Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 1.05.59 rule changes?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:06:09 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2093
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
This new patch gives a huge advantage to the Russian player.

1. The Russian army will be 1.25 million men larger by late June.
2. It will have 4 months to build forts
3. It will be spending their AP's to build new armys and not be rebuilding armys before June 1942.

This sets the game back to pre 1.05 where it will be fort belts, the russian player has more then enough counters on the map, they do not need to build fort zones.

Also the combat loss ratio for the Germans was hit with a NERF BAT to make up for the lose of the 1v1=2v1 rule.

Pelton, I don't agree with you on some of your points. The four months of entrenching are almost meaningless, Level 2 forts are nearly worthless now, and the Sovs can only get higher if they spend the AP for FZs, which I think few will do. Properly set up attacking forces (German or Sov) can go through level 2 forts like a hot knife through butter.

And while fewer Sov units will probably be encircled, you seem to be suggesting that none will be, which is clearly an exaggeration. It is obviously hard to say yet, but I expect that any AP savings that they have from this will be spent on fixing their screwed up C&C--building more HQs (not rifle divisions), transferring units between HQs, etc. And obviously, their offensive and defensive abilities will take a significant hit because they will have inter-army penalties in more combats.

And you've still never provided any evidence of this so-called nerf to the loss ratio under 1.05. You can agree with the ratio or not, but as far as I know no one has ever acknowledged that it was changed, more likely it was always like that.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 181
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:06:12 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5808
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I don't think you have played the Soviet at all Pelton

Trust me, you won't have the AP's to build the forts



you dont need them you have 500+ units to dig them

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 182
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:09:38 AM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Pelton - play the game. I don't want to hear all of this I've played 19 games and more than anyone else business (a ludicrous statement in its own right unless you know everyone who plays this game and hence how much they play). You constantly see things from a certain angle. You've not even given the patch a chance and are making massive assumptions on a version you haven't played!

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 183
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:10:33 AM   
Encircled


Posts: 995
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
Eh?

You won't get above level 2 unless the German player just sits there.

Again, the incentive is all on the Germans for a '42 offensive


(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 184
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:14:53 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5808
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
This new patch gives a huge advantage to the Russian player.

1. The Russian army will be 1.25 million men larger by late June.
2. It will have 4 months to build forts
3. It will be spending their AP's to build new armys and not be rebuilding armys before June 1942.

This sets the game back to pre 1.05 where it will be fort belts, the russian player has more then enough counters on the map, they do not need to build fort zones.

Also the combat loss ratio for the Germans was hit with a NERF BAT to make up for the lose of the 1v1=2v1 rule.

Pelton, I don't agree with you on some of your points. The four months of entrenching are almost meaningless, Level 2 forts are nearly worthless now, and the Sovs can only get higher if they spend the AP for FZs, which I think few will do. Properly set up attacking forces (German or Sov) can go through level 2 forts like a hot knife through butter.



The increased combat loss ratio to the german side makes evey single fort hex a bloody mess. Yes the forts can be countered some what but they are far from unless. It makes large parts of the front static as we both know. In your game vs Katza if forts were worthless you beable to attack at any point, but we both know you can't.

The forts forse the Russian side to pin point one area and push.

Forts for the Germans mean higher then normal losses.

This forts are uslless arguement is just not true as we all know.

Forts make attacking from one side of the front to the other impossible after 1941.

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 185
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:17:44 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2093
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Forts make attacking from one side of the front to the other impossible after 1941.

Er, yes, but are you suggesting that it should be otherwise? I don't think that either side should be able to launch front-wide offensives during 1942-1943, they should have to make selective attacks.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 186
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:20:13 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5808
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Eh?

You won't get above level 2 unless the German player just sits there.

Again, the incentive is all on the Germans for a '42 offensive




Yes, true but that has been true from 1.01 to 1.06. This is old news.

The problem is patch after patch has nerfed this incentive for the Germans

This is the bias player after player sees.

The German side is put on a historical time line that has nothing to do with in game results that limits this incentive.



_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 187
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:20:46 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2093
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
In your game vs Katza if forts were worthless you beable to attack at any point, but we both know you can't.


I said forts are worthless against properly set-up attackers. Most of my front is manned by crappy rifle divisions and no ArtDivs, and you are correct, they are not going to make a dent in a fortified line. Against rifle corps with plentiful artillery and sappers, even level 3 forts just melt away.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 188
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:22:00 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5808
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Forts make attacking from one side of the front to the other impossible after 1941.

Er, yes, but are you suggesting that it should be otherwise? I don't think that either side should be able to launch front-wide offensives during 1942-1943, they should have to make selective attacks.


No sir.

I am simply supporting my statement.

1. The Russian army will be 1.25 million men larger by late June.
2. It will have 4 months to build forts
3. It will be spending their AP's to build new armys and not be rebuilding armys before June 1942.

