New retraet rules are no treat

[morvael]

I think routs are not affected by combat events, but multiple hex retreats might be. The rationale is that with those low stacking limits, based on artificial parameter like counters, not something more realistic like number of men and equipment, such long retreats are unrealistic. There is no effect of ZOC during retreat, if there are friendly units the hex is shielded (ZOC in such case affects only MP cost, but this is not accounted for retreats). I'll look if attrition is properly calculated for every hex of retreat (as it should be) and whether it's possible to disable bonus from fighting withdrawal in case of retreating through ZOC.

edit: by the way, those rules will be disabled for units suffering First Winter and for all units during mud.

One thing to note - you're showing Wiking SS here. The problem with retreat rules (in general, without the effect of combat events) is that they are based on experience. With high experience units (and elite SS motorized units are the best you can get in WitE) the rules produce no retreat losses. For a short while there was odds modifier in losses involved that would have some impact on those SS guys, but I took it out, since it didn't work good for those random combat CVs that from a 2:1 combat could produce 300:1 final odds. This was one of the things that produced higher losses between 1.08.05 and 1.08.07. So retreat rules are back to what they once were, and this means high exp units take no extra losses when retreating.

[morvael]

13. Fixed a bug where routing reserve units, units retreating to a hex in enemy ZOC, and units retreating across unfrozen rivers could benefit from fighting withdrawal losses reduction.

[Michael T]

Good work

[BrianG]

I think the old retreat rules need to be put back asap.

This has changed a key component of game imo.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: BrianG



I think the old retreat rules need to be put back asap.

This has changed a key component of game imo.

I agree.

[morvael]

I think an alteration was required to fix loss ratio (too much focus on retreat losses previously, with none for the attacker), all it needs is just balancing.

[Peltonx]

Lets not forget the HORRIBLE past of 2by3 never ending crap patches.

Why were the crap? because they did not address all the exploits Russian and German - Hopefully we don't see same shit with 2.0,
but the facts are its the same good old boys club of the past.
They asked none of the exploit boys to help test 2.0 - so you can expect the same bullshit exploits 2.0.

Just a guess you know me its not a guess.

Anyways back to 1.0.

Morveal has made game playable 41-45 which 2by3 never did and I am guessing 2.0 is the same [8D]

The retreat rules address the combat issues that 2by3 refused to address.

With out question morveal needs to rebalance them.

At least he is on the right track and not being negative like RL.

Same info in same info out.

Here we go again 2.0

No out side the box thinkers = same sht release 1.0 as before.

Hopefully they let morveal fix sht after release and not 3+ yrs after

[BrianG]

I just watched a battle.

Just before the German unit retreated I saw approx. 1050 damaged German ground,
then after the retreat damaged dropped to around 950 and the destroyed number went up.

I thought retreat would just add to both.

Thus I wonder if the code change for retreat was done correctly and maybe there is bug glitch: such as
maybe not adding more casualties but just moving them to destroyed?

[morvael]

This is correct. Elements still ready at the end of combat can remain ready, or become damaged or destroyed. Elements damaged at the end of combat can remain damaged, or become destroyed. It's easier for damaged elements to become destroyed, than for ready elements to become damaged or destroyed. The net result is damaged drops, destroyed grows at the end of combat.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think an alteration was required to fix loss ratio (too much focus on retreat losses previously, with none for the attacker), all it needs is just balancing.

well its good that the patch is so favourable to Pelton - but its wrecked yet another of my games - this couldn't have happened without 30+cv Pzr divisions ... and they won't have happened if this patch hadn't effectively eliminated German losses:






I just wish the altering of core game systems would stop. I don't care if after 4 iterations its more 'realistic'. As I have made clear before this endless radical patch process, tested by Pelton, has finished my interest in bothering about the WiTE campaign game. I've had to put up the 40 NM, the invincible Luftwaffe and now the invincible Pzr to see 18 months of gameplay down the drain.

Could I carry on? Yes. Can I be bothered. No

This approach to patching a mature game has lost me as an active player.

[timmyab]

OMG! Is that your game vs Viga?
The armies in the Northern pocket are in serious trouble. In the South you possibly have an opportunity to destroy his army there.

I agree that this shouldn't be possible in 44. I think Axis mobile divisions should probably have their maximum MPs reduced from 50 in 44/45 to reflect the fuel supply problems they had in the later war period.

