Matrix Games Forums

Again its 2by3 chart not mine

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Again its 2by3 chart not mine

That is a complete misrepresentation of the truth. The figures were posted in a thread by Trey where we were discussing what we believed to be correct loss figures with a view to future improvements. That is quite different to them being some quasi official 2by3 figures which you seem to imply.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Again its 2by3 chart not mine

That is a complete misrepresentation of the truth. The figures were posted in a thread by Trey where we were discussing what we believed to be correct loss figures with a view to future improvements. That is quite different to them being some quasi official 2by3 figures which you seem to imply.

No one disagreed with them and we went on and found as best we could the minor loses for same time period.

Did anyone disagree?

I thought allot of positive input went into that thread from Pavel charts Trey used to everyone esle's research.

Ok so they were not "official" but would "possibly" be used for future improvement - which morveal did with .08.

Might not be the official 2by3 "chart" but morveal .08 patch is close to historical as per my data here over 12 turns.

tm.asp?m=3822946&mpage=4&key=

Not official but WAD and historical.

I think the retreat losses for the Germans in 1943-44 is okay now from a manpower ratio perspective. Equipment/tank losses are too low that's correct. When retreating a significant chunk of the damaged equipment should be lost. Key question now is what the problem is. Are the number of destroyed/damaged tanks too low or does this system not adequately model the loss of damaged equipment upon retreat?

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I think the retreat losses for the Germans in 1943-44 is okay now from a manpower ratio perspective. Equipment/tank losses are too low that's correct. When retreating a significant chunk of the damaged equipment should be lost. Key question now is what the problem is. Are the number of destroyed/damaged tanks too low or does this system not adequately model the loss of damaged equipment upon retreat?

That's true looking at the data.

But allot of players limit gun production, down near 51% so they get more rifle squads, so yes on AFv's not so much on guns

ORIGINAL: Kofiman
Good question to ask, Mehring. I'd expect a big complaint from Pelton about how there's no counterplay to the bombings, with him failing to mention the strikes being allowed to fly unopposed.

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The key is over time its an insane tool if used right and there is zero counter as AA seems to be about usless as it is with WitW.

I might have a bit more respect for you, Pelton, if you didn't make chaos wait several months to continue playing, while starting up more games under 1.08 as it still has your current barbarossa fuel exploit. Only make people wait when you think you're in a disadvantaged position.

Kofi,

A bit out of line dude. The Chaos v P game was put on hold so the swapping bug fix could be tested. With no save in server game, that game would have been over when patch came out, then, would have to take another game all the way to '43 to test the patch.

ORIGINAL: Kofiman

ORIGINAL: Kofiman
Good question to ask, Mehring. I'd expect a big complaint from Pelton about how there's no counterplay to the bombings, with him failing to mention the strikes being allowed to fly unopposed.

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The key is over time its an insane tool if used right and there is zero counter as AA seems to be about usless as it is with WitW.

I might have a bit more respect for you, Pelton, if you didn't make chaos wait several months to continue playing, while starting up more games under 1.08 as it still has your current barbarossa fuel exploit. Only make people wait when you think you're in a disadvantaged position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWHs9atxCeU

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Kofi,

A bit out of line dude. The Chaos v P game was put on hold so the swapping bug fix could be tested. With no save in server game, that game would have been over when patch came out, then, would have to take another game all the way to '43 to test the patch.

[&o]