1.12.0 Problems/Bugs

[56ajax]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

ORIGINAL: 56ajax

I haven't got that far in my game but rail for the Sov = 15k on T2/3 and more units are shattering and now appear on the Eastern edge - HQs and airbases

Annoying to not be able to move my reinforcements up but maybe more realistic. The real annoyance is to not be able to evacuate my factories.

Totally realistic but in the context of the game ridiculous. If the Axis can beat you with 95k rail capacity.....

Why do new units appear on the Eastern edge? They ain't the Siberians. Should appear in a major city much closer to Moscow.

[thedoctorking]

I'm with you, actually. Doing the WitePedia entries for the WitE2 game, I'm seeing lots of Soviet units reformed for the 2nd, 3rd, etc. time. Many times the location where they were formed is a city that would be on these maps. I'd say maybe have some sort of a random placement weighted by population for cities that aren't isolated and reinforcement units appear there. Might be too much to ask for, though. Probably need a coding change that these guys don't have the time/resources to do. Maybe better for WitE2

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

I am running 1.12.01, and have noticed the following:

1) Multi-hex retreats are happening when there is no valid retreat path. I see these in particular when reducing pockets after T1 -- I even saw an NKVD Regiment retreat over 5 fully-stacked hexes, coming to rest next to one of my unguarded HQs, which promptly displaced.

2) HQ displacement seems wrong. The HQ retains all its MP and support units after being force-displaced. Is that WAD?

3) Retreat mechanics still seem off. I saw an enemy unit retreat adjacent to one of my units, even though there were other available hexes (toward its own lines).

4) HQs are now "shattering" rather than simply displacing.

5) Isolated units are now routing out of pockets where they used to surrender (I know this has been brought up in another thread).

One other thing I am noticing is that moving a combat unit adjacent to an enemy unit no longer necessarily raises DL. In fact, I had one unit decrease is DL when I moved next to it.

[thedoctorking]

What's with SP 150? I thought the maximum possible supply path was 100. Also, there are lots of units showing SP -1 that are clearly within supply range, that is, their HQ's are fairly close to them and they are maybe 20 or 30 hexes from their railhead. The Hanko garrison brigade is isolated, for example, and they are sitting in a port with plenty of shipping capacity and Leningrad still in Soviet hands.

[morvael]

I guess Axis controls the seas around Hanko. Every port projects its size as strength of control, reduced by 1 for every hex.

Provide some screens or saves for other issues you see. I think everything works pretty well. Where HQ is doesn't count for the purposes of distance to railhead penalty.

SP 150 is beachhead supply.

[morvael]

Default sea control around Hanko looks like this. If the port becomes damaged (because of Finnish attacks) its strength will drop and Helsinki will win the crucial hexes over.



edit: if Finnish navy wasn't a factor, then perhaps Helsinki should be dropped to port size 5-6 in scenario data. That way LG would assert control.

[chaos45]

Hanko really shouldn't be getting isolated until at least Tallinin falls. Keep in mind the soviet fleet at Leningrad is still fully intact at this early point in the war and realistically the Axis naval power cant contest it without Luftwaffe support and LW airbases are no-where near close enough early in the campaign. In a realistic since.

[morvael]

Something can be done in scenario files (or by coding special rule to make Finnish navy inefficient) but I think it's a minor issue - a doomed isolated outpost.

[chaos45]

as the soviets you can save some of the units....you can detach the attached units and bring them back to Leningrad. Least you used to be able to.

[morvael]

I'm not sure this can be done over sea now. It would be too easy to move units in out encircled Leningrad then.

[Dreamslayer]

The evacuation of the Hanko garrison troops started 23 October, the last transports left the naval base 2 December. The troops was transported to the islands of Baltic sea, Kronshtadt and Leningrad. From Hanko was evacuated about 20k men total, some guns, tanks, ammo, provisions,coal etc.
The main threat for transports during the evacuation there was the minefields not the Finnish fleet.

[morvael]

I understand Finland wasn't very active in storming the base? I guess it will never happen with players in control. I guess the base should be represented as HQ + moving unit frozen for a while, so that it could be evacuated by sea when left unmolested. And Helsinki's port should be weaker. A minor historical inconsistency.

[morvael]

Don't get me wrong. It should be represented better, but it's a scenario design issue, not a game system issue. Even within its limitations it should be possible to represent this better.

[Dreamslayer]

ORIGINAL: morvael

I understand Finland wasn't very active in storming the base? I guess it will never happen with players in control.

I think that Finns did not want to has more losses if they tried to normally assault(storm) the base before the winter.
The base was enaugh protected from the land (it is the elongated peninsula), had enough combatants, various frortifications, coastal batteries, even large calibre RR-batteries (3 TM-3-12(305mm) and 4 TM-1-180(180mm)).
The main reason why the Soviet troops left Hanko was not(or not only) the supply case.
1)After the fall of Tallinn and Moonsund islands later the Baltic Fleet had no reasons to keep this base. Because it did nothing.
2)Better to relocate the personnel to Leningrad Front.
3)During the winter Finns could to try assault(storm) the base from the sea sides because of a frozen ice. And keeps defense against it was more difficult.

It's only me getting "502 Bad Gateway" error today here?

[Denniss]

We can't do much for Hanko due to AI limitations - too strong then the Axis AI typically fails to capture it within 1-3 turns and loosing interest afterwards (not even guarding Hanko area). Some turns later the soviet AI is going rampage in finnish rear area leading to early Finn surrender

[morvael]

What if Hanko base would be a frozen stack of 3 with disband date guarded by frozen stacks of 3, so that no action would be possible and it would quietly disappear at later date?

[chaos45]

have a disband date of historical would work I think as long as troops return to the pool...or add them to Leningrad front when they transferred as reinforcements.

[thedoctorking]

I'm in favor of this. I wouldn't evacuate the SU until Talinn falls and then all of a sudden there's no route back. In fact the base wasn't evacuated until well after the Germans captured Talinn. And most Soviet players aren't going to fight in Estonia anyway.

[Dreamslayer]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking
And most Soviet players aren't going to fight in Estonia anyway.

It's because the situation there should be modelled better. For example, you can compare 3rd Rifle Brigade status in the game and in my post ( https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... 72&mpage=6# , post #176).

[Denniss]

Even if the frozen units would disappear via disband the hex would be left empty and Axis AI does not guard nor capture it. Soviet AI then usually moves units there rampaging into Finland.