Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:34 am**

Bug.

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:13 pm**

Thanks a lot for the feedback.
So (b) plus enough supply is the best choice ( (a) cost 1 AP).

Related question: How can I _destroy_ the infrastructure, e.g. if my troops have to retreat?
My choice: leave a unit, so there will be combat. And combat will disrupt the infrastructure (more effectively than just leave open?). Other less bloody ideas?

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:48 pm**

you can't destroy as such. There will be substantive damage just by changing hands (in effect standard sabotage is factored in), this will be increased if there was combat in the hex (but its not really worth doing this unless its otherwise a good idea).

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:03 pm**

Thanks loki. So the best is to reconquer several times to bring the infrastructure down (later bombing is more expensive, I guess).

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:13 pm**

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: juv95hrn

Whats the bonus of ski troops in WITE2? Where in the manual can I read about it?

Thanks!

38.5.4, 43.2 (in the Living Manual)

thats off a quick search

Silly me using the 500 page book.

Si this the e-book2 we are talking about? This seems the same as the non-virtual manual.

Where can I find this living manual? I cant find it in the forums...

EDIT:

The e-book says:

(1) Ski units will have their combat value (CV) doubled in snow hexes and tripled in heavy snow hexes and are not affected by the
above weather CV modifiers for snow and heavy snow

But it doesnt contain a 43.2 for me.

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:04 pm**

Living manual is released with each patch, you'll find it in the folder that matches my game set up (ie 'manuals')

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:00 pm**

What would be better?

Keeping a somewhat frontline and well supplied, but 2nd rate army under STAVKA?

Or overloading a somewhat closer Front with the 10-20 command points they tend to contain?

Both STAVKA and the available fronts tend to be quite distant in range. What would be the most important circumstances to consider, when overloading or not?

Thanks!

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:16 pm**

ORIGINAL: juv95hrn

What would be better?

Keeping a somewhat frontline and well supplied, but 2nd rate army under STAVKA?

Or overloading a somewhat closer Front with the 10-20 command points they tend to contain?

Both STAVKA and the available fronts tend to be quite distant in range. What would be the most important circumstances to consider, when overloading or not?

Thanks!

Could you provide some background as to your situation? For example are you turn 1 Soviets in 1941 or is this Stalingrad to Berlin 1942+? Whenever possible I prefer not having units assigned to Stavka and sometimes it can take some administrative work to accomplish that with organization of HQs, assault HQs and concentrations of forces to specific areas of a front.

Posted: **Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:20 am**

Soviet artillery division need to placed 1 hex away from the frontline, right? Do they only support units in their own formation or any combat unit within their range?

Posted: **Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:34 am**

ORIGINAL: Slush

Soviet artillery division need to placed 1 hex away from the frontline, right? Do they only support units in their own formation or any combat unit within their range?

you need to manually add them to the attack, see this very handy example in the manual [;)]:

Posted: **Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:40 am**

Whenever i try to move for ex. Half an aog
And i shift at nearby airbases...afaik it doesnt count in that only the selected groups are moving and not the entire aog

So for ex. Moving koluft center to minsk says 188/200...and moving half or parts of koluft center will say the same..188/200

For now im moving 5/10 planes at a time and stop when airbase capacity reaches close to 80/90%..not ideal i think
Any remedies?

Posted: **Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:00 am**

are you following the steps in 17.3.4, that is the only way to do a partial redepoyment of some air groups in an AOG

Posted: **Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:01 am**

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Slush

Soviet artillery division need to placed 1 hex away from the frontline, right? Do they only support units in their own formation or any combat unit within their range?

you need to manually add them to the attack, see this very handy example in the manual [;)]:

Oh ... now that sheds some new light on my slower than expected '43 Soviet summer offensive. I did not know that artillery divisions had to be added manually the attack. I did search the manual, though, but it never occured to me to look up 23.4.3

If there's a later revision, it may be worth doing a separate section about artillery divisions/corps and their use.