Forts do have an impact on the game from 42- mid 44


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 189
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:23:37 AM   
Encircled


Posts: 995
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
Er, 1.01?

Try 1.05

The German tactics and how to do it haven't changed (and its players like you who found this out by playing it). Encircle, destroy and repeat.

The new patch just makes it a bit harder to do in March '42

After March '42, all the patch has done is nerf (to use your favourite expression!) the Soviets

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 190
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:26:03 AM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

Nothing is done to one side and proudly stated to be historically possible.While the other is hammered time and time again for doing things that are clealry historically possible.


Ummm.. you post your commiserations to 76mm because he has stopped playing the game because of changes made that affect the Soviet side and yet you still say stuff like this. Please learn how to construct well-reasoned arguments with convincing evidence.

It is such a shame that the man who came up with the armaments factory raiding strategy that was so cool and scared so many Soviet players into surrender, cannot come up with a possible solution to a problem that has not been proved even exists!

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 191
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:30:49 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5808
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

Nothing is done to one side and proudly stated to be historically possible.While the other is hammered time and time again for doing things that are clealry historically possible.


Ummm.. you post your commiserations to 76mm because he has stopped playing the game because of changes made that affect the Soviet side and yet you still say stuff like this. Please learn how to construct well-reasoned arguments with convincing evidence.

It is such a shame that the man who came up with the armaments factory raiding strategy that was so cool and scared so many Soviet players into surrender, cannot come up with a possible solution to a problem that has not been proved even exists!


Ignoring the facts does not make them untrue.



quote:

Pelton

Its clear that patch has

Flaviusx said"You alrdy see that 1942 will be a stalemate, The Soviets will be in a much better position to consolidate their blizzard gains -- "

1. be bigger then 1.05 by 1.25 million men
2. have 4 months to build forts
3. be spending their AP's to build new armys and not be rebuilding armys before June 1942.

Those are the facts.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is no doubt in my mind that the WITE devs are being overly influenced by Soviet Fanboy Bullies. It seems there are quite a few pro Soviet testers and nil pro German testers. This is a problem as I see it. There needs to be a balance. Personally I do not take any notice of testers who are biased at all. I draw my own unbiased conclusions about WITE, or take note from unbiased testers. I pretty much disregard everything Flaviusx writes because the guy is so obviously biased it’s not funny.

The constant nerfing of the Axis side is making the chances of an Axis victory less and less. It seems that the powers to be just can't stomach the thought of Germany winning the war in 1941/42. They are not even happy that the Russians should win by May 1945, so hey just add another 5 months to the war.

The only thing that was needed was the March madness tweak. The rest is just *pandering* to the Soviet Fanboy Bullies.

As a guy who enjoys playing both sides I think that a point is going to be reached soon (if the constant Axis nerfing is continued) where it will no longer be a possibility for Germany to win the game in 1941/42. It will then become a much less interesting game and it will be harder to find people willing to play German. There needs to be a balance struck between realism and the fun factor. A game that assigns the German no chance of victory in 1941/42 is not fun. And that’s where the game is being pushed. I fully expect the next nerf will be the Lvov pocket. That might just be the final straw for me in playing German anymore, unless there are some big changes made that force the Russians in to some of the unsuccessful counter attacks that were ordered by Stalin. Quid pro quo.

Before I get stomped on by the rhetoric of the Soviet Fanboy Bullies, and for the benefit of other more reasonable minds I am neither an Axis or Soviet fanboy.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Toidi

It seems to me that now:
- thanks to relatively safe winter/spring of '42 SU can get back to the trench warfare in '42 (I'm pretty sure I can do it with some effort & engineering armies)
- Reduced armies capability is going to hurt in the long turn, but not as much as people are fearing; I have no problem with it
- vehicles are going to hurt much more than the armies reduction; even 10k reduction in vehicles in '43 for SU is hurting; fair enough
- impact of making shock/guards armies a window dressing only (as +1 admin is really not that important imho) will affect the game; maybe it is a good idea
- it seems to me that now chances for major victory for German are nil again; chances for draw are probably same or higher
- impact of weather on reinforcements (especially in blizzard) will hurt Germany a lot. This change will lead to a much more difficult blizzard defense, especially for those who like to fight in blizzard (which was pretty much achievable, not sure anymore); it is the only change I like a lot (as it removes inconsistencies), but I think it may backfire badly



quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon



Anyone who has read Pelton's stuff will have taken note that he has made suggestions to IMPROVE the Russian side (He was one of the first to call for a bump in the armaments multiplier after a new patch dropped it by a lot). This is no different than Flav and ComradeP who have made good suggestions for the Germans, although they are more associated with the "Russian side". While Pelton can sometimes get a bit passionate about the topic of the game, it would be a mistake to assume he wants the "I win" button. If you look at his record, he wins pretty regularly as it is.

