List of 1.05 update changes?

[LiquidSky]

If you make your rolls, your attack will double...and double again..and his may not make the rolls. The CV is an arbitrary number. Look at the actual men/tanks attacking and see what the commander in the field would have called the attack. Most of these "1-1"'s that got turned into a 2-1 looked more like a 3 or 4 to 1 in real numbers.

[BletchleyGeek]

Honestly, I don't think anybody will be missing much the 1:1 -> 2:1 rule. I certainly won't be missing combat results were Soviet attackers take thousands of losses and Germans a few hundred. If the odds shift was the head of the rule, the tail was the extra damage Axis defenders did on Soviet attackers before the final odds were determined. As LiquidSky reminds us all, we'll need to play out better the "leaders game", by spending good AP's to improve chances of a successful operation.

If anything, the whole design gains consistency, which I think is a good thing.

[mmarquo]

I have always assumed that the CVs and odds in "classical" wargames incorporate many of the elements of the calculations of WITE and not just the raw number of men/tanks, etc. Only time will tell the effects of the new rules...[;)]

Marquo

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Yes, there have been several air combat changes made recently that should have a big impact on the air base issue. If it were me, I'd limit each side to 10 air base attacks per turn (after turn 1 in 1941).

That's great. Thanks Joel.

[PeeDeeAitch]

One of the things to remember about "house rules" is that they are agreed upon to limit the potential problems that many things, taken to extremes, can lead to. In the case of air attacks, 20-30 assaults on an airbase in will likely overwhelm the defenses because in reality this wouldn't happen and the game plays this out - the game can't do the things that would have happened, like the Germans sending a lot of extra airframes there to shoot down all those awful attacking soviet planes...

The problem is that the player often pushes this, and thus the house rules need to be agreed upon. Much like the "no Allied invasions in Third Reich on turn 1" rule we came up with after Italy was forced to surrender, this is just the sort of thing that makes the game run smoother with less frustration by either player. Really, that is part of what this is about.

[Peltonx]

1v1=2v1 impact was the losses to the Germans and the lose of moral, because of retreat that never should have happened in the first plase. This has been the clear case in more then one AAR.

Extra losses to the Russians mean nothing on the large scale of things, they can easyly be made up for. The loses to the Germans and the drop in morale can never be made up for.

How many pockets were broken because of the 1v1=2v1 rule? 42 is 100% about the germans pocketing russian units, because of the 1v1=2v1 rule many poeple just didn't bother tring and then were simple steam rolled by the flying pig rule during 43.

I am very happy to see it removed.

I think that lowering Russian production from 200 to 130 is to much of a hit. 150 I think is a better #.

Pelton

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
If you make your rolls, your attack will double...and double again..and his may not make the rolls. The CV is an arbitrary number. Look at the actual men/tanks attacking and see what the commander in the field would have called the attack. Most of these "1-1"'s that got turned into a 2-1 looked more like a 3 or 4 to 1 in real numbers.

This is probably one part of the system that I vocally dislike. If the CV is nothing but an arbitrary number and we're really supposed to look at the troop composition, fatigue and morale of units before committing and attack, how come THOSE numbers aren't readily available to us via the UI?

[Aussiematto]

All the changes proposed look pretty sensible to me. I did have a scurrilous thought about the 1:1 rule, however. I've been struggling with a game recently where the Sov is an expert checkerboard defender - late in the 1941 Blitzkrieg I basically got nowhere because he'd constructed and filled with good units a checkerboard of considerable strength (fort 2/3). I had this lovely thought that any hex that was attacked without an adjacent unit or stack (wherever  -- just so long as adjacent, not necessarily alongside) would be made to suffer the 1:1 rule (for both sides, not just the Soviets). This would have two useful effects:

1) Soviets could still get the benefit of the 1:1 rule in 1941 attacking the fast-moving panzers which, in almost all cases, tend not to be adjacent to another friendly unit or, if they were, would force the German to be a little more realistic in spreading out units. This situation seems useful - making the Soviets more capable of attacking spearheads, but not the main part of the army.

2) Germans would get some relief from the checkerboard defence - sure, Sovs could do it where necessary but at some penalty.