Thanks for the help

Posted: **Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:00 am**

one of those instances where the person who wrote the manual forgot that just because something was standard in WiTE1 and WiTW doesn't mean every player of #2 knows all that. Or in other words, fair point as this is a rather specialist concept in the wider game systems so something will go into the Living Manual to at least stress the issue and make it easier to find off a word search

Posted: **Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:20 am**

Its winter 1941. AI is at 120% and still push in Blizzard.

I have a full Army under STAVKA on the Volga. Bryansk front is covering here as well, at 72 command points (so full).

Adding that STAVKA army would add another 18 command points to Bryansk Front, or I could keep it under STAVKA.

I suspect the difference isnt that great, but still curious whats the least bad choice of the two.

Another option is to attach it to a nearby Assault Front, which isnt full. I think this is the better option for now. Level 1 forts max, isnt a problem until the Germans are at the river in a turn or 2.

Hope this makes the question clearer.

Thanks!

Posted: **Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:03 pm**

ORIGINAL: loki100

are you following the steps in 17.3.4, that is the only way to do a partial redepoyment of some air groups in an AOG

I have no problems redeploying air units
The problem is i cant gauge if sending air units will fill an airbase capacity over 100%

I know for entire aogs it will show the xxx/xxx thing to know if i can take the aog
But for smaller parts (lets say 10 bf109s) it shows the same amount as the entire aog (not the calculation for the 10 bfs109)

Posted: **Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:04 pm**

ORIGINAL: juv95hrn

Its winter 1941. AI is at 120% and still push in Blizzard.

I have a full Army under STAVKA on the Volga. Bryansk front is covering here as well, at 72 command points (so full).

Adding that STAVKA army would add another 18 command points to Bryansk Front, or I could keep it under STAVKA.

I suspect the difference isnt that great, but still curious whats the least bad choice of the two.

Another option is to attach it to a nearby Assault Front, which isnt full. I think this is the better option for now. Level 1 forts max, isnt a problem until the Germans are at the river in a turn or 2.

Hope this makes the question clearer.

Thanks!

Given your circumstance I agree and would add it to an assault front. You will just want to make sure you review the situation before the 42 German offensives.

Posted: **Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:44 pm**

ORIGINAL: First_Contact_Gamer

ORIGINAL: juv95hrn

Its winter 1941. AI is at 120% and still push in Blizzard.

I have a full Army under STAVKA on the Volga. Bryansk front is covering here as well, at 72 command points (so full).

Adding that STAVKA army would add another 18 command points to Bryansk Front, or I could keep it under STAVKA.

I suspect the difference isnt that great, but still curious whats the least bad choice of the two.

Another option is to attach it to a nearby Assault Front, which isnt full. I think this is the better option for now. Level 1 forts max, isnt a problem until the Germans are at the river in a turn or 2.

Hope this makes the question clearer.

Thanks!

Given your circumstance I agree and would add it to an assault front. You will just want to make sure you review the situation before the 42 German offensives.

Yes, in this case.

But there are more circumstances where its possible to basically overload a Front with a more or less full army, or keep it under STAVKAs more distant control, not overloading.

My guess the most important thing would be better supply from the closer Front, while losing a small leader check bonus potential from the Front Leader? Or what would be the most important factors in this small, but nagging, situation?

Thanks!

Posted: **Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:45 pm**

Why does it sometimes cost an AP to assign a construction unit from STAVKA to a lower formation, when it doesn´t say (c) on it? Its kind of a hidden AP cost, when you dont know or not if it will cost you to reposition it.

Moving them to a higher level HQ doesnt seem to cost anything, for the same units...

Thanks...

Posted: **Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:57 pm**

its a frustrating bug, on the list to sort out (hopefully the next patch)

I can't find the thread back as that had a work around. This may be save/reload but I'm not sure

found it:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

This is a known bug that happened in one of the most recent versions. In my experience it is not consistent. One user reported "Workaround is to click on Assign Support Units, exit and click again. No cost then." I'm not sure that works, but you could try it until we are able to fix the bug.

Matrix Games Forums

Quick Questions Thread

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand:

RE: Truck Summary in logistics Phase Report is hard to understand: