Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now

 
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: Latest on the 1.04 in test now Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 7:23:58 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 1882
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
I think my opponent and I are going to reach the start of the blizzard, then hold to the patch comes through. We are probably going to be there in about two weeks (roughly)

Do you want the data after every turn, as I'm sure both of us are more than willing to supply it?

_____________________________


(in reply to Angelo)
Post #: 31
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 7:34:52 PM   
carnifex


Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava
I would think after having annihilated the Soviet Air Force, on turn one, any trains which tried to operate under Axis controlled skies would be easy pickings.


No one controls the skies at night, but the train kept a-rollin' all night long.


< Message edited by carnifex -- 3/23/2011 7:37:18 PM >

(in reply to Lava)
Post #: 32
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 7:40:16 PM   
randallw

 

Posts: 2048
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
The air war is constructed like the ground forces, using the constraints of back and forth weekly turns.

Even with the first week of clobbering the Red Air Force the Germans may have been on the short end of the numbers, since the Reds had maybe 10k or 12k planes to begin with, and the Germans began with under 4k.
It is not as if the Germans had enough planes to blot out the sun.

(in reply to Angelo)
Post #: 33
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 7:46:10 PM   
NinetyNine

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 2/11/2011
Status: offline
If the blizzard changes force the Reds to move troops around and have offensives in local areas of the map(as opposed to the back to Poland roll they can currently perform across the entire map), I'll be happy.

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 34
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 8:04:21 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 28583
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: color


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

(c) (Section 22.3.2) The percent of damaged elements has been reduced in December 41 so instead of roughly 5-20% the losses are now roughly 1-7% (the damage losses are still reduced by 50% in Jan/Feb 1942).


Thanks a lot for sharing these details

There's one thing that jumped to my eye, so I'm curious about knowing a little about the changing interactions in the game engine.

Above statement says blizzard attrition is going from 5-20% damaged to 1-7%, is that correct?

At first sight seems like a big change that will considerably lower german blizzard attrition losses.
Upon reading some other details in your list I get the impression you are tweaking other parts of the engine.
Does that in effect mean some parts of the losses previous suffered from blizzard, are now suffered in general ?
Trying to rephrase the above statement: even though that drop in blizzard damaged % is large, it's deceiving in an isolated context as losses are generally going to be higher due to other attrition factors?

I'm especifically thinking about:
- 10) More damaged units returned to pool are disabled resulting in less % damaged units recovered.
- 12) increased front line attrition & KIA % with net change resulting in more damaged elements

I do not intend to critize, I'm merely analyzing the changes trying to understand what impact the changes will generate.


Good questions. Let me start by saying a few things about how I view the state of the game in 1.03.

I feel the game is fun to play and that many/most of the smaller scenarios are balanced fairly well. As for the Grand Campaign I believe there is truth in both the German supermen and the Soviet supermen in blizzard. The German supermen has truth in that an expert German player can defeat a weaker Soviet player by keeping them off balance and destroying lots of Soviet units and taking key locations. This leads to either a break in the Soviet morale, or a very bad situation for the Soviets even after the blizzard (it doesn't usually get that far as the Soviet player morale breaks). There is truth to the Soviet supermen in blizzard because the average Soviet player is able to take back too much territory and the Germans are hurt too badly during blizzard. There is also truth to the fact that the Germans are too strong going into the blizzard. One reason why the blizzard is so bad is because the Germans were found to be too strong after the blizzard if the blizzard wasn't strong enough. What I don't know for sure is what an expert German would do against an expert Soviet player, because expert German players can do so well in 41 to be able to endure the winter, but against and expert Soviet they might find themselves right where average German players usually find themselves (beaten badly in the blizzard).

After studying things further, we found that the Germans were in fact too strong going into the blizzard and the Soviets were also usually too strong (even when they took "historical" casualties). So we had a goal of fixing this as well as trying to improve the blizzard so it would not be harsh as it has been because it clearly was too harsh. This is where we were as we were moving into 1.04 work. Around this time we discovered several anomalies with manpower that we had never noticed before. It was clear in order to get a handle on what should change we needed to make sure everything was working as expected. Pavel made a thorough review of how manpower was flowing and found and fixed several major bugs with manpower. These are on the 1.04 bug fix list. Many of these bugs were impacting both players, but several impacted only one, or one player more than the other. The net effect of these manpower bugs was that both sides were not losing manpower that should have been lost (due to withdrawals, various kinds of losses not being accounted for correctly, etc.). It was clear that we needed to fix these first so we could feel confident that we were working with a stable system before making changes. Ideally these would have been found and fixed pre release, but once we knew about them we had to get them fixed. This part is done now, and the system seems to be working well. The net impact of all of these fixes is very hard to figure out. We can run AI vs AI tests but human vs human tests can take weeks.

So with the bugs fixed we now looked to try to find out what was wrong with the model. What we concluded was that we were not accounting for enough time for casualties to be out of action. We have two ways to deal with non-destroyed manpower. First, the damage system which makes them unavailable for combat and over time fixes some and sends others back to the pool (with some becoming disabled). Second was the disabled system that takes a percentage of these damaged elements going to the pool and puts them in the category of more seriously wounded and thus out of action for a much longer time period. During normal times, the damaged system was repairing many of the elements quickly, and those returning to the pool were immediately available to return to the front (with only a small portion disabled). We think this system was not taking enough men out of action for long enough periods of time. There was a catch though in blizzard. During the first winter the German supply situation is so bad (as it should be) that the damaged elements were often being destroyed outright, or creating a huge churn of men from the front back to the pool, both causing larger disabled numbers. The large frostbite damaging of squads was a major cause of damaged churn as well. Now there should be more disabled during the winter due to sickness/frostbite, and the compounding effect of combat and life in weather the Germans were not used to. However, it was too much and combined with the CV reductions and the larger Soviet armies facing them, the Germans were being forced back too much.

We could have tried to alter one or two formulas, but since there were some systemic problems, it seemed better to try to make changes in many places. In addition we had already wanted to make changes to fort levels based on what we had been seeing, so that and several other changes and bug fixes were thrown into the mix as well. In the end we hope to have a better system that is more consistent and fitting reality. For example we were finding later on that manpower totals for both sides, especially the Soviets were higher than we thought they should be. In looking at casualty numbers it became clear that large numbers of soldiers that were not killed or captured were eventually discharged or sent to duties that would not show up in the game. Given our current mechanism, the disabled pool has to account for this.

As for your specific questions, the frostbite percentage didn’t make sense anymore (if it ever did) given that we increased the percent disabled for damaged troops returning to the pool. While we brought this number down, we found that the number of disabled was still very large, and we think this is because of the terrible supply situation the Germans are usually in during the blizzard. We looked at our supply modifier during blizzard and thought it was too harsh, so we adjusted this. We needed to increase the percent of damaged troops returning to the pool that are disabled given the casualty out of action time I talked about above. We also created the concept of a “transit pool” to deal with manpower that recovers fairly quickly but still needs a some time off to account for the time the individual is away from the front. Given all the changes, we also took the time to better rationalize the attrition split between killed and disabled men.

Now, did we get it all right? Of course not. It would be foolish of me to think that we’ve got everything working just right. There are many posts in the tester forum regarding concerns one way or the other about some of the changes (some by me). AI vs AI tests which can be done quickly only tell us so much. Human vs AI and Human vs Human tests take much longer. We do think things are moving in the right direction, but realistically getting things to balance out right is going to take time, and this will need to include public beta time. For all its faults, we still think that 1.03 is a good game and can be enjoyed as is. Games started with 1.03 can be continued with 1.04 if players want to do this, but the effects of all the changes on balance in these games are impossible to determine. For those of you playing tournaments or serious matches where you are playing both sides and combining scores, I suggest you not switch versions during your two-game matches. We appreciate the support of the community in helping to make this a better product, especially those willing to play and comment on beta versions knowing that their beta games may experience some turbulence.


