Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Attack loses screwed up?

 
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 >> Tech Support >> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 2:46:08 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Submachine guns, but thats old news as it was pointed out to me over a yr ago by a bunch of other poeple on another thread.


So you've watched these battles at high detail to see that's where the squad slaughter is taking place in these instances, or are you simply assuming that is what it taking place here based on what someone else told you over a year ago?

If you're confident that SMGs are the operant difference than it should be cake to sandbox and observe this with identical conditions (same hex type, weather, attacking units and values - just create different TOE defenders and run it through a few times to avg out die rolls).

If SMGs are overpowered, I don't understand why dialing that back would otherwise break the game. Seems like something that could be corrected when identified.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 31
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 2:57:36 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5765
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

Submachine guns, but thats old news as it was pointed out to me over a yr ago by a bunch of other poeple on another thread.


So you've watched these battles at high detail to see that's where the squad slaughter is taking place in these instances, or are you simply assuming that is what it taking place here based on what someone else told you over a year ago?

If you're confident that SMGs are the operant difference than it should be cake to sandbox and observe this with identical conditions (same hex type, weather, attacking units and values - just create different TOE defenders and run it through a few times to avg out die rolls).

If SMGs are overpowered, I don't understand why dialing that back would otherwise break the game. Seems like something that could be corrected when identified.


Its not so easy from what I have been told.

As with everything one little tweak has far reaching effects when your talking 100's of turns, 1000's of battles and 100,000's of die rolls.

I am confident now witw will not have same issues, which means wite 2.0 will also not have same issue.

_____________________________

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 Seminole)
Post #: 32
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 3:09:53 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
A juicy Soviet Tank/Cavalry Stack is exposed after trouncing an Axis fortified hex:






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 33
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 3:12:04 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
An experiment: the infantry adjacent to the stack attaks alone, after a preliminary air-ground attack:











Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Marquo -- 12/30/2012 3:14:22 PM >

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 34
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 3:18:35 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
Now, imagine what would happen if I amassd multiple panzer units for the counterstrike after the same air-ground attack...






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Marquo -- 12/30/2012 3:26:20 PM >

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 35
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 3:38:58 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5765
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Now, imagine what would happen if I amassd multiple panzer units for the counterstrike after the same air-ground attack...








Interesting results, but they are 180 degrees from the ones I posted and have in the past.

Post#2 and #9

_____________________________

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 Marquo)
Post #: 36
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 3:41:56 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
What I do not understand:

1st Case: Modified CVs 307/84, odds 3.6:1, and no air units from either side participate

2nd Case: Modified CVs 1115/121, odds 9.2:1, robust air support

And...losses in both case about equal?


Why do 6 infantry divisions attacking at lower odds without air support inflict about equal damage to 2 Tank Corps/1 Cavalry Corps as 6 panzer/PzG divisions and 2 infantry divisions at much greater odds?



I am not suggesting that anything is broken, rather I would like to know why things work this way:

Why no air support in the first case? Why do higher odds/modified CVs not inflict significantyl greater damage at lower loss?

However, this does debunk claims that the attacking is not wise - it is very wise as the routed units are unavailable next turn, the moral equilibrium is favorably shifted and the loss ratio is favorable.

Final note: I replayed this from my last move with TD after I sent him the finished move; for the record I want to assure him that I do not reload saves when I play - this was an experiment to explore the notions raised in this thread.

Thanks,

Marquo

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 37
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 3:47:03 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5765
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
This is really standard results after 10/1942.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 Marquo)
Post #: 38
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 3:49:41 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5765
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

What I do not understand:

1st Case: Modified CVs 307/84, odds 3.6:1, and no air units from either side participate

2nd Case: Modified CVs 1115/121, odds 9.2:1, robust air support

And...losses in both case about equal?


Why do 6 infantry divisions attacking at lower odds without air support inflict about equal damage to 2 Tank Corps/1 Cavalry Corps as 6 panzer/PzG divisions and 2 infantry divisions at much greater odds?



I am not suggesting that anything is broken, rather I would like to know why things work this way:

Why no air support in the first case? Why do higher odds/modified CVs not inflict significantyl greater damage at lower loss?