It makes sense - units defending without any adjacent defending unit would be easier to shift.

I appreciate this might be a major code change, however, so just offer the suggestion as one which balances the benefits of the 1;1 rule and also solves another issue - checkerboard defence.

(note, I never want things to be taken 'out' - just that the tradeoffs for and against the checkerboard are too heavily weighted in its favour).

[mmarquo]

"I'd limit each side to 10 air base attacks per turn (after turn 1 in 1941). "

0Does this mean 10/each air base or a total of 10? Hopefully the latter. And...how many per each airbase - could there be 10 per a single air base? Or does if have to be spread around? I vote a total of 10 launched anyway the active palyer wants.

Marquo

[Attack]

I like the changes proposed! Thanks to the developpers [&o]The better game in the world!

IMHO, the 2:1 1:1 rule seems logical. Even if they win, the Russians have a lot of losses.

And I think it will be good to limit the checkboard defense and the air attacks after turn 1 (not only against airports, too against ground units or cities). I play PEBM: only a single attack in day plus a single attack in night on a hex, after turn 1.

To me, I think good to penalize the moral of units without contact with others. Checkboard defense is a little gamey.

An easy sugestion to developpers: please, give a bonus (to the German) o penality (to the Soviet) if Moscow is conquered. Politicaly and administratively it is a disaster, an in the game nothing appens. Why attack Moscow? It will be more interesting.

[Peltonx]

1v1=2v1 has zero to do with a few extra russian losses.

1v1=2v1 is all about extra German losses and the moral hit.

All because of a flying pig rule.

It totally unbalances the game in 1942 vs a good russian.

Its no different then the old HQ rule or the air field exploits.

Its a poorly thought out mechanic of the game that most players exploit to death. Which is why its getting nerfed, in the same way as the old HQ exploit and bombing air field to death exploits.

Pelton

[timmyab]

I like the idea of a morale penalty for non-phasing units that start their opponents turn with no points of contact with friendly units.Maybe -20% for being totally alone and -10% for having only one neighbour.I think something like this would be enough to discourage pure checkerboards while still leaving it as an option when necessary.This morale penalty would not apply for any other reason, only when defending and would stay the same throughout the turn.So that if a unit started off with two neighbours but became isolated during the turn, it wouldn't suffer a morale penalty.

[chasman]

Haven't dropped in here in a while. Has the I WIN button been installed yet?

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

1v1=2v1 has zero to do with a few extra russian losses.

1v1=2v1 is all about extra German losses and the moral hit.

You seem to know better than Helpless and what's clearly stated on the manual. The extra losses were a device to compensate for possible ill effects of the rule. I agree with you that there were other ill effects that were beyond the powers of the game mechanics put in place to balance that out. So it's gone.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I'd be very careful before trumpeting like that, man. As they say the show won't be over until the fat lady sings her line: [;)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0FbGuImTCE

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: chasman

Haven't dropped in here in a while. Has the I WIN button been installed yet?

Yes, but it only works for one's opponent.

[cherryfunk]

That would then be a 'YOU WIN' button, no?
 

[PeeDeeAitch]

No, that is coming in a later game. This is the reverse "I WIN" button.

[cherryfunk]

What about the 'WE WIN' button?  And will 1.5 include the new 'Fun Point' system, to replace the clearly broken victory points?
 

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

4) New Rule - Static units no longer lose their static status when they are retreated or routed.

Question on this rule.

It's no doubt there to prevent abuses, like basically harvesting APs. (The 1941 rule clamps down on this as well, but right now it's easy for the Russians to harvest APs by mis-using STATIC)

Shouldn't there be some changes, though, to the 1942 and onward scenarios? I am primarily a 1941 GC player, but if those '42 and onward scenarios are going to be viable, then with this rule the opening set-up needs serious changes.

Otherwise, you can really exploit this, because the defending side will be effectively immobile. This already happens to an extent, but will get really serious with the new rule.

[Flaviusx]

The scenarios are being revised. Personally, I would quite aggressively limit the numbers of units set to static in all these. My ideal number of static units is approximately zero.