Matrix Games Forums

Community 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 Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

1943 conversion bug.

 
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 >> 1943 conversion bug. Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
1943 conversion bug. - 4/21/2013 9:35:53 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5805
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Ok after rereading much of: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2792361

Which had a huge armament issue in late 1944, so much so 2by3 had to hot patch the game. There was allot of very heated debate at the time as the GHC player was far past the historical advance to the East. Yes I was right and Flaviusx wrong hehehe game ended in a draw.

After the hot patch 2by3 put in some Major changes to the game.

GHC
1. Manpower production tweaked up
2. Armament production increased by as much as 40%
3. many divisions added to the game late war August 44 to Macrh 45

SHC
1. Lower production of manpower and armaments.

It has not been until after 1.06.13 that any games have gone to late war 44+ that are basicly even and headed for a possible draw.

I beleive the current armament issue is worse now then back then dispite the "fixes"

The old issue did not hit 500k plus men in manpower pool until late 44. The current issue is starting in early 1944 as this game : http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3192826

GHC in this game is alrdy over 500k in manpower pool in February 1944

In my game on turn 136 the manpower pool is at 360k and I have armaments in the pool, yet my manpower pool is growing by 20k per turn in Jan 1944. Pelton vs Hugh AAR

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3146387

In several other game late 43 the manpower pools are also growing.

Kamil vs Mike AAR : 420,000 men in manpower pool.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3202999&mpage=12&key=

This AAR the issue is just starting to snowball as manpower pool is almost 200k mid 43 with several 100k armaments in pool: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3188951&mpage=10

Personally I have serveral other 43 on going and I am seeing the same snowballing of the manpower pools.

The issue starts in mid 43 most games and is at 500,000 + by February 1944.

If anyone esle has or is having the same issue P report it on this thread asap.

With games having the manpower pools grow by 20k to 50,000 men per turn this means that by Jan 45 the German manpower pool will have from 1.3 million to 3.0 million.

Mybee nothing is wrong, but in the game (AAR also) Disgruntled Veteran vs A-game GHC manpower pool is over 500,000 Feb 1944 and growing by 50,000 per turn. GHC has only 3,000,000 total men. Again this is more then the game 2by3 hot patched going by same turn in each game.

This means by February 1st 1945 all of Germany's men will be in the manpower pool and none at the front. 52 weeks X 50,000 = 2,600,000 men in the manpower pool.

Hello I know I am a complete dumass, but something is screwed kind poeple.

I do not know of many poeple who want to play a game that by late 44 more then 50% of the german army is in the manpower pool.

I know the game is amazing complex and very very few games get to 44+, but there is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed.

I could be wrong, but I do no think that the complete German OOB should be in the manpower pool by Jan 45.

Thanks




< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/26/2013 1:26:28 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
Post #: 1
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/21/2013 9:46:23 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5805
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
On a side note all of the games other then Kamil vs Mike the GHC is doing better then historical.

_____________________________

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 #: 2
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/21/2013 9:47:32 PM   
morvael


Posts: 3863
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
I see problems with on demand production (like tons of arms and men in the pool, but units not getting new guns). I would look there, since most items are built by this system. I understand there may be some brakes put on that system, to not get into a JIT situation, which was invented after WW2 and could not be perfected before everything was computerized, but I'd prefer that the ARMs/MP situation should decide if there is shortage of ground elements or not, rather than element availability/specifics. Much easier to balance then. But first I'd like to get more details on how the on-demand system works (or is supposed to work), so we could monitor it for some anomalies.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 3
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/21/2013 10:23:11 PM   
morvael


Posts: 3863
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
I think that there is a cap on production based on the cost of item, so that more expensive elements are produced less. What impact the real demand (number of slots required by units to fill them) has, I don't know. When I was looking at the upgrade anomalies (fixed in late 1.6 series) I have noticed that there was no production of new AA guns, because all the TOEs had prescribed the older type and they were juggling the remaining older guns to and from the pool and were content with that, even though the number was getting lower and lower each turn, and no arms were spent on building the newer guns. I believe similar situation can happen here. Until you have more types available or light losses, the meagre production is enough. Once the casualties increase, the production does not respond to this, and the arms accumulate and the armies shrink. Even with the current fixed system (in my case) it produces a handful of AA guns per turn, whereas 60 were produced weekly. I believe a lot could be cured by switching as much production as possible to a not on-demand system, like tanks and planes (but would require a lot of research), or the caps have to be revised. I'd go for a system that averages the real demand over a set amount of previous turns and the production numbers follow that average (proportionally reduced when there is not enough arms).