As far as my view on this patch, I think it is a step back.



quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

As the combat system won't be overhauled for the moment, that means the oddities of the combat system (like retreat losses probably being too high for smaller attacks and too low for big ones and wildly fluctuating Soviet losses when attacking) will be there for the future, and they can't be balanced because the problem is with the combat system, not something that's easier to balance like replacements.



quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

March Madness is a side effect of the too permissive logistics in WITE.

IMO the current March Madness is a result of overextended Soviets low on supply meeting well supplied Blizzard-sheltered Germans. The results are not unreasonable. "March-Madness" isn't occurring with German units that had to man the line, that would be unreasonable.



quote:

ORIGINAL: colberki

I just hope WITE does not end up like many games especially those from Russian or Eastern European developers where the Germans (in the game) are destined to lose. It maybe not politically correct for the Germans to win but this is a game. But this new rule reducing German CV during the winter of 1941-42 is feeling like the last straw for me. And I have been enjoying playing both German and Soviet sides - seems GG is giving in the the ever vocal minority on the forum.




quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil


I think these changes will lower dynamics of fighting in '42. Germans will be less able to attack, but it will take more time to mount serious offensive by Red Army. So both sides will grow grow and grow while front remain static.

I hope I am wrong.




quote:

ORIGINAL: sj80

I think Kamil and Pelton are right. 1942 will become much more static now.
I fear this patch is a half step backwards in WITE "evolution".

It will become now much more important to run as Axis backwards during blizzard to save morale and manpower. Without a snow offensive during winter 1942 the Sovjet strength and the fort levels will increase much. Axis offensive actions in 1942 will become weaker now.
I'm really waiting for the patch that prevents Axis retreats during blizzard with high equipment losses. I think it's only a matter of time until the last loophole for the Axis player is closed.
Pelton is also right with naming the major problem: Germany is bound to historic results, Sovjets are free. It seems there are too few Axis fanboys and too many Sovjet fanboys out there.

sj80



quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

What has this patch done to prevent the equally unreasonable and unhistorical Soviet run away tactics?


quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

This game has not been developed by looking at two sides, but is overly influenced on one side.

I am tired of the Axis players being driven away with insults.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild





You may be right Aurelian,but if you are i won't know it. Unfortunately i am finished with this game. It is very sad, but i like to play the Germans and as it stands they are just not fun to play. This patch does nothing to correct that and will probably make it worse.

It's a shame because as an AI only player i see all Gary's hard work on the AI going for naught. But the game just leans too far to the Soviets to make it enjoyable. If they would have only given us some of the options they gave the soviets or for that matter anything really to do after '41. Sigh...

Goodbye.




quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

I share this perception. Pelton takes his hits for his style but I think many of his point are on point. What is the ultimate goal for the game if both sides play a "perfect" game? I would think a draw. What I sense is that the Soviet play testers who I believe are exerting a bias on the game seek is Soviet win which may be historically supportable and proper for a simulation but makes for a lousy GAME.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon





quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon




I don't necessarily disagree with you to a point. My issue is there is nothing really important to fight for that a player, especially a Russian, will make a stand for. Both sides play run away (Russian in the summer/fall, German during the winter, Russian during the spring/summer) and the whole thing essentially becomes a counter shoving match back and forth rather than seeing a lot of fighting going on. The fort changes have been a tremendous beneficial change.

Part of the issue is there isn't the ability to have a real good give and take slugging match. The Russians can very rarely counter attack in 1941 and the Germans still can't counter attack without taking casualties that are far too favorable to the Russians from 42 on, no matter what the odds are.



quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Another huge game-changing patch which screws up on-going games. ... So, I'm in 1943 after playing a campaign game for over a year, and most of my armies have almost 30 CPs so are now massively overloaded. It will take about a million APs to fix that small problem. Unless Ketza agrees to play without this patch, that game is over.

I have had it with investing tons of time into this game only to have massive changes introduced which make it difficult or impossible to continue.

And I didn't see any explanation for why CP caps should DECREASE over time as the Soviets, so I guess it is just a hack to introduce more "balance"?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

I bought this game when it came out, but after following the discussions in the form, I always hesitated to really start a long campaign.
So I have to say, that my experience here is very low. But it is my feeling, that Pelton is really trying to make things better with the experience he has.
And regarding his comment, that the game should not be developed parallel to "historical" timeline, but be influenced by the user made decisions and the impacts of these, he is ABSOLUTELY right.
I remember, that I had the same impression in the old days of WItP. From a cerain point in time, the Zero-fighters lost there capabilities suddenly. Or japanese invasions were nearly impossible due to a certain date. The time was triggering something and not the flow of the game.
If Pelton, with his big experience, is claiming this, he should not be attacked personally for this. I understand his point...




What were the conditions necessary for the historical March Madness 43?

Fresh German troops operating near their supply lines against exhausted out of supply Soviets. If one can replicate those conditions, the outcome should be the consistent, no matter whether 41 or 45. Nerfing fresh German units operating near their supply lines artificially just because it's a certain date is historical determinism at it's worst.

What's arguable is whether the logistic system could support this in 42, I agree it couldn't, but then the logistic system should be tweaked instead of messing things up even more by introducing illogical "fixes" in an unrelated area.







quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz


quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
I think the German players hands are tied quite enough already. Cannot create support units, cannot decide what unit withdraws, cannot spend AP's to winterize units prior to winter, cannot control armor assignments within reason even though they might have 1000 tanks in the pool (note I said within reason, as fun as it would be, I don't want 300 Tigers in a division), forced to suffer historical morale loss no matter the situation due to dates, forced TOE changes per history even though the German may be doing much better, forced withdraws of units that got mauled during history yet might be full strength in our game, no control over when a unit TOE upgrades or who (on this date everyone starts changing) instead of allowing the German to spend AP's to keep the unit a certain TOE setup.

Sorry for the last rant, but I really, really hate having my hands tied.





quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

During march most germans pocket 20 to 30 units on average. which is 325ish AP points. Thats your math not mine.

This will require the Russian player to spend the next 6ish turn buying back units. But before then its clear weather and I can pocket 10 to 15 more again keeping the size of the russian machine in check and the ap's low as per your email

Plus the german player can push past the forts.

now we have your nerf bat patch 1.06

None of this is possible now.


Can you please refer us to the history book(s) that details this historical German ability to pocket 30 Russian divisions in March 1942?


Of course the Germans could not pocket Russian divisions in March of 1942 historically.



Just to nitpick, they did manage to pocket and destroy 2 Armies in January 42 around Rhzev with 3 fresh Divisions from France and the burnt out units at hand.

Also, second the point about excessive mobility being one of the problems, which like many issues, has it's origin in a logistics system that's out of whack.





quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I'm gobsmacked by the number of people here who are defending this March stuff. It's blatantly ahistorical. Nobody should be surprised to see attempt to bring it in line. It is every bit as indefensible as the 1.04 Maginot line business -- nor does getting rid of it mean that we are going back to 1.04. This isn't a binary solution, folks.


Flaviusx, first a big premise: thank you and the devs team for this patch. Thank you all for the outstanding support.
It's not about defending march madness. I do not like the solution to this problem ("artificial" reduction of German units CV's).
I cannot see an historical reason to this (why only the germans? Why only in 1941?)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder


One has to admit that 2ndACR has hit the nail on the head. Frankly I believe that until some of these issues are settled especially the morale and late war TOE 'upgrades' are settled, it will be difficult to really play as Axis to win in the long run. To the list I'd add the fact that Axis allies cannot recreate destroyed units and that they cannot have SU attachments (both of which are not historical in any way).

Mayebe these issues will be solved when a total war in europe title comes out, combining all fronts, with the Germans having to make decisions on where and how to allocate units and possibly even affect war production. Maybe one day it will happen...



quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

We can do with a little less beating on Pelton and a little more focus on what's been presented to us in the latest version.

My current PBEM opponent is often his own worst enemy in the way he expresses his frustration, but I really appreciate him as a player. He knows the game, plays it exceptionally well and gets turns back in a short time span. Recently he offered me the chance to quit our game if I wasn't having fun. You can't ask any more than that as a Soviet player.

76mm- I feel your pain, these latest changes have put me in the same boat as you with overloaded armies. With these latest changes if I had to look into a crystal ball, I'd predict my game with Pelton ends up about where Terje's will.





quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron

You know Flaviusx, you would have some credibility if you applied your selective historical criteria to the Russian side as stringently you do the German.

As it stands, yet again the Germans are handcuffed if they show any sort of what-if capability. I'm surprised by the subtle brakes put on the initial '41 offensive - it's not like Russian isn't capable of running fast enough or relocating industry or preserving a huge army already. I'm also surprised this has come out so quickly after the last set of changes.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

To let you know I have a Soviet game going where I have already started the grinding offensive in June 42. As I conduct my attacks each turn and push around hapless Panzer divisions who try to plug the holes I keep telling myself this is wrong on so many levels :) That game is now on the Oct 1 turn and I have been pushing all summer.

I truly appreciate the devs and their hard work. I also appreciate the passion of the players who post here.

Its always a good read!





< Message edited by Pelton -- 2/4/2012 8:22:49 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 192
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:34:06 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
This is all getting tediously repetitive, with each major patch having people going ballistic in their predictions of all the evils the new patch is going to create.

I have a suggestion: Why don't we all cool down a little and actually play with the new patch and see what happens? Then after that we can comment on the forums on the effects of the patch that we have actually experienced.

That said, I do have sympathy with people that have unexpectedly had their dispositions stood on their head by new circumstances introduced in the patch.

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 193
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:36:56 AM   
Vorsteher


Posts: 248
Joined: 4/1/2000
Status: offline
I thought always WITE one is game? Seems to be more

_____________________________


(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 194
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:48:13 AM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

Ignoring the facts does not make them untrue.


Precisely - like the fact that only the soviets have had manpower and armaments multipliers reduced while axis have never been reduced.

Like the fact that Axis morale modifiers have mostly been positive only the soviets mostly negative.

Like the fact that AP costs for the soviets have only ever increased.

Like the fact you have only lost one game and never ever played the game as the Soviets, so have no chance of producing a balanced well-reasoned argument for anything you say.


(in reply to Vorsteher)
Post #: 195
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:49:13 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1222
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Any chance of any evidence to back up your statement, based on actual gameplay?

The self-balancing of WITE can be very subtle, and if you look very closely at all the rule and formula changes, you can see some of the swings and roundabouts that creates new challenges for both sides.

The so-called "March Madness" had to be addressed - if Axis players are honest with themselves they know that the strength of the recovery tipped the balance too far. Personally, I felt almost embarrassed by the number of units I was pocketing and the amount of territory I took back. The .59 changes can be worked around with skilled play and the Axis can still get to the summer of 1942 stronger than they were historically and at a start line that will enable a better than historical Case Blue. There is absolutely no evidence that the soviets can build a 4 deep wall of lvl4 entrenchments as seen in 1.04. They will be slightly stronger than earlier versions of 1.05, but there will be plenty of opportunity for the Axis to have a good 1942.

The challenge for the Axis remains judging when to stop attacking, and deciding how much real estate they can hold with what size of army, until attrition causes the tipping point to occur, and defence turns into delay. The Axis have plenty of attrition management tools and the new .59 Static/replacement rules will reduce some of the micromanagement that has been driving me nuts.

.59 does introduce more challenges for Soviet players due to the CC and manpower multiplier changes. Having 1m fewer men in more armies with a dilution of leader quality is a new problem that will require clever solutions.

I think everyone needs to read all the changes very carefully, play the game, and get creative in solving any perceived problems, because signs are this is the version we have to work with for the foreseeable future.


Sounds like fighting windmills. One question would be what Pelton's wishes for an ideal design along his wishes would be?

The list of changes is really impressive -- a lot to digest, certainly. This continuous support by Matrix and 2by3 is what makes them different from a lot of other publushers/studios, thanks!

Amongst the changes there doesn't appear to be any huge, unjustified "nerf" for the Axis sides, at best merely minor tweaks. Dealing with the quick recovery surely has a great effect, but it clearly hadn't had any relation to reality previously. The higher vehicle losses upon HQ-buildup might be one that I will dread; I use it a lot, even for "hq mulling". I'd rather have the amount of supplies and fuel due to the buildup limited or more randomized, so that logistic contraints can't be totally overcome with that. But let's see what real effect this new rule change now has, maybe it will be minimal.

On first look it seems that the Soviets (again, also for them!) got more tweaks that will impact their ablities worse than the Germans, but it is hard to judge the true impact since I play mostly Axis. Limiting the C&C caps, removing the moral bonuses from Guards and Shock Armies, and reducing command range to h10 sounds like very serious ("new") handicaps. Within reason, there certainlyl can be no doubt now about the superior German leadership in combat now? The small NM bonus for brigades will make them less interesting for almost purely-game-mechanically based "moral building attacks", and the new 42 NM seems to be a small but seriously necessary move if the game should be fun for both sides.
If at all, the NM in 41 is still a tid bit low, since as detailed in another thread these days, and also having been brought up in the past, the Soviets stand no chance to fight in 41, and all the attriting counterattacks that were historically made (and partially even short-lived strategic successes) are presently hardly possible, and it is insensible to attempt anything but quick withdrawals.

The use of NM as a tool to switch the initiative at certain times feels like it was a bit overdone, a bit too unsteady and quick swings. Better, and that's in fact the only point I would give Pelton here (although that idea was brought forward a long time ago by others) it would be to sort unit morale and NM apart into experience and true will to fight, and have the former be raised by victories, and lowered by losses and influx of less trained replacements, which get worse over the duration for the Germans and better for the Soviets. It leads to very strange symptoms in my opinion in the first winter, where you can win a defensive battle against the Soviets, loose half of a division that gets replaced by rookies, but the morale (experience) still remains high. Or on the other hand, you loose and retreat at minimal loss, but loose 3 morale points although hardly 200 out of 30,000 involved were casualties. Moral losses should really be depended on men losses, and even an expensive victory should rather come at a moral loss than a gain. Much as a skillful retreat with low losses could benefit the defender.

If at all, I think -- as an Axis player (!) -- that the German capabilties and the logistics model for both sides should still be constraint further. And yes, I still don't like the Lvov pocket, and since it still is possible, I keep doing it despite knowing that it is almost entirely an artifact of game mechanics, hardly anything more.

One question though: the changes to the air components, is it clear how these will affect the current Luftwaffe losses? Will German air superiority be more easily possible now? The losses seemed to be quite severe for comparably little effect in many cases, so far.

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 196
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 11:55:41 AM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Pelton - how about trying to play this version rather than making assumptions and unfounded statements. I also have to chuckle when you make your claims about playing more than anyone else therefore you know what this is going to be like. Either that's a massive leap of faith or you know everyone who plays this and how much they've played? You have made some valid claims in the past but this constant vitriolic diatribe with unfounded statements accompanied by trolling doesn't help your case. It weakens it.

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 197
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 1:57:02 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6323
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

The four months of entrenching are almost meaningless, Level 2 forts are nearly worthless now, and the Sovs can only get higher if they spend the AP for FZs, which I think few will do.


They won't get to level 3 even doing that. Digging a level 3 fort in mud/snow is damn near impossible even with generous engineering support. The only reason to drop FZs in spring is to prevent fort decay -- if you're actually planning on getting level 3 forts, that's not going to happen until weather clears.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 198
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes making people go ballistic - 2/4/2012 2:02:25 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

The four months of entrenching are almost meaningless, Level 2 forts are nearly worthless now, and the Sovs can only get higher if they spend the AP for FZs, which I think few will do.


They won't get to level 3 even doing that. Digging a level 3 fort in mud/snow is damn near impossible even with generous engineering support. The only reason to drop FZs in spring is to prevent fort decay -- if you're actually planning on getting level 3 forts, that's not going to happen until weather clears.


That's true! Forts at level 2 are not worth much, and getting above that requires clear weather and lots of time. The fort nerf was good, but maybe, just maybe, it went a tiny bit too far...

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 199
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 2:49:31 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

During march most germans pocket 20 to 30 units on average. which is 325ish AP points. Thats your math not mine.

This will require the Russian player to spend the next 6ish turn buying back units. But before then its clear weather and I can pocket 10 to 15 more again keeping the size of the russian machine in check and the ap's low as per your email

Plus the german player can push past the forts.

now we have your nerf bat patch 1.06

None of this is possible now.


Can you please refer us to the history book(s) that details this historical German ability to pocket 30 Russian divisions in March 1942?


Of course the Germans could not pocket Russian divisions in March of 1942 historically. Why is that? Their forces at the front were depleted after the blizzard fighting (typically what happens now) and they had less than 200 operational tanks on the entire front (Germans in game typically have much more maybe 8-10 times more because the German players are far more careful with their armor, especially during the winter, than their historical counter parts). The entire German High command effort during this time was looking towards rehabilitating units in Russia along with trading out divisions with fresh divisions from France. No thought was given to any offensive at all since there were no signficant forces available for offensive operations. This is what happen historically.

In game, the Germans are not doing "March madness" attacks with troops that were at the front for the winter. They are simply not capable of conducting it on their own.

Instead, most German players do something their historical counterparts did not do and that is to start withdrawing select units before the snow really starts flying. If they are smart, most of these units will be 86+ moral units. This reserve then sits in Poland/Germany to rehab and rest during the winter. Typically this reserve is usually a mix of panzer units and infantry and varies in size from 10-20 divisions in most cases.

After the winter starts to wind down, this reserve is moved up to the railheads to act as spearheads for the March counter offensives. Typically they are near their rail heads and they have a huge advantage of being fresh, elite units going against Russian units that are typically far from their rail heads and worn down from the blizzard offensive. Take this reserve out of the equation and there would be no "March madness" for the most part. Because the German players created this reserve, it makes it possible for a "March madness" on the level of what happen in March of 1943.

Is there anyone here that really believes that if the Germans had such a reserve in March of 1942 that they could not have cut some sector of the Russian line to pieces? The issue for me is not that they can cut a Russian line to pieces, but the mobility in the snow which is amplified by the fact that these spearheads are elite moral units and they are driving around Russia like its summer time in terms of mobility.

This part of the patch is ill thought out "based on historical precident" of what the 1942 March German army was capable of while totally ignoring the creation of the reserve making it all possible. If this is not a blatant example of trying to chain the German player to a historical pattern regardless of conditions in game, I don't know what is.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 200
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 3:33:53 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
I have read all of the posts in this thread, I have been away for awhile but still playing the AI, I have been watching alot of the AAR's and have to agree with Klydon, March Madness is done with basically 20 FRESH, full strength, high morale units that spent the entire winter back home with their families and not getting butchered by the blizzard or the Russians. Yet those troops faced Russians who HAD been fighting all winter long. So they got slaughtered.

I have not played the new patch yet, so will defer harsh judgement until I have. As one who went thru the release blizzard massacres, the TOE upgrade bug from hell, 1.04 and the forts from hell, I really hope this patch does not return the game back to WW1 in the east.

I do feel that trying to stop the March madness with this code across the board is a mistake though. I can see the rule if it only concerned troops outside the initial German start lines as of say Feb 15 42 or so. But the German players have worked really hard to come up with ways to survive the blizzard and such but also give them an iron fist come spring. Now that has been removed from their play book.

I have stated before that I am not one of the "it did not happen in history, so cannot happen here types". If I want history, I will read a book. I think the German players hands are tied quite enough already. Cannot create support units, cannot decide what unit withdraws, cannot spend AP's to winterize units prior to winter, cannot control armor assignments within reason even though they might have 1000 tanks in the pool (note I said within reason, as fun as it would be, I don't want 300 Tigers in a division), forced to suffer historical morale loss no matter the situation due to dates, forced TOE changes per history even though the German may be doing much better, forced withdraws of units that got mauled during history yet might be full strength in our game, no control over when a unit TOE upgrades or who (on this date everyone starts changing) instead of allowing the German to spend AP's to keep the unit a certain TOE setup.

Sorry for the last rant, but I really, really hate having my hands tied.

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 201
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 3:45:03 PM   
jklilly

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 8/24/2010
Status: offline
Am I missing something? Look at Pelton's self-published record, playing as Axis presumably. And you want the rules readjusted to favor axis?

(in reply to bdtj1815)
Post #: 202
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 3:46:44 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
I think the German players hands are tied quite enough already. Cannot create support units, cannot decide what unit withdraws, cannot spend AP's to winterize units prior to winter, cannot control armor assignments within reason even though they might have 1000 tanks in the pool (note I said within reason, as fun as it would be, I don't want 300 Tigers in a division), forced to suffer historical morale loss no matter the situation due to dates, forced TOE changes per history even though the German may be doing much better, forced withdraws of units that got mauled during history yet might be full strength in our game, no control over when a unit TOE upgrades or who (on this date everyone starts changing) instead of allowing the German to spend AP's to keep the unit a certain TOE setup.

Sorry for the last rant, but I really, really hate having my hands tied.


Sums up my thoughts exactly

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 203
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 3:48:01 PM   
Deserted Fox

 

Posts: 150
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Sounds like fighting windmills. One question would be what Pelton's wishes for an ideal design along his wishes would be?


Honestly, apart from Pelton and his bum buddies, who cares?

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 204
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 4:08:55 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 269
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon


quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

During march most germans pocket 20 to 30 units on average. which is 325ish AP points. Thats your math not mine.

This will require the Russian player to spend the next 6ish turn buying back units. But before then its clear weather and I can pocket 10 to 15 more again keeping the size of the russian machine in check and the ap's low as per your email

Plus the german player can push past the forts.

now we have your nerf bat patch 1.06

None of this is possible now.


Can you please refer us to the history book(s) that details this historical German ability to pocket 30 Russian divisions in March 1942?


Of course the Germans could not pocket Russian divisions in March of 1942 historically.



Just to nitpick, they did manage to pocket and destroy 2 Armies in January 42 around Rhzev with 3 fresh Divisions from France and the burnt out units at hand.

Also, second the point about excessive mobility being one of the problems, which like many issues, has it's origin in a logistics system that's out of whack.



< Message edited by MechFO -- 2/4/2012 4:20:56 PM >

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 205
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 4:13:37 PM   
invernomuto


Posts: 957
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I'm gobsmacked by the number of people here who are defending this March stuff. It's blatantly ahistorical. Nobody should be surprised to see attempt to bring it in line. It is every bit as indefensible as the 1.04 Maginot line business -- nor does getting rid of it mean that we are going back to 1.04. This isn't a binary solution, folks.


Flaviusx, first a big premise: thank you and the devs team for this patch. Thank you all for the outstanding support.
It's not about defending march madness. I do not like the solution to this problem ("artificial" reduction of German units CV's).
I cannot see an historical reason to this (why only the germans? Why only in 1941?)

_____________________________

Small Ship, Big War - the Voyages of the Hibiki
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1363103

Best AAR I've ever seen!!!

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 206
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 4:15:29 PM   
Treale


Posts: 1256
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: Central Florida
Status: offline
Pelton is becoming very tiring! Time for the "Green" button....

_____________________________

Tony

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 207
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 4:26:58 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22582
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
At any rate, I'm going to play it out and see how it works out. I have some ideas on how to manage the change. It's going to be a real pain in the neck, but it's not a game killer imo, if you're willing to accept that perfect C&C just isn't going to happen all the time.


Are you talking about new games or on-going games? I don't have a problem with the changes for new games, but it sure seems like a game killer for on-going games--I would have to devote every AP for the rest of the war to creating new HQs and transferring units from one HQ to another, in the meantime all of my armies would be crippled because they would be almost 100% overloaded...

