Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: Pelton




The problem is the game was designed around the thought of tring to get players to attack attack attack as Hitler and Stalin did.

Which is why the retreat lose combat model - which has never gotten close to historical loses and has never worked as it forces players to turtle. Because there is no reward for Germany to attack WitE or WitW.

So the design to make players attack makes them turtle?
Theoretically possible but in spite of its faults, completely untrue in the case of WitE. Turtling is a choice, and a bad one.

DoH your as stupid as the designers.

If I attack and win and the ratio is 1 to 1

If I do nothing and defend and lose the ratio is 1 to 1

If I do nothing and win and the ratio is 1 to 3

you have to be Theoretically, ignoranant

Bro your just wrong as GG is, red is and all the other pro people area for the last 5 yrs.

BUT IN MT WORDS THE revolutionary thought for these guys.

Get off your lazy asses and fix the problem or keep being REDFAN BOYS

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

We are currently reworking production to centre on chassis production from which variants will then build. This has distinct advantages in the setting of historical production. Within a fixed chassis production should we allow players the ability to change variant numbers?

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Have you ever stopped to consider that what you are asking may not actually be possible? There is more than code at play - there is also time and resources. In 5 years whilst you have identified the symptoms you have been unable to suggest how a 'cure' might be delivered.

If you want to get someone to do something that you cannot do, telling them that they are stupid, stubborn, lazy and biased is not a good basis for your request and crosses an unacceptable line.

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I'm a bit curious just how the relationship between morale, experience and combat looks like. From my (philosphical) point of view I'd suggest a division between morale and experience along the lines of:

morale: impacts the 'stubborness' of a unit attacking and defending ground, determining how many shots/combat rounds are needed before the unit breaks off and retreats. Also determines the number of MP needed to cross into enemy held territory. No influence on the combat performance of a unit.

experience: determines the combat performance of a unit, the rate at which the unit takes losses per shot/combat round and the losses inflicted per shot/combat round.

Along these lines we'd have,

German units: high morale and high experience
Finnish units: medium morale (with bonus when fighting on home soil) and high experience
Soviet units: high morale and low experience
Other axis allies: low morale and low experience (morale bonus when fighting on home soil)

So in effect if we have a German unit fighting a Soviet unit in the early stage of the war, the Soviets deal significantly less damage than the Germans and suffer far more because of the gap in experience. However, with their high morale they can drag out a fight leading to higher combat delays and higher losses when defending. When attacking the Soviets can push back a German unit if they bring enough units simply by outlasting the Germans - with the cost being units at the brink of exhaustion.

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: Pelton




The problem is the game was designed around the thought of tring to get players to attack attack attack as Hitler and Stalin did.

Which is why the retreat lose combat model - which has never gotten close to historical loses and has never worked as it forces players to turtle. Because there is no reward for Germany to attack WitE or WitW.

So the design to make players attack makes them turtle? Theoretically possible but in spite of its faults, completely untrue in the case of WitE. Turtling is a choice, and a bad one.

ORIGINAL: rrbill

KUDOS @ Michael T & Morvael for the latest fuel exploit and the expected fix.

Wonder how many more there are that are not reported.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

No its simple math and we have seen the disaster of german players attacking from 42 on when pockets are not possible.

You can last 4-6 months longer doing nothing but RR set-up this has been proven yrs ago

Old news

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

We are currently reworking production to centre on chassis production from which variants will then build. This has distinct advantages in the setting of historical production. Within a fixed chassis production should we allow players the ability to change variant numbers?

If it goes hand in hand with the ability to choose ground unit equipment from a list of historically available/ToO&E compatible elements as per current air units, that would be a great step forward.

While on the subject of ToOE. Are late upgrading units ever going to jump over obsolete ToOEs straight to the latest in stead of plodding through the obsolete upgrade to get to the latest? Can't see any historical basis for this outside of Stalinist/Menshevik "two-stage theory" which isn't even relevant.

ORIGINAL: el hefe

One thing I have been advocating is strategic reserve holding boxes. Once you place a unit off-map into one of these boxes, I would like to see the unit drop outdated equipment and have priority for current OB requirements. This should encourage the player to pull units voluntary off the front and ship them back west for a refit.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

We are currently reworking production to centre on chassis production from which variants will then build. This has distinct advantages in the setting of historical production. Within a fixed chassis production should we allow players the ability to change variant numbers?

If it goes hand in hand with the ability to choose ground unit equipment from a list of historically available/ToO&E compatible elements as per current air units, that would be a great step forward.

While on the subject of ToOE. Are late upgrading units ever going to jump over obsolete ToOEs straight to the latest in stead of plodding through the obsolete upgrade to get to the latest? Can't see any historical basis for this outside of Stalinist/Menshevik "two-stage theory" which isn't even relevant.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

ORIGINAL: No idea

Better tools for micromanagement should be among top priorities, imho. Simply shuffling support units is a pain. It would be far, far quicker an easier if there were two windows (like in the microsoft OS) and you could drag and drop

Great idea but I'm pretty sure drag and drop is a coding impossibility unfortunately.

ORIGINAL: Higgins001

Did Pelton really get booted for calling someone 'ignoranant' or am I missing something?
That's a pretty wimpy(if not humorous) insult to be tossed over, I think.
You know he pretty much argues with his same type. I'd cut them some slack. just saying.

ORIGINAL: Higgins001
Did Pelton really get booted for calling someone 'ignoranant' or am I missing something?
That's a pretty wimpy(if not humorous) insult to be tossed over, I think.
You know he pretty much argues with his same type. I'd cut them some slack. just saying.