_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to color)
Post #: 35
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 9:00:01 PM   
Lava


Posts: 1690
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
Well, I'm certainly looking forward to 1.04 and would like to thank all the folks working so hard to make this, already outrageous game, even better.

It's been a long time since a wargame has gotten the amount of attention that I have given to this one. It is an awesome "just one more turn" game that has taken me into the wee hours of the night on (too) many occasions.

Super game and I know it's going to get better! THANKS!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 36
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 9:14:09 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
Joel, we all really appreciate the work you guys are doing to support and fine tune the game.

Just curious if it is in the cards to add some form of a manual AFV upgrade option at some point like we already have for air units?

(in reply to Lava)
Post #: 37
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 10:10:32 PM   
randallw

 

Posts: 2048
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
The patches are released as betas, then become official later on; should we ever worry about using a beta too soon because of a crash risk?

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 38
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 10:19:50 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 28583
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
Crash bugs are one of the main reasons we have the test team check out versions before we send them out as a beta. We want to minimize the risk of a crash bug getting out to the public (also other major game killing bugs). There haven't been too many of these, but occasionally they'll slip in and the testers usually find them. Clearly the more changes we make, the greater the chance of a major bug slipping through.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 39
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 10:23:52 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 28583
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

Joel, we all really appreciate the work you guys are doing to support and fine tune the game.

Just curious if it is in the cards to add some form of a manual AFV upgrade option at some point like we already have for air units?


Having a manual AFV upgrade is not on my radar screen at the moment. I'm not even sure what it would take to make this happen, or how feasible it is. I haven't even spoken to the programmers about it as I've had bigger missiles incoming.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 40
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 10:48:19 PM   
Troy6677

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 9/2/2007
Status: offline
Hi Joel:

Thanks for this great game.  I have been playing as the Axis vs the AI on normal and I am currently on turn 45 and starting my version of Case Blue for the summer of 42 campaign.  Playing on v1.03 overall the game has played great.  The AI has been a challenge.  A 40 year war gaming Grognard this game was my dream back playing the old Avalon Hill board games.  As it is right now it is a super star of operational warfare on the Eastern Front.  Thanks for your efforts (Gary and the whole team too!) and continuing improvements to a game I will be playing for a long time to come.

Mark

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 41
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 11:00:49 PM   
color

 

Posts: 324
Joined: 7/24/2001
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

..........

As for your specific questions, the frostbite percentage didn’t make sense anymore (if it ever did) given that we increased the percent disabled for damaged troops returning to the pool. While we brought this number down, we found that the number of disabled was still very large, and we think this is because of the terrible supply situation the Germans are usually in during the blizzard. We looked at our supply modifier during blizzard and thought it was too harsh, so we adjusted this. We needed to increase the percent of damaged troops returning to the pool that are disabled given the casualty out of action time I talked about above. We also created the concept of a “transit pool” to deal with manpower that recovers fairly quickly but still needs a some time off to account for the time the individual is away from the front. Given all the changes, we also took the time to better rationalize the attrition split between killed and disabled men.

..........



Thanks for the detailed & interesting insight into your reasoning.
As with all your games, this goes to show the amount of thought that goes into WITE.


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 42
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/23/2011 11:23:21 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6796
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
Joel, thanks for your long explaination! That is great!

For games that might switch from 1.03 to 1.04....clearly the changes will alter the play balance during the Blizzard in favor of the Germans.

On Balance, how do you think 1.03 tilts vs. 1.04 in the 1941 Summer Campaign?

If we upgrade right before winter, is this favoring the Germans too much, or is it about even?

_____________________________


(in reply to color)
Post #: 43
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/24/2011 3:00:57 PM   
Commanderski


Posts: 877
Joined: 12/12/2010
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
Thanks for the detailed explanation and all the hard work you guys are putting into this!

You're support is really outstanding and greatly appreciated by us.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 44
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/24/2011 5:39:03 PM   
karonagames


Posts: 4681
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

For games that might switch from 1.03 to 1.04....clearly the changes will alter the play balance during the Blizzard in favor of the Germans.

On Balance, how do you think 1.03 tilts vs. 1.04 in the 1941 Summer Campaign?

If we upgrade right before winter, is this favoring the Germans too much, or is it about even?


I don't think we can give an honest answer, until more testing takes place - Speedy and Jamiam's game got borked by a bug, and the AI tests only show so much.

The breadth and depth of changes are such that I can't look at my spreadsheets and say "changing x and y means the average front line will change by z hexes".

The big change that I can't calculate the direct impact of is the reduction in supply reduction, and how this will feed through to attrition and entrenchment.

Overall, both sides should get to T25 weaker than heretofore, and the attrition "spike" on the Germans should be smoothed out.

Also the swings and roundabouts on entrenchments being linked to supply will need a heck of a lot of testing. My gut is telling me that they don't make a "dig in in September" strategy any more viable than it is now.

There is nothing in the changes that directly reduces the attacking capacity of the sovs during the blizzard, apart from the extra attrition, and the armaments points bottleneck introduced in 1.03, so the Germans still need to weaken and disrupt the Sovs as much as under V1.03.



_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to Commanderski)
Post #: 45
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/24/2011 6:26:46 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6796
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
Thanks for the reply Bob, I am just getting to winter in my AAR, and we need to decide whether to re-do once 1.04 comes out, or just stick to your House Rule suggestion. Either way, I don't think either one of us wants to re-start, so I want to do whatever is fair to both sides. We need an outside opinion on what's "Fair".

At this point I think the Summer Campaign result was "Neutral", so getting to 1942 in "Neutral" shape for both sides should be possible

Your House Rule will help in that I won't get kicked around quite as much, but it doesn't do anything for Winter attrition. I don't want to get to 1942 so weak in Infantry that we're screwed for 1942; I don't think either of us want that.

_____________________________


(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 46
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/24/2011 7:12:34 PM   
karonagames


Posts: 4681
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

I don't want to get to 1942 so weak in Infantry that we're screwed for 1942; I don't think either of us want that.


I haven't looked at how the new armaments points numbers change things - in the AI tests, the infantry numbers are recovering OK - the AI leaves everything on 100% and doesn't micromanage TOE%s.



_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 47
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/24/2011 7:18:41 PM   
karonagames


Posts: 4681
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
quote:

We need an outside opinion on what's "Fair".


Personally, I would carry on with 1.03 with the house rules, but with some flexibility - if the Sovs can "only" make 20-30 attacks with 4 fronts, I would give them a bit more flexibility - remember, less than 45 retreats per turn and the Axis are "winning" the blizzard; 60+ and they will be crucified.

_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 48
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/24/2011 8:33:23 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6796
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

We need an outside opinion on what's "Fair".


Personally, I would carry on with 1.03 with the house rules, but with some flexibility - if the Sovs can "only" make 20-30 attacks with 4 fronts, I would give them a bit more flexibility - remember, less than 45 retreats per turn and the Axis are "winning" the blizzard; 60+ and they will be crucified.


Even if you're giving up ground? Because you have the option of limiting attacks by running. Or at least pulling back a hex or two.

_____________________________


(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 49
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/24/2011 8:43:52 PM   
karonagames


Posts: 4681
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
I never tested a "retreat first strategy" I always went through the blizzard on the basis of making the Sovs fight for every hex, and retreating only to avoid being cut off.

_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 50
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/25/2011 5:32:01 PM   
Manstein63


Posts: 679
Joined: 6/30/2010
Status: offline
Joel in a future patch what would be the chances that there would be a button or some other mechanism that would alow the german & russian player  to get into the aircraft reserve directly & without  having to go to an airfield & then clicking on assigning aircraft to get there.
Manstein63

(in reply to karonagames)
Post #: 51
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/25/2011 7:24:51 PM   
lazydawg


Posts: 141
Joined: 7/28/2009
From: Raleigh NC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manstein63

Joel in a future patch what would be the chances that there would be a button or some other mechanism that would alow the german & russian player  to get into the aircraft reserve directly & without  having to go to an airfield & then clicking on assigning aircraft to get there.
Manstein63



You can get a list of reserve aircraft groups via the Commanders Report.