2x3's complete lack of regard for players that have invested so much time beta-testing, I mean playing, their game really turns me off.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

76mm, I am truly sorry for the pain the patch is inflicting on your game and others like it. The command change was the one item we knew was going to be very painful to current players because they had no time to adjust to it (unlike a new game, or one still in 1941). For cases like this we recommend that you consider keeping two copies of WitE on your system. The older version can be used to finish out the current game, while the newer version could be used for new games. Studying the later war scenarios it became obvious we missed a major factor with the size of the Soviet Armies, and we wanted to make the adjustment now while we were also fixing Stavka and making the other changes. All in all we think the patch is fairly balanced, but it will tend to net out as a hit to the Germans early, and then net out hitting the Soviets later on. We just didn't see a way of avoiding this issue. Fewer, large Soviet armies run only by the best Soviet leaders just wasn't right. We are at the point where we don't want to be making a lot of rule changes going forward, but will try to keep an eye on how the game is doing and try to make more subtle corrections as needed. Having worked on the Don to the Danube scenarios, we've had a better view of some of the later war issues and we think the biggest changes are behind us.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I just discovered the same problem in our team game Za Rodinu. I think the change is good, and in our case the effect will be manageable, but it still hurts to pay APs to rearrange the command structure when every AP is needed to build new units. Just a thought, a one time AP grant when first starting an old game saved on an earlier version might have solved the problem, but maybe that wasn't possible. But in cases as 76mm, couldn't you consider doctoring his save file and giving him an AP compensation? Provided Ketza agrees of course.



Guys, I think that is is quite feasible and possible to have old EXE (with old rules) together with new EXE (with new rules) at the same time!


How to do that?


Simple!


Just copy the previous WitE v1.05.53 "WarInTheEast.exe" to "WarInTheEast-53.exe" (or whatever you like) and then install the latest WitE v1.05.59!

This way you will have two EXEs in your WitE folder and you can use old EXE for games in progress (the new data settings are not applicable to existing old games anyway) and new EXE for new games!



Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 208
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 4:29:36 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2520
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
This thread makes fascinating reading: Four hours after a very major patch is posted, people decide that the game is not only broken but the breakage was the willful result of a dark conspiracy. People can glance at (certainly not read) a summary of the changes and argue the effects with testers who have spent months testing the changes.

Personally I have no opinion on the effects of the changes and I won’t until I at least try playing the game for a few days. I feel I won’t have any valuable opinions until I have played both sides in 41, 42, 43 and 44. This is an extraordinarily complex game; while there are a number of issues with the 1.05.53 version, I still enjoyed the game. I am sure I will have issues with the 1.05.59 version as well, but I trust I will still enjoy the game.

For any that I have offended, please forgive me. While I play this game, I rarely read postings in this forum and doing so produced a shock that brought on this urge to rant. I shall now return my usual haunts.

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 209
RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? - 2/4/2012 5:03:55 PM   
Offworlder

 

Posts: 869
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I have read all of the posts in this thread, I have been away for awhile but still playing the AI, I have been watching alot of the AAR's and have to agree with Klydon, March Madness is done with basically 20 FRESH, full strength, high morale units that spent the entire winter back home with their families and not getting butchered by the blizzard or the Russians. Yet those troops faced Russians who HAD been fighting all winter long. So they got slaughtered.

I have not played the new patch yet, so will defer harsh judgement until I have. As one who went thru the release blizzard massacres, the TOE upgrade bug from hell, 1.04 and the forts from hell, I really hope this patch does not return the game back to WW1 in the east.

I do feel that trying to stop the March madness with this code across the board is a mistake though. I can see the rule if it only concerned troops outside the initial German start lines as of say Feb 15 42 or so. But the German players have worked really hard to come up with ways to survive the blizzard and such but also give them an iron fist come spring. Now that has been removed from their play book.

I have stated before that I am not one of the "it did not happen in history, so cannot happen here types". If I want history, I will read a book. I think the German players hands are tied quite enough already. Cannot create support units, cannot decide what unit withdraws, cannot spend AP's to winterize units prior to winter, cannot control armor assignments within reason even though they might have 1000 tanks in the pool (note I said within reason, as fun as it would be, I don't want 300 Tigers in a division), forced to suffer historical morale loss no matter the situation due to dates, forced TOE changes per history even though the German may be doing much better, forced withdraws of units that got mauled during history yet might be full strength in our game, no control over when a unit TOE upgrades or who (on this date everyone starts changing) instead of allowing the German to spend AP's to keep the unit a certain TOE setup.

Sorry for the last rant, but I really, really hate having my hands tied.



One has to admit that 2ndACR has hit the nail on the head. Frankly I believe that until some of these issues are settled especially the morale and late war TOE 'upgrades' are settled, it will be difficult to really play as Axis to win in the long run. To the list I'd add the fact that Axis allies cannot recreate destroyed units and that they cannot have SU attachments (both of which are not historical in any way).

Mayebe these issues will be solved when a total war in europe title comes out, combining all fronts, with the Germans having to make decisions on where and how to allocate units and possibly even affect war production. Maybe one day it will happen...

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: 1.05.59 rule changes? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141