Bear in mind these are just my opinions formulated after watching the system. Do your own research, note down numbers in the pool, produced, lost and in units (find out also how much current TOEs would like to have) and over a few turns you should arrive at some conclusions like I did.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 4
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/21/2013 10:44:25 PM   
Dark_Star


Posts: 47
Joined: 1/21/2012
From: Flatland
Status: offline
I like to suggest that currently WITE maybe just too long. Until the west is done and integrated with the east, production for east maybe falling apart.
I do not know, but if code is being added in for the west then the effect might be showing up,
In the west historically the rail system is starting to fail do to shooting up locomotives & rolling stock. The lost of Oil production because of bombing (Romanian oil fields) and Oil movement problems
All causing failures of moving devices & MP to production centers and/or front.
this is just a suggestion, altho February of 1944 seems early
And of course what German Soldier longs to go to the Eastern Front, a little heel dragging maybe

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 5
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/21/2013 10:58:21 PM   
Disgruntled Veteran


Posts: 500
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline
In my current game I have 526k men in the manpower pool at T 142. I have disbanded all Corps artillery, half of my pioneers, some rockets, and a few very low divisions. All my luftwaffe, security, all remaining SU's (minus SPG's which are produced outside of armaments)are set to 50% TOE. I've pulled all my cavalry off the line as cavalry squads are more expensive. With this I cannot rebuild my army even with a half million men in pool. I'm losing at least 100k men and 1200-1500 guns at a minimum every turn. On average I'm fielding 60k men every turn. So I'm losing 50k net men every turn.

While I'm not necessarily calling "bug" here I am wondering if the Developer's had this sort of outcome intended. Granted, a lot of this is determined by player skill and tactics, but I have played conservatively, kept all my battles in the same OOB, and withdrawn everytime my line was compromised. I've lost very few divisions to encirclements and otherwise have done very well. June 1, 1943 I had 3.9 million front line men. Now, March 1944, I have 2.5 million men front line. No Stalingrad, no Bagration, just straight up battle attrition losses. So I guess I'm calling on 2 issues:

1- Atrocious retreat losses

2- Lack of axis armaments in the late game. Even with the increase in armaments in 1944 I simply cannot even field the reserve men in my pools. Originally I thought a draw was possible, but at this point my game will not hit 1945..not enough space.

I can email my save and password to anyone who wants to take a look at it. Any input is appreciated.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 6
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/21/2013 11:50:01 PM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1389
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
Stats on German production of tube fired weapons.

http://www.feldgrau.com/weaprod.html

How do these compare to the late war games?

(in reply to Disgruntled Veteran)
Post #: 7
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 12:22:00 AM   
chuckles

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline
Hello Disgruntled Veteren

"Atrocious retreat losses"

Re the German player, The Germans took great pains to conserve the Heavy equipment in their divisions. (I guess they realized they had a shortage of just about everything), and largely succeeded I think.

Also relevant.

An infantry division defense is usually 2 regiment up front and one behind or possibly three up front.
The divisions guns (usually 105mm) are usually deep behind this position.

To get to the divisions guns you have to push aside/destroy an entire regiment
So during this first phase the losses should be restricted to the Regiment ie infantry, MGs and mortars. Until an entire regiment has been chewed up.
After losing the regiment the division would probably retreat in any case so losses of the divisional guns are avoided. If it doesnt retreat losses to the divisions guns become more likely
Heavier calibre guns are even further back and rarely sustain any casualties.

Specifically for the German infantry the 222/221 armoured cars are for recon not assaults. Every infantry regiment has 6 of its own guns 75 or 150 mm in calibre. These are with the regiment so are more much more likely to take casualties than the divisions howitzers.

