Matrix Games Forums

Some questions for people who are close to Matrix team. Everyone else is free to put their opinions here.
Why tank has attack multiplier equal 3 instead of 4 which is mentioned in manual? It makes game more likely to stale.
Why attack value is divided by 3(not by 2 or 1.5 for example) during mud turns? Is high readiness loss for march/plotting not enough? It also makes any combat to freeze during big part of autumn and spring.
Thanx in advance for replies!

[ June 06, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

The part about combat in mud being ineffective has always been in the game (even when I first played it as second front on an atari).
In reality combat in russia during the rain-mud seasons was impossible in the scale of the game. The campaign season was summer and the cold parts of late fall early winter before the deep snows hit.
Winter combat was strongly effected by weather (as in depth of snow). Even the russians could not more large numbers of supplies when the snow got too deep. Their combat mobility was less effected due to the T34 having wide tracks and large numbers of troops with skis (later war period). So it is completely historic for the fighting to cease when the rain hits. Both sides used these period to build up strength. Combat should not be continuous in WIR it should go thru periods of quiet and frantic activity if it doesn't then it is not simulating the real combat environment properly.

Originally posted by Mist:
Some questions for people who are close to Matrix team. Everyone else is free to put their opinions here.
Why tank has attack multiplier equal 3 instead of 4 which is mentioned in manual?

Uhhmmmm, because Gary Grigsby decided to change it after the manual was printed?

Why attack value is divided by 3(not by 2 or 1.5 for example) during mud turns?

To reasons: Gary made it that way, and combat during periods of deep mud was basically impossible.

Is high readiness loss for march/plotting not enough?

GG apparently didn't think so.

It also makes any combat to freeze during big part of autumn and spring.

As I understand things, that's exactly what historically happened.

Well, the actual question was "Is high readiness loss for plot/march movement not enough?". And another actual question is "Why on the earth is attack strength divided by 3 and not by say 1.5 or 1e10?"
I recal a number of offensive operations which were caried out(more or less successful, but units were advancing) during "mud" turns, such on Balcans, Typhoon, Kharkov'42,Kharkov'43, Mius'43, Ukrain'43,Eastern Europe'45 etc. I understand that weather was probably not so bad in those places but WiR makes weather bad everywhere from Helsinki to Baku and From Kazan to Berlin. But again, units loose readiness during plot/march movement anyway. Why limit operations so ARTIFICIALY?

[ June 07, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

On the subject of "deep mud": I agree that deep mud must be real combat stopper. It is said in the manual that one should avoid attacking especaly on sequentional mud turn. Is there any way in WiR to differ between nonsequentional mud turn and sequentional one? May be this special mud modifier must be applied only during sequentional mud?

Originally posted by Mist:
On the subject of "deep mud": I agree that deep mud must be real combat stopper. It is said in the manual that one should avoid attacking especaly on sequentional mud turn. Is there any way in WiR to differ between nonsequentional mud turn and sequentional one? May be this special mud modifier must be applied only during sequentional mud?

I cannot help it, i have to make the comment that Linda Lovelace knows all about 'deep mud' turns. Thats when we sit back and do nothing... HoHo. (what a bad man i am)

Originally posted by Mist:
Well, the actual question was "Is high readiness loss for plot/march movement not enough?".

Do you mean the movement penalty should be higher or are you saying the movement penalty is enough to represent the mud, and the combat penalty for mud should be removed?

If its the former, I don't know whether it should be higher, but if its the latter, then I'd say Gary apparently considered the answer to be "no", ie, a combat reduction was necessary in addition to the movement penalty.

And another actual question is "Why on the earth is attack strength divided by 3 and not by say 1.5 or 1e10?"

Go ask Gary. What answer do you want from us, Mist? Gary made it that way and Arnaud usually doesn't change things without a good reason.

I recal a number of offensive operations which were caried out(more or less successful, but units were advancing) during "mud" turns, such on Balcans, Typhoon, Kharkov'42,Kharkov'43, Mius'43, Ukrain'43, Eastern Europe'45 etc.

Perhaps these battles were partially fought during clear/snow weather? There's a big difference between "wet" and "mud", maybe there should have been two levels of rainy/muddy weather, a lighter one that would have allowed some combat, and a heavy one which would have showed up on consecutive mud turns that stops everyone in their tracks.

I understand that weather was probably not so bad in those places

I suspect the same.

but WiR makes weather bad everywhere from Helsinki to Baku and From Kazan to Berlin.

Already been discussed, its way beyond our mandate, so creating a "dynamic" map for weather purposes, isn't going to happen. Maybe one day Arnaud will put some simple row restriction to try to deal with this, but he's shown no interest in this issue, and such a kludge will look as as bad as having no kludge at all.

But again, units loose readiness during plot/march movement anyway. Why limit operations so ARTIFICIALY?

I don't know what you mean by "artifical". Having both a movement and combat penalty for mud makes perfect sense to me. Mud was probably the nightmare of all tankers worldwide. Yes, it sucks, but it's also historical, although the implementation is not perfect (and never will be).

It sounds like you guys should ask 2BY3 Games to set up a mailing list or forum over there to talk about Gary's next version, WiR III, because in this example, you've gone beyond what this WiR project can do. Rewriting every one of Gary's rules was never our mandate. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

P.S. if they *do* setup a forum over there let me know, I've got a few ideas of my own to throw at them.