(in reply to Manstein63)
Post #: 52
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/27/2011 1:05:08 AM   
Aditia

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 3/27/2011
Status: offline
OK, so I am very new to the game (Panzer Campaign veteran), only bought it a few days ago, and was browsing on the forums to learn the game other than playing some turns myself (PBEM play is what I want to do).

Now, after reading almost every post in this thread, I was thinking the following:

It seems as tho the main issue in the game in the current official version (1.03), is that opening play on both sides too greatly influences the further course of the the entire campaign, and worse; has players resort to very gamey, micro managing, play instead of focusing on making strategic decisions on where to advance, where to defend, how much ground to give, etc. etc. Whereas I am sure the developers want to provide their costumers with a game that demands and rewards strategic decision making and tactical play.

Now, I cannot say anything about the changes that are being tested for 1.04, I want to make a different kind of suggestion:

- How about modifying the mechanics that influence the soviet side depending on how well the germans are doing, during the first phase of the war, as to simulate the depth of the sense of panic/crisis in the Soviet political and military high command? At least reducing the ability of the Soviets to crush the Axis in the beginning of 1942 if the Axis achieves weak results in 1941 (and perhaps increasing the ability of the Soviets to hold the line if the Axis player achieves spectacular results)

To explain; in general, the course that any military conflict takes has an effect on the mindset of the people in charge politically and militarily. Historically, the sense of crisis in Stalin's mind during the second half of 1941 was so great, that he seriously considered surrender to Nazi Germany (Anthony Beevor; Stalingrad) and made him, quite uncharacteristically be more trusting towards the advise that his top soldiers and administrators gave him. Basically, military disaster usually has the effect of forcing leadership to rethink its ways, increases the urgency to correct inherent faults, results in the swift replacement of commanders, etc. etc. Vice versa, military succes usually enforces a belief in the correctness of oneself, hubris, the lack of urgency to asess the shape and effectiveness of the armed forces, etc. etc.

In my opinion, WITE is suited to simulate this in one and maybe two ways:

- firstly through the system of administration points. I'd like to suggest a system wherein the the magnitude of the sense of crisis within the Soviet command structure is simulated by the succes of the German advance in 1941 by decreasing the Soviet AP allowance if the Axis advance in 1941 is weaker than normal. This would simulate a less effective Soviet political response to the events of 1941 due to Stalin not recognizing the extent of changes needed to shape the Red Army into an effective fighting force.
- secondly through delaying the introduction of new/more effecient weapons and command structures to simulate the same thing.

Both effects can be based on losses suffered, losses inflicted and the ownership of victory hexes.

These suggestions would hopefully result in a reduction of the Soviets' ability to mount a decisive offensive in the first months of 1942, altho perhaps the changes that you are testing for 1.04 already fix that issue.

In the mean time I am looking forward to learn the game better and getting some PBEM games in :)

Cheers,

Adi

(in reply to lazydawg)
Post #: 53
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/27/2011 4:03:05 AM   
Klydon


Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:  Aditia

OK, so I am very new to the game (Panzer Campaign veteran), only bought it a few days ago, and was browsing on the forums to learn the game other than playing some turns myself (PBEM play is what I want to do).


Welcome!

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Aditia

It seems as tho the main issue in the game in the current official version (1.03), is that opening play on both sides too greatly influences the further course of the the entire campaign, and worse; has players resort to very gamey, micro managing, play instead of focusing on making strategic decisions on where to advance, where to defend, how much ground to give, etc. etc. Whereas I am sure the developers want to provide their costumers with a game that demands and rewards strategic decision making and tactical play.


Have to disagree here. No question the Russian position is generally more forgiving of mistakes, especially in the south. The Germans have to come up with an overall objective for 1941, figure out how to do it and then stick with the overall plan. Most of the time, this involves trying to capture Leningrad because it frees the Finns up to help with the first winter and releases a significant number of German troops for other assignments. There is absolutely no question the Axis need a good opening. It must be well thought out and executed. Failure to do so leaves too many Russians dug in and the Axis not far enough along progress wise from a geographic stand point of view. This is also why there has been a lot of time spent working on Axis openings (see the war room for general help and Axis openings in particular. Cookie Monster is also working a wiki page as well). If these things are not making strategic decisions as far as what to defend and where to attack, I am not sure what is.

It could be that you are refering to the need for both sides to fix command and control issues from the start in terms of command structure in their respective armies. This does take extra "work" but especially in the case of the Russians, it is realistic as the entire Russian command structure underwent a reorganization very early in the war (disbanding of corps HQ) and also trying to balance the command structure to deal with a full mobilization and trying to deal with all the reenforcements that the Russians get is a balancing act a Russian player gets to deal with in 1941 and the ones that are good at feeding in just enough troops here and there and knowing when to send what where will do better than Russian players that have no plan. Weeding out crappy Russian leaders (if they don't get killed first) is something the Russians had to do historically and one which the Russian player gets to decide who is going where for command.

The Axis also has some command issues that most players like to fix (infantry units in panzer corps as an example) and will also face some reorganization of their support units to fit into their overall invasion plan. (sending extra engineers to 18th army for the assault on Leningrad would be an example). The Germans also have some commanders that are not exactly that hot and have several excellent commanders waiting in the wings to bring in.

I can't speak for everyone, but likely what a lot of players see as issues with 1.03 are to do with the winter and the almost universal butt kicking the Axis takes during the 1941 blizzard. If you look at 1.04, there are a lot of things to address this with some being very obvious and others not so obvious.

As far as some of your points and ideas, it is worthy of discussion. One of the reasons that v Manstein was able to launch the back hand blow as because Hitler was still in shock over Stalingrad and was not on his usual bender about holding every single piece of ground and so v Manstein had more leeway in setting things up. (Not to mention v Manstein kept reminding Hitler that army group A was in danger of being lost unless he was given a free hand). An example with Stalin was Zhukov was able to convince him to wait on the second Stalingrad offensive against the Italians due to the bad decisions in widening the winter offensive in 1941/42.

< Message edited by Klydon -- 3/27/2011 4:09:50 AM >

(in reply to Aditia)
Post #: 54
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/31/2011 9:10:57 PM   
cookie monster


Posts: 1693
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline
bump.

guys were wondering about 1.04's ETA

_____________________________


(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 55
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/31/2011 9:22:09 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

bump.

guys were wondering about 1.04's ETA


Aw, you just got me and 5 other guys reading this hoping there was something new

(in reply to cookie monster)
Post #: 56
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/31/2011 9:27:36 PM   
cookie monster


Posts: 1693
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline
There is something new...

my post.

Gotcha!!!

Seriously though it's better casual forum members post in this thread rather than create others discussing ''So when's the patch due''

_____________________________


(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 57
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 3/31/2011 11:34:07 PM   
kirkgregerson

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aditia

OK, so I am very new to the game (Panzer Campaign veteran), only bought it a few days ago, and was browsing on the forums to learn the game other than playing some turns myself (PBEM play is what I want to do).

Now, after reading almost every post in this thread, I was thinking the following:

It seems as tho the main issue in the game in the current official version (1.03), is that opening play on both sides too greatly influences the further course of the the entire campaign, and worse; has players resort to very gamey, micro managing, play instead of focusing on making strategic decisions on where to advance, where to defend, how much ground to give, etc. etc. Whereas I am sure the developers want to provide their costumers with a game that demands and rewards strategic decision making and tactical play.