Of course this ignores artillery v artillery duels. (not very commom but could of course easily be worked into the battle algorythm)

Also AT guns often seem to get hit in WITE battles very early, These are not deployed as a rule against infantry (compared to the effect on infantry of MG fire the AT guns HE round is insignificant and obvioulsy its bad policy to expose them to infantry and not have them when tanks do appear.) so unless Armour is in the assault they arent deployed.

I think that If even these few 'rules' are considered they would alleviate the late war Materiale problems.

In short the German is Probably losing too much Heavy equipment because of an "unsophisticated" battle algorythm.

This is a very simple example there is I think there is enourmouse potential to work a lot of detail into the battle algorythm.

Best Regards Chuck.

(in reply to Disgruntled Veteran)
Post #: 8
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 12:23:45 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5805
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rmonical

Stats on German production of tube fired weapons.

http://www.feldgrau.com/weaprod.html

How do these compare to the late war games?


The issue is not guns but simply manpower, something is screwed up so bad as to make the game simply unplayable past Jan 44.

In Kamil vs Mike Kamil has 400,000 + in the pool in early 43. unplayable as he will have more men in pools then in the field by 44.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/22/2013 12:25:44 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 rmonical)
Post #: 9
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 12:28:38 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2334
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
Just curious, how many Arm Points are tied up in all these FZ's you guys have built?

The FZ spam needs to be fixed as well.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 10
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 12:30:00 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5805
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chuckles

Hello Disgruntled Veteren

"Atrocious retreat losses"

Re the German player, The Germans took great pains to conserve the Heavy equipment in their divisions. (I guess they realized they had a shortage of just about everything), and largely succeeded I think.

Also relevant.

An infantry division defense is usually 2 regiment up front and one behind or possibly three up front.
The divisions guns (usually 105mm) are usually deep behind this position.

To get to the divisions guns you have to push aside/destroy an entire regiment
So during this first phase the losses should be restricted to the Regiment ie infantry, MGs and mortars. Until an entire regiment has been chewed up.
After losing the regiment the division would probably retreat in any case so losses of the divisional guns are avoided. If it doesnt retreat losses to the divisions guns become more likely
Heavier calibre guns are even further back and rarely sustain any casualties.

Specifically for the German infantry the 222/221 armoured cars are for recon not assaults. Every infantry regiment has 6 of its own guns 75 or 150 mm in calibre. These are with the regiment so are more much more likely to take casualties than the divisions howitzers.

Of course this ignores artillery v artillery duels. (not very commom but could of course easily be worked into the battle algorythm)

Also AT guns often seem to get hit in WITE battles very early, These are not deployed as a rule against infantry (compared to the effect on infantry of MG fire the AT guns HE round is insignificant and obvioulsy its bad policy to expose them to infantry and not have them when tanks do appear.) so unless Armour is in the assault they arent deployed.

I think that If even these few 'rules' are considered they would alleviate the late war Materiale problems.

In short the German is Probably losing too much Heavy equipment because of an "unsophisticated" battle algorythm.

This is a very simple example there is I think there is enourmouse potential to work a lot of detail into the battle algorythm.

Best Regards Chuck.


I think one of the issues is Germany had a 5 to 1 kia ratio and for some very stange reason 2by3 is hung up on the 2.5 to 1 end of war ratio.

From 42 to Jan 45 the ratio was atleast 5 to 1, so when you have a game set up on a none historical lose ratio your going to end up with these distasters.

I think the engine is fine but the loss ratio should not be about the end of war ratio but the 42-43-44 yr lose ratio.

The fact is SHC forses simply sucked in late 44 as badly as they did in late 42. They simply had more.

Change the lose ratio to historical and this issue will go away. The western allies lose ratio was 2 to 1, the russians 5 to 1

< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/22/2013 12:31:46 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 chuckles)
Post #: 11
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 12:33:03 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5805
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Just curious, how many Arm Points are tied up in all these FZ's you guys have built?

The FZ spam needs to be fixed as well.