[loki100]

to be honest, I give up on WiTE. The patching process is now out of control and I'm not interested in being told that the next patch will bring things back under control. I've been raising this over the last 3-4 patches and it makes no difference.

Its affecting the whole game. Before the recent patches we only ever saw Moscow lost in Pelton's tethered goat AARs. Now its happening in game after game - Stef78 will take it in my other game.

What we need is each patch broken down into three parts:

a) sort out bugs that were affecting the game
b) rebalance the changes introduced in the last patch
c) special new rules designed to satisfy Pelton - who will have tested them as the Axis player over the opening turns and decided that give him a nice advantage

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: loki100
The patching process is now out of control and I'm not interested in being told that the next patch will bring things back under control. I've been raising this over the last 3-4 patches and it makes no difference.

Its affecting the whole game. Before the recent patches we only ever saw Moscow lost in Pelton's tethered goat AARs. Now its happening in game after game - Stef78 will take it in my other game.

The problem is that we are in effect beta testing these patches and this is what beta testing is like. I do think that it should be made clearer that these patches haven't been thoroughly tested and people should beware, especially of game balancing issues.

I agree that the game has swung too far towards the Axis in 1941. I was hoping that this patch would tug it back some but now there's this new problem [:(]
Frankly if Soviet 1941 national morale is lowered back to 45 in 8.09 I wouldn't touch a Soviet campaign with a 10 foot pole.

[Michael T]

Frankly if Soviet 1941 national morale is lowered back to 45 in 8.09 I wouldn't touch a Soviet campaign with a 10 foot pole

But 45 is where it should be. And always should have been.

The Axis have been nerfed and nerfed and nerfed some more since day one. The game is finally heading in the right direction.

A lot of top players departed the scene years ago, disillusioned with the state of the game. That being totally in favor of the Soviets.

What we see now is a correction. Soviets players need to lift themselves up a notch (something Axis players have had to do since forever), rather than rely on a totally biased game handing them win after win.

IMO playing Soviet has never even once been a challenge at all. Maybe now you have to work for it. Bohoo sob sob [:(][:(]

[timmyab]

Ah ha! But I play both sides.
The Soviet side was way too easy when the game was first published and I consistently said so. Now I say it's swung the other way. I'm only talking about 1941 here, I only know about the later game from what I read in AARs.
Try playing just the first half dozen turns or so against a top Axis player and maybe you'll agree with me.
This latest patch is better balanced than the last one I think except for this problem with Axis losses.

[Michael T]

I know you play both sides. But morale will be right at 45. Retreat losses are being adjusted. I do agree that mild winter is too mild. I have never played with it, and won't be anytime soon unless it's watered down.

But for the first time in 2 years I am actually looking forward to playing again. And I am like you. I play both sides. But only one side has been a challenge the other a cake walk.

[timmyab]

I actually agree that 45 is about the sweet spot for 41/42 NM. At NM 40 the Soviet army basically just routs under serious pressure and at NM 50 it's unbreakable because hardly anything routs. I even prefer the higher industry railing costs of 8.07. I think the problem is more that the Germans are too strong than that the Soviets are too weak. If it was possible I would target German mobility to balance the game. I think pz division CVs may be too strong as well.

[Michael T]

IMO of the two, Soviet mobility is the one that is OTT. In 1941 Soviet INF MP should be around 8-10MP, not 12-16MP.

Soviet units in WITE have always been able to move too far and too reliably in 41. There are simply no real C&C penalties at all for them.

Introduce some real C&C disasters and leaden of foot ID units for the Soviet and I will talk German MP. But spare me otherwise.

[timmyab]

Agree that Soviet C&C is way too good and again I've been vocal about that right from the start and it's never been touched. The first turn surprise rules are the only nod towards it, but Soviet command problems should extend well into 1942. Of course the Germans had their own high command woes as well.
You have to end up with a game that is balanced though and that's my main concern. At the end of the day remember the Germans lost for a reason and I would suggest that the logistical nightmare that was Operation Barbarossa was a large part of that.

[RKhan]

Setting aside which side may or may not be advantaged, I have to agree with Loki that the patching approach is dangerous. I say this as a very senior software professional myself.

Patch releases ought to contain only bug fixes, security upgrades and fixes for the most egregious exploits. There should ideally never be controversy over a patch.

I accepted the principle I saw here that patches ought to be immediately incorporated by both sides in a game based on the above assumption. I think now we are all advised to wait until further play testing is conducted by the community at large.