Originally posted by Mist:
On the subject of "deep mud": I agree that deep mud must be real combat stopper. It is said in the manual that one should avoid attacking especaly on sequentional mud turn. Is there any way in WiR to differ between nonsequentional mud turn and sequentional one? May be this special mud modifier must be applied only during sequentional mud?

The effect of the readiness penalty is cumulative, dropping to 88% on the first turn to 79% on the second mud turn, and these units weren't moving or fighting, that's why Gary mentioned sequential turns.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

The effect of the readiness penalty is cumulative, dropping to 88% on the first turn to 79% on the second mud turn, and these units weren't moving or fighting, that's why Gary mentioned sequential turns.

It is said in the manual that Germans benefit first from good weather effect. It allows to conclude that they also suffer bad weather effect first. If they are in offensive, they also loose readiness for movement/plot as well as spend operation points form plotting/movement/air missions. And in addition to that(!) they have their their attack power divided by 3. Bah!
If say Soviets are attacking during turn previous to mud then next turn next turn they will face Germans already weakened by weather hit(and Soviet units will not yet be weakened by mud!) and so counter attack is also unlikely in addition to that if weakened Germans counter attack during mud, they will be counter attacked by not yet weakened by plot-during-mud Soviets etc. So combat freezes but player has a Choice. Oh, well....
Realy, this system is not bothering me and I accept The Game as it is. I just try to understand, is it realy what Gary wanted to implement. Thank you for answers, Ed!
P.S.
Posted by Ed Cogburn
There's a big difference between "wet" and "mud", maybe there should have been two levels of rainy/muddy weather, a lighter one that would have allowed some combat, and a heavy one which would have showed up on consecutive mud turns that stops everyone in their tracks.
Ed, I suspect that "light mud" is the first "mud" turn and "deep mud which freezes combat" is the sequentional mud turn which is mentioned in manual by Gary as a turn at which attack should be avoided. May be I miss something in my conclusions. Correct me please if I am wrong. Thank you.

[ June 09, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

Originally posted by Mist:
It is said in the manual that Germans benefit first from good weather effect. It allows to conclude that they also suffer bad weather effect first. If they are in offensive, they also loose readiness for movement/plot as well as spend operation points form plotting/movement/air missions. And in addition to that(!) they have their their attack power divided by 3. Bah!

Well, what can I say? We can't possibly please everyone. I can't even be pleased myself, I think the whole situation involving unsupplied corps and the how they move, and lose strength is grossly negligent, but Arnaud doesn't see it the same way, so I'm not happy with everything in this game either. I wish the source of this game was free so I could "fix" the "problems" I see, but that's the penalty for falling in love with a commercial game. The frustration level is high, since you know many of the minor problems could be easily fixed if you had the source.

If say Soviets are attacking during turn previous to mud then next turn next turn they will face Germans already weakened by weather hit(and Soviet units will not yet be weakened by mud!) and so counter attack is also unlikely in addition to that if weakened Germans counter attack during mud, they will be counter attacked by not yet weakened by plot-during-mud Soviets etc. So combat freezes but player has a Choice. Oh, well....

The Soviets will be weakened too, not just the Germans. I'm too lazy right now to check if the penalty is the same for both sides, but I'm pretty sure it is. GG *may* be referring to the fact that Soviet units get readiness penalties every turn until '44, so that may be the reference to Germany recovering first.

Realy, this system is not bothering me and I accept The Game as it is. Ijust try to understand, is it realy what Gary wanted to implement.

Excellent question. I wonder what he'd think if he knew some of the exploits in the game that could be used by cheaters. He obviously never tried to do anything to prevent that, probably because he didn't have a big enough reason to do so, like the PBEM option (Arnaud has put some of that code in but not all). I'll bet he's asked that question of himself, which might explain why he wants another shot at the simulation, i.e. his plan for WiR-III, whose description is nearly identical to WiR-II. But for the life of me, I can't understand how he never saw a need for a function that checked a corps for the amount of items in it, to determine what strength was in that corps. As it is now, you can create a armor corps, put a single battalion in it, and take off in the enemy's backfield. Your corps will eventually be reduced to one square of movement per turn, but this corps, with NO strength in it at all, 0 squads, 0 art, 0 at, 0 flak, and 0 afv CAN STILL TAKE CITIES! His whole corps-are-containers design needs a lot of work. It'll be interesting to see what GG does for WiR-III, since he now has no excuses, he's got plenty of RAM, and excellent 2D graphics ability to work with, will he leave as many loopholes, and problems, and broken algorithms as in WiR-II? I sincerely hope WiR-III doesn't just turn out to be the equivalent of WiR-II in high resolution.

Mist, I forgot to stick this at the end of my last post. Have you seen the demo of World in Flames? Amazing. Probably won't have an AI for it, but the whole Eastern Front at division level? This could be what finaly causes me to pack up WiR and put it back in the closet for good. Don't start holding your breath now, though. We need to see who is willing to produce/distribute this game.

Get open beta here:
http://www.marinacci.com/Chris/

[ June 10, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Mist, I forgot to stick this at the end of my last post. Have you seen the demo of World in Flames? Amazing. Probably won't have an AI for it, but the whole Eastern Front at division level? This could be what finaly causes me to pack up WiR and put it back in the closet for good. Don't start holding your breath now, though. We need to see who is willing to produce/distribute this game.

Thanx for link Ed! Got to look at it
BTW: I've sent you a message some time ago. Did you recieve it?