In my games I have built very few only have 118 on the map in the Jan 1944. FZ have nothing to do with it ask Kamil

Hes getting wiped in late 42 to 43 with 400,000 in manpower pool.

The problem is part the system it self as morveal points out and an unhistorical lose ratio's(aka retreat losses). Which someone pointed out over a yr ago also to be ignored like National morale lvls.

2by3 can do whatever they like its there game, but its simply not playable because GHC loses and the current system is not even close to working. It falls appart faster now then it did for The Bear and Wolf.

Its here in many games so it can't be ignored as you got this set wrong or that. Its many different poeple with different skill sets and 1 guy playing 4 different games.

How to fix it is another question, but wth is my manpower pool going up 20k a turn and I have armaments in pool and everything at 100%? DV is going up 56k per turn explain that? He will have more men in manpower pool then on battle field very soon wth?

MT if your next game gets to 44 and your like Tarrhunnas far far past Moscow and your army simply disappears you will be bitching an moaning a river.

It sucks to put in 100's of hours only to find your army is disappearing for no reason wth!!!!

Its not just me its allot of players now so ignoring it is not going to make it go away.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/22/2013 12:47:17 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 Michael T)
Post #: 12
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 12:52:35 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2334
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
I don't know if there is a problem or not. I haven't played a game past early 43.

But I tire of Axis players who think they are entitled to a draw simply because they built a carpet of FZ and put all units in reserve. Kind like a fighter pilot complaining that he can't shoot any planes down when he is in auto pilot.

I don't mind seeing the Axis getting trashed late war. It did happen you know. Now if you have a situation where you have knocked out tons of Soviet ARM and MP and you are getting trashed that ceratinly is a problem. But if you have done less than historical damage to USSR then expect to get smashed late war.

Easy fix. Do better in your 41 and 42 campaign.


_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 13
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 12:55:37 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2334
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
As far as I know the Tarhunas problem was fixed.

Did you or these other guys get past Moscow, get Leningrad, Stalingrad, the Caucasas? Did they capture tons of ARM?

If so you have a legit beef.

But if not...

Well it seems to be working out the way it did or should.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 14
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 12:56:25 AM   
chuckles

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline
Hi Pelton.
KIA ratio?
do you mean 1 killed for every 5 wounded?

Best Regards Chuck.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 15
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 1:00:33 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5805
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chuckles

Hi Pelton.
KIA ratio?
do you mean 1 killed for every 5 wounded?

Best Regards Chuck.


dead and wounded. 5 red for 1 german


_____________________________

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 chuckles)
Post #: 16
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 1:04:00 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5805
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Ok I even checked this game http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3173669&mpage=27&key=

that GHC won by VPing out and gues what?


quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439

Turn 143 aka Game, Set, Match

Overall
Stalingrad fell this turn. However since I started my turn by that attack (eager like a kid on Xmas eve), I was stuck with alot of partisans on the map at the end of my turn as I was no longer allowed to use railroads.
Alot of screenshots will be posted below.
Brad launched 2 attacks, scoring 1 held and 1 retreat, while we managed to conduct 54 attacks, and scored 8 helds, 28 retreats, 15 routs and 3 surrenders.

USSR units in pockets at start of turn
8.

USSR units in pockets at end of turn
4.

Losses
USSR : 168.000 troops, 3.360 guns, 70 AFVs, 489 AC.
Axis : 49.000 troops, 561 guns, 129 AFVs, 79 AC.

Total Losses
USSR : 15.034.976 troops, 308.738 guns, 37.555 AFVs, 51.361 AC.
Axis : 3.660.731 troops, 50.980 guns, 13.032 AFVs, 9.808 AC.

USSR units lost
3 Rifle Corps, 2 Rifle Divisions.

German units disbanded
None.

Partisans hunted down
8, leaving 8 on the map.

German pools
Manpower : 416.168
Vehicles : 139.180
Armaments : 1.043.248 Hiwi : 173.319

Victory Points
261. Major Axis victory.




There is something wrong.










Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/22/2013 1:15:21 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 Pelton)
Post #: 17
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 1:14:00 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2334
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
Pelton there are still a lot of questions, what was his TOE settings? How far from railheads etc.

