Testing thread for Public Beta 1.03 M3 : Last Update 4th april

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi Franciscus,

Fair enough. You're not the only one asking for this so I'll add something in for the next update.

Cheers,
Cameron

Any ETA on that?

[Tweedledumb]

I can confirm EXACTLY what Flavius experienced.

In a PBEM++ game I paid 20 PP's to "Admit Crisis" bringing my Soviet PP total to zero.

Zhukov is in Central Front so the Posture cards showed the cost of Defensive Posture as 5 (North), Free (Centre) and 5 (South). I clicked on the "Free" Card and got a communications error and all my posture cards became unavailable. So far, so good.

Then I noticed that I now had 5 PP's.

So the bug may be related to a communications breakdown refunding the "old" amount of PP's required for changing posture even though none were spent.

Hope that helps, Cameron. I don't know how to get a save file from a PBEM protected game!

[lancer]

Hi Tweedlebumb,

Yep, that helps a fair bit.

Thanks,
Cameron

[RandomAttack]

A question on Conscript Garrisons. The Manual (4.12) says they are set to "fight to the death" (retreat at 100%), but I frequently have seen them (AI) retreat from cities as a result of combat. Has there been a change I missed and it's WAD? Not a big deal, just wanted to check.

[lancer]

Hi RandomAttack,

Nope, working as intended. A unit that is set to retreat 100% will still be pushed back at times. It'll be hammered, though.

Garrisons outside of their host cities are like lost cats. Never seen again. The giant vacuum cleaner hoovers them up.

Cheers,
Cameron

[RandomAttack]

Roger that. ANY estimate on when the new shiny official patch will be released? I think a lot of us are waiting for it to start new games... [:D]

[lancer]

Hi RandomAttack,

An official patch is probably some time off but a new Beta could be reasonably soon.

Cheers,
Cameron

[RandomAttack]

A question on HQ units. I understand you don't want them to be TOO flimsy, but they rarely seem to die (at least in SP). EX: I attack a lone Soviet HQ with a full-AP Pz Div. It retreats with minimal losses (ok, it's tiny to begin with). I follow it and attack it again-- it retreats again. And again. Once in a very long while I can kill one without surrounding it, but usually they just retreat almost indefinitely. Surprised the AI doesn't just use them as blocking units and let the Germans burn up all their APs attacking them. So is there something about HQ units that make them so resistant to being killed? I can see a gameplay reason for doing so, but one of the fun things about a classic breakthrough is overrunning tiny/weak HQs. [:)] I'm basically going to stop wasting time & APs attacking lone HQ units.

[Vic]

@Random,

Keep in mind that combat thats quickly resolved usually takes the same ammount of AP as moving into an empty enemy hex.

The reason that HQs act slightly different in battle is probably because their staff contingent compared to their infantry contingent is actually already quite far behind the combat lines of that hex (and thus will incur less losses if it retreats before even being seriously attacked). Also your human opponent or AI probably has the retreat percentage set to 25%.

Best to cut them off first instead of directly attacking them.

Best wishes,
Vic

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

A question on HQ units. I understand you don't want them to be TOO flimsy, but they rarely seem to die (at least in SP). EX: I attack a lone Soviet HQ with a full-AP Pz Div. It retreats with minimal losses (ok, it's tiny to begin with). I follow it and attack it again-- it retreats again. And again. Once in a very long while I can kill one without surrounding it, but usually they just retreat almost indefinitely. Surprised the AI doesn't just use them as blocking units and let the Germans burn up all their APs attacking them. So is there something about HQ units that make them so resistant to being killed? I can see a gameplay reason for doing so, but one of the fun things about a classic breakthrough is overrunning tiny/weak HQs. [:)] I'm basically going to stop wasting time & APs attacking lone HQ units.

[RandomAttack]

Ha! "ACME" Panzers... [:D] But the HQs seem more like Ninjas.

[RandomAttack]

I've played a few SP games through to the end, and here's my final take on 1.03B. Some of these items have already been acknowledged, but I'm throwing them all in here. I can see my "normal" mode of play will be Limited Decisions, Normal AI difficulty.

1. Siege Artillery is essentially useless. If confined to German-gauge rail why even include it? You will NEVER get it to Moscow or Leningrad in a useful timeframe. Even Riga and Odessa are a stretch as far as timeliness is concerned. If you want to leave it at "half-strength", fine. But at least make it all-gauge capable.

2. Garrisons. The whole concept, especially MAJOR Garrisons seems tied to the concept of needing to use Siege Artillery to dislodge them. But see above. And Riga (which almost ALWAYS gets one) can only be attacked from 4 hexes-- 2 across a river. Odessa from 4 hexes. Very difficult to dislodge a Major Garrison w/o siege arty--which is pretty ahistorical and will never get to where you need it. I personally would rather see the whole super garrison/siege arty mechanic just go away than continue as-is. Brest-Litovsk actually fell in about a week (about 2 turns in DCB) WITHOUT the need for something like siege artillery, at the cost of about 500 Germans killed. Just try that in this game and see what the butcher’s bill is. Sure it was a tough fight, and the Soviets fought desperately (well, they were surrounded anyway so it was either that or surrender) and well-- notable because it was an EXCEPTION in the early days. But Riga? Sure, they blew some bridges, but a FORTRESS? Hell, partisans rose up all over the Baltic States and hurried the Soviets on their way-- they even recaptured a few cities on their own.

