, or motorised unit to bring it out of static mode, so that the only option is to move the units around by rail.  Preventing the static units being moved by rail basically paralyses the Soviet army.

I have to ask -- was this rule extensively playtested?

Part of the intent is to limit the Soviet capability. If they could too easily reactivate units or move them all over the battlefield, then the Axis couldn't possibly get even close to historical results. This also helps reduce the gamey ability to quickly move static units into the front of an Axis advance in hopes that any attack on them will kick them out of static mode for free.

When they get kicked out of static mode for free do they get trucks for free as well? I have had Soviet mech units knocked out of static and I have put them back into static and they reap trucks and APs all over again. Is this WAD?

I'm not sure about whether or not the trucks are pulled from the pool (I'm sure they are) but getting trucks back and more ap's does occur and yes, that is by design. I am hoping that will change in the future.

[Ketza]

Thanks for the quick reply.

[Schmart]

I'd like to suggest a new column in the production screen listing current total numbers for each equipment type in units. For example, how many PzIIIh's do I have in all my units? Well, the new column would tell me.