New Public Beta 1.05.53 of WitE now Available!

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Then why not make it 70 at start (german NM in 1942)?

To increase the post count on the forum..

[:D] +1 additional post.

[jazman]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Then why not make it 70 at start (german NM in 1942)?

To increase the post count on the forum..

Let me do my part here to help.

[Michael T]

Is there a plan to address the 'March madness' problem in the next release?

Yes.

Any clue as to what this might entail Pavel/Joel and when is it likely to get to us?

[karonagames]

Testers (and ex-testers) have been given a series of proposals by Joel and Pavel to deal with the specific issues relating to March, and testers ( and ex-testers) have responded with comments and opinions on the proposed solutions.

The proposals seemed reasonable to me with a few caveats. No code has been issued for testing.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I would have thought that the WiTP December 8 start would provide the obvious answer to this problem. Start the game on 23 June 1941 with the historical soviet losses on the ground already applied. Then there is no need for a complex set of calculations that attempt to replicate an anomaly - just abstract it.

This solution would make a lot of folks unhappy. They actually like to micromanage the Luftwaffe strikes and run up the score, it is practically its own minigame. (I'm one of these people who considers the whole air war a bother and am not fond of micromanaging it, but tastes vary.)

+1

Ahmen Flav.[;)]

I like to play the Russians but will try the Germans soon against a friend. My biggest headache is having to micro airfield attacks first turn.

I'm not suggesting that the existing 22 June start be dispensed with - just that an optional June 23 start, for those whose tastes go that way, could be added. Exactly like WiTP.

Pavel - this would only affect the air war. Ground combat would commence on 23 June (or better still, at 0900 on 22 June AFTER the airfield strikes) and would be treated exactly as it is now. Luftwaffe capabilities would be reduced on turn one to account for the airfield strikes having gone in.

No major research should be needed. To address the views of different players on levels of Soviet AC losses during the first week, an option box could be added that allows the player to select 'high', 'historical' or 'low', with 'historical' being based on a named source, such as Glantz etc. In MP, this setting would need to be agreed between the players as with other settings such as weather. The selection would affect the percentage of LW sorties used prior to the start of the game.

[Helpless]

Pavel - this would only affect the air war. Ground combat would commence on 23 June (or better still, at 0900 on 22 June AFTER the airfield strikes) and would be treated exactly as it is now. Luftwaffe capabilities would be reduced on turn one to account for the airfield strikes having gone in.

No major research should be needed. To address the views of different players on levels of Soviet AC losses during the first week, an option box could be added that allows the player to select 'high', 'historical' or 'low', with 'historical' being based on a named source, such as Glantz etc. In MP, this setting would need to be agreed between the players as with other settings such as weather. The selection would affect the percentage of LW sorties used prior to the start of the game.

I see the point Mark, but it is not that easy to make 23 June start without altering ground units. There would be no first turn surprise on this day. Of cause you can make alternative 22nd start assuming all the air losses taken on the ground and in the skies (which were majority) performing first 4 days airfield bombings. But this would require some house rules as well. Such setup would eliminate some ahistorical results in the skies. Meanwhile most important ahistorical results on the first turn are on the ground right now, not in the skies (ex. Lvov pocket, etc)

[asdicus]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

I see the point Mark, but it is not that easy to make 23 June start without altering ground units. There would be no first turn surprise on this day. Of cause you can make alternative 22nd start assuming all the air losses taken on the ground and in the skies (which were majority) performing first 4 days airfield bombings. But this would require some house rules as well. Such setup would eliminate some ahistorical results in the skies. Meanwhile most important ahistorical results on the first turn are on the ground right now, not in the skies (ex. Lvov pocket, etc)
[/quote]
Do the developers/testers have any plans to make changes re the Lvov pocket opening move ? I started a thread on the subject last year and of course there were lots of opinions(10 pages worth!) on the subject both for and against the move. I was hoping the developers might make some small changes in the 41 campaign scenario to the opening russian unit dispositions. This would allow the russian player to make more a fight against the army group south advance - as per history.

[Helpless]

Do the developers/testers have any plans to make changes re the Lvov pocket opening move ?

Yes, to some extent, but it is not so small as may look like.

[Shupov]

ORIGINAL: jamesm

I was trying to assign Level bomber and then fighter bomber to different airfields using the type selector in the assign screen.  I first deselected all and choose the type mentioned and I had trouble closing the window unless I selected a second group namely tactical bombers and then reopening the window and deselecting the second group.  Also it worked after just doing the normal method a couple of times (closing the window and reopening it).  I have not noticed this issue in previous versions.

+1 The "Assign an air unit from National Reserve" aircraft type filter function is broken in 1.05.53

[Bobswanson53]

Thanks for your continued support of this great game.

[horse1974]

ORIGINAL: Bobswanson53

Thanks for your continued support of this great game.

+1

[Helpless]

+1 The "Assign an air unit from National Reserve" aircraft type filter function is broken in 1.05.53

It seems that "slider bar" of inactive window in background is resetting mouse clicks. I'm able to replicate it. The workaround till we fix it would be to click on the area which is not overlapping with slider bar - right/top.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

+1 The "Assign an air unit from National Reserve" aircraft type filter function is broken in 1.05.53

It seems that "slider bar" of inactive window in background is resetting mouse clicks. I'm able to replicate it. The workaround till we fix it would be to click on the area which is not overlapping with slider bar - right/top.

Wow, nice find!

[DorianGray]

On my end as the Germans against a Soviet AI, I believe my current game (with Beta 1.05.53) turn 1 air-losses incurred by the Soviets was pretty close to historical accurate. Where as previously, I was inflicting 5000-6000 aircraft losses against the SU.