However, this does debunk claims that the attacking is not wise - it is very wise as the routed units are unavailable next turn, the moral equilibrium is favorably shifted and the loss ratio is favorable.

Final note: I replayed this from my last move with TD after I sent him the finished move; for the record I want to assure him that I do not reload saves when I play - this was an experiment to explore the notions raised in this thread.

Thanks,

Marquo


Thats because if you watch the rounds, before the retreat The loses are like 1700 German and 1700 russian, the retreat loses causes the 2500 extra loses NOTHING to do with tanks/guns/planes or men.

So you can have 1000000000000 or 500 CV the result will be about the same.

Its really not all that random, the retreat losses that is.

The round by round loses can be random.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 12/30/2012 3:50:51 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 Marquo)
Post #: 39
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 3:57:05 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
"Interesting results, but they are 180 degrees from the ones I posted and have in the past."

I can't explain that, however what I posted above is my routine experience counterttacking the Soviet in 1943; they suffer greivously while I incur acceptable losses. And beleive me, 5 such attacks per turn has kept the SU in check; and often I lose even less and the Soviet more. My questions above stand:

"Why no air support in the first case? Why do higher odds/modified CVs not inflict significantly greater damage at lower loss?"

Hopefully there is some logic to this - I really want to understand what is going on.

IMHO you have lost many valuable opportunities to smack MT around in your match with him; most turns he left victorious but spent stacks next to you in unfortfied hexes; without even moving a unit you could have counterattacked and really hurt him.

Marquo


(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 40
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 3:57:17 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5765
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Getting the other guy to retreat is ALL that matters really, lose of equipement and men and lose of morale.

The problem is after 42 in most cases the SHC retreat loses are lower then when they lose attacking and GHC loses when winning is higher then when they lose and retreat.

Now GHC can cause extra loses by getting more guns and reserve mode units into the battles. The extra 20%ish loses and 33% more wins add up over time and cause SHC to have to do deliberate attacks even when your not in forts.

At some point SHC starts winning 2/3 of the time so you have to cause as much damage per battle as possible.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 12/30/2012 4:03:14 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 Pelton)
Post #: 41
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 3:59:23 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5765
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"Interesting results, but they are 180 degrees from the ones I posted and have in the past."

I can't explain that, however what I posted above is my routine experience counterttacking the Soviet in 1943; they suffer greivously while I incur acceptable losses. And beleive me, 5 such attacks per turn has kept the SU in check; and often I lose even less and the Soviet more. My questions above stand:

"Why no air support in the first case? Why do higher odds/modified CVs not inflict significantly greater damage at lower loss?"

Hopefully there is some logic to this - I really want to understand what is going on.

IMHO you have lost many valuable opportunities to smack MT around in your match with him; most turns he left victorious but spent stacks next to you in unfortfied hexes; without even moving a unit you could have counterattacked and really hurt him.

Marquo




The logic is simple-watch the combat.

Most of the loses are from retreating and not combat per say.

Thats why the loses will be about equal no matter the final CV.

In other words your better of attacking with min forse as GHC.

_____________________________

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 Marquo)
Post #: 42
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 4:00:44 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5765
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Standard




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 Pelton)
Post #: 43
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 4:01:24 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
I understand the retreat issue; and even so it does not explain equal losses with such a huge difffence in modified CV/actual forces engaged and airpower.


You and I have to agree to disagree: your experience in 1942 is not mine; when I attack as the Axis I routine get the results I posted and so far even into 1942.

Now if we could only figure out why....

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 44
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 4:05:35 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6314
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Pelton all this has been working the way it has forever including all the games you have played in the past. You are merely trying to weasel your way out of the consequences of your ill considered retreat strategy.

Yes, Micheal's Red Army is now a monster and you won't be able to shift it and counterattacks against it are prohibitively expensive. You let it get out of hand. You cannot just run away to Poland at the end of 1941 and give the Soviets an absolutely free hand to build their dream Red Army by the end of 42. I warned you about this forever.

Suck it up or concede. There is no technical issue here. Either you accept the game design as is or not. WITE's combat engine is a done deal at this point, and you have happily ignored the problems it has on the early part of the war where in 1941 Axis losses are negligible all the way up to blizzard. So it goes.

If you want a new and hopefully improved design, you're going to have to wait until WITW. But this cake is baked and you know or should know how it works by now. Stop trying to weasel your way out of it.


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 45
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 4:10:52 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5765
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

I understand the retreat issue; and even so it does not explain equal losses with such a huge difffence in modified CV/actual forces engaged and airpower.


You and I have to agree to disagree: your experience in 1942 is not mine; when I attack as the Axis I routine get the results I posted and so far even into 1942.

Now if we could only figure out why....


I beleive the high losses your seeing is because they are tank/cav/mech units. Check the loses vs infantry only stacks or even mixed stacks.

quote:

even so it does not explain equal losses with such a huge difffence in modified CV/actual forces engaged and airpower.



Yes it does. The combat engine does a few rounds based on range then a close combat round.

Watch during combat rounds losses are very few with allot of disrupted/damaged "units".

say 1000 in most cases then retreat loses are another 1000 to 3000(in most cases). I am not sure what that is based on , but it seems to be a random die roll then baam a pile of loses.

So it does not matter if you have 10000 planes/10000 tanks/10000 guns/ 100000 mens or 1000 of each.

As long as you WIN the other guy takes the retreat lose hit.

The extra men/guns/tanks/planes simply makes sure you win.

Thats how it looks to me anyways.



< Message edited by Pelton -- 12/30/2012 4:11:47 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 Marquo)
Post #: 46
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 4:16:57 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5765
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton all this has been working the way it has forever including all the games you have played in the past. You are merely trying to weasel your way out of the consequences of your ill considered retreat strategy.

Yes, Micheal's Red Army is now a monster and you won't be able to shift it and counterattacks against it are prohibitively expensive. You let it get out of hand. You cannot just run away to Poland at the end of 1941 and give the Soviets an absolutely free hand to build their dream Red Army by the end of 42. I warned you about this forever.

Suck it up or concede. There is no technical issue here. Either you accept the game design as is or not. WITE's combat engine is a done deal at this point, and you have happily ignored the problems it has on the early part of the war where in 1941 Axis losses are negligible all the way up to blizzard. So it goes.

If you want a new and hopefully improved design, you're going to have to wait until WITW. But this cake is baked and you know or should know how it works by now. Stop trying to weasel your way out of it.



All fanboys go to MT thread P.

I am not going anyways mybee MT is, go give him some morale support he seems to be in dire need of it at this point from all the fanboy support hes getting.

Lol I am very surpised at your whining heheh kinda funny really.

Me and Marquo are simply tring to better figure out the combat engine at this point.

Your losing it I think or drinking.

We already know it is what it is, lol heheheh

What are you drinking anyways?


_____________________________

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 Flaviusx)
Post #: 47
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 4:20:09 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6314
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I'm quite sober and am drinking a cup of coffee and having my morning smoke.

This isn't a whine. What YOU are doing is a whine and I'm calling you on it. There is no issue here. Stop bitching and play they game out or concede. You know or should know how the combat engine works by now. It is what it is.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 48
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 5:37:39 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5765
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I'm quite sober and am drinking a cup of coffee and having my morning smoke.

This isn't a whine. What YOU are doing is a whine and I'm calling you on it. There is no issue here. Stop bitching and play they game out or concede. You know or should know how the combat engine works by now. It is what it is.





Smoking is bad for you. Probably old news.

I do understand quitting is very hard, but possible.

The only problem I have is this thread has nothing to do with MT.

All the posts are from my game vs Hugh.

It is funny, but atleast get on the right thread.

I am guessing the coffee has not kicked in heheheheheheheh

This is old news that I had been hoping would be addresses before WitWs release and "rumor" has it that it has been addressed.

There is more to WitE then MT, Flaviusx.

I don't see where personall attacks is a positive thing?

Wake up before posting and smoking is bad for you.

Wish you luck on quitting.



< Message edited by Pelton -- 12/30/2012 5:38:06 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 Flaviusx)
Post #: 49
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 6:04:21 PM   
Baris

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline
May I ask why so many Axis loses even the battle won in post number 37? Sure there is retreat but. Any explanation.
From what I understand in post 33 and 34 what is important is final combat odds after combat? Is it related to overkill fire that Panzers did about the same level damage as low strenght infantry? how to determine sufficient attack without wasting valuable movement points? sorry don't know the engine well.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 50
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 6:20:04 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2118
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
Pelton, *YOU* put yourself in this situation. It isn't the game's fault. It's your fault. And only yours.