I recall a similar post from you a way back and after a lot of testing and tweaking different settings you concluded all was fine. What is different this time?

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 18
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 1:19:15 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5805
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Pelton there are still a lot of questions, what was his TOE settings? How far from railheads etc.

I recall a similar post from you a way back and after a lot of testing and tweaking different settings you concluded all was fine. What is different this time?


I have everything on 100%, DV has different setting and same of other poeple.

We are retreating and in the one game GHC won they were attacking so railheads are not issue and or TOE setting as if you read DV AAR A-game is letting him screw around with setting ect and same issue turn after turn +50k men in pools.

It doesn't matter if you have 300,000 men in the pool with armemant points or not. The manpower pool grows even if you have arm pt 20-25k per turn, if no arm pts 40-50k per turn including test games.

Its more then 1/2 dozon players in more games then that as I have several in different stages



< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/22/2013 1:20:49 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 Michael T)
Post #: 19
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 1:22:13 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2334
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
Well if you are certain something is wrong why not send some files in for the Devs to look at like before. That seems to have more effect than rants on the board.

Last time it turned out to be nothing.

Maybe this time you will strike paydirt.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 20
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 1:24:15 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2334
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
As an aside do players even know that to get actual German numbers they need to select Germany on the production screen? That simple process normally at least halves the numbers.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 21
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 1:24:54 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5805
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

As far as I know the Tarhunas problem was fixed.

Did you or these other guys get past Moscow, get Leningrad, Stalingrad, the Caucasas? Did they capture tons of ARM?

If so you have a legit beef.

But if not...

Well it seems to be working out the way it did or should.


No it was not fixed. They simply upped arm pt production and gave germans more units as I stated alrdy.

The issue was never fixed read AAR, even with extra arm pt the manpower pool never disappeared.

Tarrunnas was far past Moscow and only got a draw because of a hot patch.

_____________________________

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 Michael T)
Post #: 22
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 1:27:56 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5805
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

As an aside do players even know that to get actual German numbers they need to select Germany on the production screen? That simple process normally at least halves the numbers.


Yes I personally started digging into this back on April 5th as I posted it in a forum you cant see.

I personally messaged or asked in every single game AAR what they were looking at and to only report GHC numbers and what toe % ect ect ect was.

I have tracked all the AAR's listed for several weeks and the trend is the same.










Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/22/2013 1:33:39 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 Michael T)
Post #: 23
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 1:32:46 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5805
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Well if you are certain something is wrong why not send some files in for the Devs to look at like before. That seems to have more effect than rants on the board.

Last time it turned out to be nothing.

Maybe this time you will strike paydirt.


I have hit pay dirt more then once on this forum:

I reported the National Morale bug over a yr ago I was right all along, fort decay bug, 1v1=2v1 freak show, The Middle Earth Blizzard effects, retreat losses(still needs more nerfing}, C&C issues with GHC and SHC ( not been worked on yet), 88mm bug and now this stupid Wolf and Bear armament bug.


And several others I can't post about here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD-E-LDc384


< Message edited by Pelton -- 4/22/2013 1:48:13 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 Michael T)
Post #: 24
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 1:57:43 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2334
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
I just ran through some turns of the 44 CG and it seems to be working fine in respect to ARM and MP functions. Interesting to note that the German OOB at this time was only ~2.3 Million. So if your OOB is above that you should be celebrating.

Send some files in Pelton, the devs will work on evidence. Not your say so.

Set up test situations that should clearly show the bug and submit. Thats what I do. It puts the onus on you to produce the bug. You don't waste anyones time but your own if its a furphy.

Thats all I can suggest.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 25
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 2:02:52 AM   
chuckles

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline
quote:



The issue is not guns but simply manpower, something is screwed up so bad as to make the game simply unplayable past Jan 44.

In Kamil vs Mike Kamil has 400,000 + in the pool in early 43. unplayable as he will have more men in pools then in the field by 44.


Hi Pelton

The problem may be largely because in the Battles and Retreats far to much heavy Equipment is lost and far to few infantry.