I am one of those who tend to micro-manage the airwar, at least as the Germans. So my results may not be typical of using any of the default or auto settings or features.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Loveridge

19) AI Changes – Improved AI to be more aggressive attacking victory objectives in later turns of smaller scenarios. Improved the AI command and control so that it tries to assign areas for each German Army or Soviet Front, and keep the units within those areas attached to appropriate HQs. Ongoing improvements in attack selection AI. Improved AI use of ground support especially when attacking fortified units. Improved defensive line routine (greatly reduced chance of failure in line building) and increased Soviet attack aggressiveness in mid/late war. Improved AI rail repair.

This is great news, but did we really have to wait a year to get this addressed? Many of the issues with the AI were clear on Day 2 after commercial release, but none of the 'powers that be' were willing to admit this.

Secondly, I may have missed it, but I can't spot any reference to the game breaking "March '42 Madness" problem, whereby Soviet capabilities mysteriously collapse in relation to Axis combat capabilities, regardless of the strategic turn of events.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
Losses during airbase attacks have come down at least twice during the past few months. The most recent reduction was probably mostly due to the restriction on airfield attacks that the air group must have flown less than 1/3 of their available miles to fly the mission (this had been 1/2 before the recent change - other smaller changes probably had a minor impact here and there). There was always debate internally on what the appropriate loss numbers on turn 1 should be. A human player that knew what they were doing was usually able to kill more aircraft than the historical numbers. The AI, which isn't quite as smart, would kill less, but was still usually over the historical total. Of course there was always some price to using up your aircraft flying airfield attacks as you were limited in your ground support. We think the numbers that can be achieved on turn 1 are still in the right historical range, although there's no doubt debate on exactly what that number should be. We felt the reduction on turn 1 was ok, and wanted to further limit the problems that were being reported with the abuse of airbase attacks during the rest of the game.

I would have thought that the WiTP December 8 start would provide the obvious answer to this problem. Start the game on 23 June 1941 with the historical soviet losses on the ground already applied. Then there is no need for a complex set of calculations that attempt to replicate an anomaly - just abstract it.

I am not sure about this, maybe copying the historical German strategy is the obvious thing to do, but if a player wants to choose a different strategy, there should be the possibility of different results.

If a player chooses to make an all-out airfield attack, ignoring all other potential air tasks, then it should be possible to achieve higher than the historical results. How much of the German air effort was directed against airfields on the 22nd June, because we cannot compare a player's maximum effort on airfields against an historical German plan, which may not have directed all their effort against airfields.

I hope it's not 'this is what happened on the day, so this is what must happen in the game'.[:)]

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

I am not sure about this, maybe copying the historical German strategy is the obvious thing to do, but if a player wants to choose a different strategy, there should be the possibility of different results.

If a player chooses to make an all-out airfield attack, ignoring all other potential air tasks, then it should be possible to achieve higher than the historical results. How much of the German air effort was directed against airfields on the 22nd June, because we cannot compare a player's maximum effort on airfields against an historical German plan, which may not have directed all their effort against airfields.

I hope it's not 'this is what happened on the day, so this is what must happen in the game'.[:)]

WiTE Scenario 1 - June 22 Start (historical)
WiTE Scenario 2 - June 23 Start (historical)
WiTE Scenario 3 - June 22 Start (Northern focus)
WiTE Scenario 4 - June 22 Start (Southern focus)
WiTE Scenario 5 - June 22 (?) Start (Soviet preemptive strike)
Etc...
WiTE Scenario 90 - Modded Scenario 1
Etc.

We've been through all this with WiTP. I'm surprised it's still up for debate.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
I am not sure about this, maybe copying the historical German strategy is the obvious thing to do, but if a player wants to choose a different strategy, there should be the possibility of different results.

If a player chooses to make an all-out airfield attack, ignoring all other potential air tasks, then it should be possible to achieve higher than the historical results. How much of the German air effort was directed against airfields on the 22nd June, because we cannot compare a player's maximum effort on airfields against an historical German plan, which may not have directed all their effort against airfields.

I hope it's not 'this is what happened on the day, so this is what must happen in the game'.[:)]

WiTE Scenario 1 - June 22 Start (historical)
WiTE Scenario 2 - June 23 Start (historical)
WiTE Scenario 3 - June 22 Start (Northern focus)
WiTE Scenario 4 - June 22 Start (Southern focus)
WiTE Scenario 5 - June 22 (?) Start (Soviet preemptive strike)
Etc...
WiTE Scenario 90 - Modded Scenario 1
Etc.

We've been through all this with WiTP. I'm surprised it's still up for debate.

My point is that, the rationale seems to be to adjust losses towards the historical results (obviously history is the guide to the game mechanics), but if the player has chosen to make a maximum effort on airfield attacks, ignoring other air tasks, how does that compare with the historical German strategy of the 22nd June. I don't know the answer, but merely noting that it may be possible to achieve more than the historical results, using a different strategy.

So if players were achieving +6000, could the Germans have achieved the same with a different strategy on the day. [:)]

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Secondly, I may have missed it, but I can't spot any reference to the game breaking "March '42 Madness" problem, whereby Soviet capabilities mysteriously collapse in relation to Axis combat capabilities, regardless of the strategic turn of events.

This is being addressed, have no fear.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Secondly, I may have missed it, but I can't spot any reference to the game breaking "March '42 Madness" problem, whereby Soviet capabilities mysteriously collapse in relation to Axis combat capabilities, regardless of the strategic turn of events.

This is being addressed, have no fear.

Thanks. Good to know that it's being treated seriously. Looking forward to a return to WiTE campaigning in a month or two then