(in reply to Baris)
Post #: 51
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 6:28:39 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
Baris,

That is my question; and I would like to know. Pelton's explanation is not comprehensive; yes retreating causes losses but the fire power of all the panzer's and air should cause more direct casualties than the infantry attack.

Marquo

< Message edited by Marquo -- 12/30/2012 8:43:22 PM >

(in reply to Baris)
Post #: 52
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/30/2012 7:43:49 PM   
Wuffer

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline
IIRC, there was an additional 'ranged' firing phase during the original 1:1 version, which was skipped then.

For a historical comparison, look at EL Alamein - harsh German losses during retreat due to lack of fuel/vehicles. But that was against a high mobile opponent.

Anyway, .... total war between the forumnites...

Happy hollidays

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 53
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/31/2012 8:58:42 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
We would assume tanks are firing at long range, slapping the enemy while the enemy cannot effectively shoot back, then everything ( tanks n' non-tanks ) from both sides mix it up at closer range...is that necessarily the combat engine?

(in reply to Wuffer)
Post #: 54
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 12/31/2012 9:14:12 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21146
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
Defender has automatic advantage (I think they shoot first once the ranges close to closer than long range artillery fire). In addition, don't underestimate leaders. Other than that, I'd agree that the combat engine is what it is and is not going to be changed at this point. It has been changed in many ways in WitW, and it will no doubt change a lot more before WitW is released.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 55
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 1/1/2013 10:19:03 PM   
Baris

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline
It is well understood sir.
It is pretty obvious it is not related to database from what I understand. Now I call this a pity for wargaming community that small mentioned in other posts. What I don't understand is why this game would be left out darkness if there is a problem in the combat engine? Shouldn't it be modified the best at least until upcoming WIE2?

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 56
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 1/2/2013 3:09:15 AM   
AFV


Posts: 371
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

If SMGs are overpowered, I don't understand why dialing that back would otherwise break the game. Seems like something that could be corrected when identified.


I agree with this. If this is the case, it appears this is a change that could be safely made.

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 57
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 1/2/2013 8:12:00 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
Are people assuming that the programmers know there is a fault, know how to fix it, and simply refuse to? It seems more likely to me a problem where they don't know how it exists.

If the situation was the first case, that would mean they are evil. ( I kid )

(in reply to AFV)
Post #: 58
RE: Attack loses screwed up? - 1/2/2013 8:38:18 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21146
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
It's that the programmers know the model isn't perfect, and that's it's very difficult and time consuming to improve it. It's just as likely that a change to help one thing will hurt something else. Only with a time intensive effort would progress be made, and it could be marginal progress. Would we like it to be better. Sure we would. Do we think we can make it better quickly without potentially making something worse, no. It's much better to fool around with this with a product that's not on the market and not already being played. We already get flak for changing too much after release and thus impacting games in progress. We don't even have the equivalent of 2 full time programmers in 2by3 Games, so we live in a resource starved environment. We are not evil (at least I don't think so).

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 59
RE: Attack loses screwed up? Close enough - 1/2/2013 11:18:59 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5765
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

It's that the programmers know the model isn't perfect, and that's it's very difficult and time consuming to improve it. It's just as likely that a change to help one thing will hurt something else. Only with a time intensive effort would progress be made, and it could be marginal progress. Would we like it to be better. Sure we would. Do we think we can make it better quickly without potentially making something worse, no. It's much better to fool around with this with a product that's not on the market and not already being played. We already get flak for changing too much after release and thus impacting games in progress. We don't even have the equivalent of 2 full time programmers in 2by3 Games, so we live in a resource starved environment. We are not evil (at least I don't think so).


The last patch did help balance things out allot now that I have 50+ turns from several different games under my belt and chatting with other players who are into 43.

I have to say based on the data over-all 2by3 done about everything they can at this point to balance out 43-45.

So I say lock this thread down at this point.


< Message edited by Pelton -- 1/2/2013 11:21:02 AM >


_____________________________

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 Joel Billings)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Tech Support >> RE: Attack loses screwed up? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.117