3. Modifiers, modifiers, modifiers. Some (first 4 turns, entrenchment) have been beat to death. Some haven't really been discussed.
- Soviet base & starting morale HIGHER than the Germans?? I'm sorry, but that dog won't hunt. A balancing mechanism I guess, but hard to look at.
- All Soviet HQs seem to start with a leader bonus rating of 50%?? While the "great" German generals are at 65%? Sooo, the vaunted German leadership starts with a net bonus of 15% over the pilloried Soviet purge survivors, toadies, etc., who (even if a few WERE that good) wouldn't make much of a difference as the rest of the army crumbled around them.

I really do understand the need to balance the game to account for the AI, but in all fairness I don't see how *any* AI could do worse than what really happened the first couple of weeks. Make the LATER turns tougher-- more reinforcements, tighter German logistics, etc. I am not a "fanboy" of either side, but while this is a fun game, to me it doesn't have the "look & feel" of what actually happened the first few turns.

On the plus side, the editor at least allows some of this stuff to be tweaked to each persons preference and I thank you much for that!

[bobarossa]

I was going to disagree with you on the difficulty of taking Brest but Wikipedia's entry on "Defense of the Brest Fortress" says the road, railway, and bridges were all captured on the first day. Fighting for the citadel ended by June 29 and resulted in 500 dead, and >1000 wounded for 45th Infantry. They captured some 7000 Soviets. All-in-all, much easier than the week+ it takes in the game. Stahel claimed the battle wasn't over until July 23 and Glantz said July 12th. Wiki says there was no documented evidence for combat after June 29th except for capture of Soviet lieutenant on July 23rd.

[ryan1488]

I'll have to agree that siege artillery isn't much use anymore. I much prefer use on german rail.

What about each turn it takes away say 20% of maximum entrench value. You would have to invest a total of 5 turns to get the old benefit of it. Plus tying it up so it can't zip around city to city.

Just my thoughts so far.

[baloo7777]

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I've played a few SP games through to the end, and here's my final take on 1.03B.

You are talking about 1.03b from a SP view, but I find it also fits in my experience with the 1.03b PBEM games I've been playing. I am in full agreement with your observations. The siege artillery is now mostly useless as the tracks never get to any city with a major garrison as you said. Something in between the Atomic powered siege guns of the original game and the useless ones of this newest version would be welcome.

[Vic]

Uploaded public beta version 1.03 H. See top post for changelist.

Thanks for all the continued feedback.

And be aware we are still working on some bigger extra's behind the stage.

best wishes,
Vic

[Vic]

@Anybody running win10

Please let me know if you see a difference with the new version H.

Best wishes,
Vic

[RandomAttack]

A couple of quick comments on H:
- Editor is now broken for me. If I try and open it I get a message about "can't find graphics...", then it crashes-- although the game itself works fine.
- Can you elaborate on the Finland fix? Will SP now get penalties for attacking (not moving) across the border?
- I like to play Easy mode just for the extra fuel (and now the Siege Arty)-- can you elaborate on the rationale for the extra -30% defensive (i.e., counterattack) penalty for the entire game? I think most of us were just looking for an equalization of PBEM vs SP for the first 4 turn stuff (e.g., entrenchment values). If I play Easy mode now seems like I will be taking significantly(??) less losses the entire game. Does extra -30% defensive penalty roughly equate to -50% entrenchment in ultimate results, and if so would you consider making it just for the first 4 turns vice all game?

I've been playing C a lot, typically with Easy/Limited Decisions and a couple of minor mod tweaks and have been having a blast. I mostly can win but it's not easy for me. I'm probably one of the lower-tier players posting here and I'm a little afraid Easy may be overdone now.

[RandomAttack]

To clarify on the editor: If I load a scenario I can open the simple editor from that screen. But if I try to open the editor at the main screen before loading a scenario I get a weird graphics message "Did not find J:\Matrix Games\Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa\graphics/Barb\Textures\grass.png". If I continue it just lists more graphics files. If I revert back to 1.03C everything works as expected.

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

To clarify on the editor: If I load a scenario I can open the simple editor from that screen. But if I try to open the editor at the main screen before loading a scenario I get a weird graphics message "Did not find J:\Matrix Games\Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa\graphics/Barb\Textures\grass.png". If I continue it just lists more graphics files. If I revert back to 1.03C everything works as expected.

Hold on let me check this and upload a new version.

New upload has an older masterfile (from 1.03c) included. There was some stuff in the previously uploaded masterfile that is not yet ready for testing... hence the missing gfx errors.

best,
Vic