In a infantry defensive battle you should lose about 100 infantry squads before you lose any howitzers.

In the Assault you should lose pretty much -only- infantry squads all the support weapons are indirect fire and so largely 'safe'

It seems that in the battles here all weapons are employed line of Sight, This allows for the large (ahistoric) loss of long range and indirect fire weapons.

If you lose much less Heavy equipment and much more infantry squads the problem would be improved, No?

Best Regards Chuck

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 26
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 2:21:47 AM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 2348
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
I assume the manpower is in active pool and not circling in tranfer pools (was a major problem in earlier versions)?
How well (or not) are your divs filled, what do they lack in equipment?
Many german infantry squad types don't have an upgrade path so swap-out of old types has to rely on TOE upgrades and/or refit mode. In tests with later 1.06 versions I had seen multiple problems there although these were static late-war testgames (human vs human).

Note that late in the game german production may be affected by ressource shortages as they rarely move captured ressources back home. Armaments shortages may also come into effect due to the changed scrapping rules, you may have old squad types sitting in the pools for a long time.

(in reply to chuckles)
Post #: 27
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 2:24:35 AM   
Disgruntled Veteran


Posts: 500
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

As an aside do players even know that to get actual German numbers they need to select Germany on the production screen? That simple process normally at least halves the numbers.


In my case...yes I do. I have about 15-20 forts on the map at any given time to your other question.

The problem Michael (I think) is that the axis take tremendous gun losses once the Russian offensive gets going. My last turn I lost 3k guns in 1 turn with no surrenders (just attrition) The AI production system tends to build guns at the expense of rifle and motor squads best I can tell so your often trying to build guns at the expense of infantry and so nothing really happens. Once the Russian breaks you to a certain point there is no recovery. You may build 2k guns a turn but if you lose 2500 your chasing air and everything else whithers as well. Even the vamped up 44 armaments production trails behind.

In my game I took Leningrad and many other big cities on the Volga. I had a great Blizzard and have hammered A-Game's OOB relentlessly until late Summer 43. He's still now under 8 million in early 44. He's low on trucks and has 0 armaments. (from his email). A-Game can lose 2 attacks in a row but win the 3rd and easily win the war of attrition because that final loss is devastating to the axis.

The main issue is whether late war axis players should be sitting on hundreds of thousands of men in the pool. If I could field those men I could stop my opponent for a draw IMO, but as it is now most of my infantry are between 1-3 CV because not enough replacements get to the front. Even on rails they simply don't refit. I have 2 divisions that have been waiting to withdraw for 5 turns now but can't because they wont refit...on the edge of the map!!!!

Perhaps after more testing (not just my experience) axis armament production could be increased in 44. It would make the game more enjoyable.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 28
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 2:30:45 AM   
Disgruntled Veteran


Posts: 500
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

As far as I know the Tarhunas problem was fixed.




I thought they just patched in bonus armaments for him? More of a hot fix than a "fix".

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 29
RE: Late War armament issue back worse then before. - 4/22/2013 2:54:15 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2334
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
Are two issues getting confused here?

I mean if you lack ARM but have MP then that is a seperate issue to having ARM and MP.

If you lack ARM then that is not a bug. It may an issue for late war Axis players but its not a bug.

If you have ARM and MP in many hundreds of K in the German pool. If you have all units set to 100% TOE. If you have all units set to refit. If all units are on or near a railhead. If you have all units with good C&C (does disbanding all Corp hurt?). If your units are all below 70% TOE.

Then if your pools are still going up then I would say some investigation is needed. But so far every time someone has offered up a file to look at there has always been an acceptable reason for the blow out.

Pelton anyone can cry 'the injuns are comin' a hundred times and sure once or twice they are coming. But the other 98 times it was just the wind.

Your strike rate is low. Hence you acquire the cry wolf syndrome. Get some credible evidence. i.e. save game files that show the problem.

If there is a problem then I want it fixed as well. But you need to prove it. Just saying its so isn't going to wash it.


_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Disgruntled Veteran)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Tech Support >> 1943 conversion bug. Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   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

0.125