v4 bug stomp so far

[goodwoodrw]

Thanks no rush still reading the manual

[Hoyt Burrass]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

There are other ways to attack the enemy. I mostly don't air strike land units in WarPlan.

SO, what should we be doing to attack the enemy??

[AlbertN]

I do not know - unless there is a big difference in basic strength of ground units (That is pratically true only vs some minors and in Barbarossa '41), to attack with minimal ground support is such a bloodshed that at least cannot be easily afforded.

And against a prepared / still capable opponent to do breakthroughs for grand encirclements tend to spell the doom of whoever tries that. Like, try to do that as German or Soviet in '43 when the counterpart has still fresh reserves, see what happens. (Answer: your spearheads that are spent and stretched gets hammered by the fresh reserves, and eventually even wiped out)

[AlvaroSousa]

ORIGINAL: Hoyt Burrass

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

There are other ways to attack the enemy. I mostly don't air strike land units in WarPlan.

SO, what should we be doing to attack the enemy??

Setting units to support mode and just letting them add their factors in an attack.

[Essro]

ORIGINAL: goodwoodrw

Just bought the game I will wait until the patch is out before I start to play it, is far away

If I could offer some advice, once you read the rules regarding amphibious landings I highly recommend just loading up the '44 scenario as Allies and have at it. You don't need the newest patch to do this.

It's a great scenario for practicing how to land (para too). Everything is ready to go as early on the first turn so you don't need to build landing craft (but pay attention to how they are used and spent).

Plus you get some early lessons on port supply.

[Essro]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

ORIGINAL: Hoyt Burrass

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

There are other ways to attack the enemy. I mostly don't air strike land units in WarPlan.

SO, what should we be doing to attack the enemy??

Setting units to support mode and just letting them add their factors in an attack.

That's how I do it for the most part.

Be mindful that air units that are marked support but are LOW effectiveness will not assist. Pay attention to this and be sure to rest your air units.

@Alvaro, when you say "add their factors," what's the math of that?

from the manual:
"Land Combat Rounds –Each round of land combat fires a certain
attribute of the units involved in the battle. In each round damage
is applied to each side by that type of attribute.
Round 1 – Artillery
Round 2 – Defender Guns
Round 3 – Tanks (halved in rugged terrain)
Round 4 – Attacker Guns (halved attacking)
Round 5 – Firearms


where/how do air units participate? Round 1?

[AlvaroSousa]

Artillery because that is what they are effectively.

[Michael T]

Another piece of gold. Alvaro throws us a nugget now and then.

[Essro]

ORIGINAL: Cohen_slith

I personally think there is a severe matter in terms of design that may require reviewing in Warplan.
Currently defending by itself is easy if it was not for massed airforce. Mass airforce will just enable obliteration of 1-2 hexes a turn per front in what otherwise is a trench warfare game.
I believe that is what was in some late game AAR - Flavius vs Jim - and also what I am experiencing myself.

In a game for instance Soviets have pratically 2-3 tanks / mechs. Their army is pure infantry, cas and fighter planes. (No medium bombers - just IL-2s!).
So '43 onward the game turns in a repeated cycle of bomb-take1hex (or eventually 2 hexes) with your whole airforce carpeting the zone first. (Admittedly it's the same that Germany, on smaller scale, does to France).

I hope that's not how the game is intended because it turns boring pretty quick, and resolves the game pratically in a 'air war' game.

Other evaluations I'd forward are:
Manpower tied to map locations instead than external.
More VP cities. Presently there are far too many gaps between a VP and the other which may mean little to nothing.
Morale Cities are often redundant, especially for certain countries. (The green dot ones).

Severe? I don't know about that.

I disagree with your assessment of air.

However, I do agree that some matches can turn into a WW1 grind. I have had both static and fluid games.

I think it's something to keep an eye on.

Or, better yet, perhaps folks can share methods on how to get units to retreat more often.

[AlvaroSousa]

Could also be a skill difference.

[Essro]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Could also be a skill difference.

And it very well could be.

For instance, I have gone from spending oil like a madman to routinely having enough to get the job done. I need to learn the same discipline in managing Soviet manpower. I have routinely run out by end of '43 as Allied player--same for my experience as the Germans but I am well aware that my play style (as Axis) creates this situation. For the USSR, I am finding the balance harder to find.

I think I might stop having armor units specialize in engineering or elite. There is a infiltration option that I have yet to use. This results in more retreats, yes?

[James Taylor]

Got a deployment bug. This one for Allies. I deployed UK naval units and then selected USSR which allowed Red Army units to be deployed in UK.

This may apply to Axis too, have not tested.

[AlvaroSousa]

PM me the details.

[Michael T]

Reduced 1939 UK starting escorts
Reduced change of escorts to hit submarines

This should help the U-Boats somewhat. Thanks Alvaro. Maybe U-Boat war might be worth pursuing now. Will be interesting to test.

[Journier]

we still on for release today of patch?

Matrix is making this a very delayed process ^_^

[AlvaroSousa]

Should be. It's on Matrix.

[Michael T]

It's certainly a long drawn out process.

[Journier]

guess no patch today, sad day.

[AlvaroSousa]

I did my part

[Michael T]

I think it's time they pulled out the proverbial finger...