Now, I cannot say anything about the changes that are being tested for 1.04, I want to make a different kind of suggestion:

- How about modifying the mechanics that influence the soviet side depending on how well the germans are doing, during the first phase of the war, as to simulate the depth of the sense of panic/crisis in the Soviet political and military high command? At least reducing the ability of the Soviets to crush the Axis in the beginning of 1942 if the Axis achieves weak results in 1941 (and perhaps increasing the ability of the Soviets to hold the line if the Axis player achieves spectacular results)

To explain; in general, the course that any military conflict takes has an effect on the mindset of the people in charge politically and militarily. Historically, the sense of crisis in Stalin's mind during the second half of 1941 was so great, that he seriously considered surrender to Nazi Germany (Anthony Beevor; Stalingrad) and made him, quite uncharacteristically be more trusting towards the advise that his top soldiers and administrators gave him. Basically, military disaster usually has the effect of forcing leadership to rethink its ways, increases the urgency to correct inherent faults, results in the swift replacement of commanders, etc. etc. Vice versa, military succes usually enforces a belief in the correctness of oneself, hubris, the lack of urgency to asess the shape and effectiveness of the armed forces, etc. etc.

In my opinion, WITE is suited to simulate this in one and maybe two ways:

- firstly through the system of administration points. I'd like to suggest a system wherein the the magnitude of the sense of crisis within the Soviet command structure is simulated by the succes of the German advance in 1941 by decreasing the Soviet AP allowance if the Axis advance in 1941 is weaker than normal. This would simulate a less effective Soviet political response to the events of 1941 due to Stalin not recognizing the extent of changes needed to shape the Red Army into an effective fighting force.
- secondly through delaying the introduction of new/more effecient weapons and command structures to simulate the same thing.

Both effects can be based on losses suffered, losses inflicted and the ownership of victory hexes.

These suggestions would hopefully result in a reduction of the Soviets' ability to mount a decisive offensive in the first months of 1942, altho perhaps the changes that you are testing for 1.04 already fix that issue.

In the mean time I am looking forward to learn the game better and getting some PBEM games in :)

Cheers,

Adi



I like the idea of the campaign game being more flexible for both sides depending on how the war goes. For one I believe that had Moscow not been so threaten and the Soviets doing fairly well along the fronts there's a chance the Siberian transfers don't occur or maybe not in such depth. It would not be easy to code and even harder to test/balance, but if this game flexibility were to ever be added and tested it would make this game truly a pioneer in the realm of war games.

I go back to an idea that I think abulbulian had about adding some variant cards that could be purchased by APs.
Thus, these variant cards are added to a players hand based on how the war is going for them. Axis player is struggling in the south in 41-42, maybe a card to purchase(APs) another Rom or Hun army is made available. The Soviets find Moscow in real danger of being lost in 41 (based on near cities take or some formula on axis CV strength near city), then a AP card for additional Siberian troops becomes available. I personally think it's a great idea and could add so much variation to each and every game!

< Message edited by kirkgregerson -- 3/31/2011 11:37:25 PM >

(in reply to Aditia)
Post #: 58
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 4/1/2011 4:29:06 AM   
Lrfss


Posts: 349
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Spring, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aditia

OK, so I am very new to the game (Panzer Campaign veteran), only bought it a few days ago, and was browsing on the forums to learn the game other than playing some turns myself (PBEM play is what I want to do).

Now, after reading almost every post in this thread, I was thinking the following:

It seems as tho the main issue in the game in the current official version (1.03), is that opening play on both sides too greatly influences the further course of the the entire campaign, and worse; has players resort to very gamey, micro managing, play instead of focusing on making strategic decisions on where to advance, where to defend, how much ground to give, etc. etc. Whereas I am sure the developers want to provide their costumers with a game that demands and rewards strategic decision making and tactical play.

Now, I cannot say anything about the changes that are being tested for 1.04, I want to make a different kind of suggestion:

- How about modifying the mechanics that influence the soviet side depending on how well the germans are doing, during the first phase of the war, as to simulate the depth of the sense of panic/crisis in the Soviet political and military high command? At least reducing the ability of the Soviets to crush the Axis in the beginning of 1942 if the Axis achieves weak results in 1941 (and perhaps increasing the ability of the Soviets to hold the line if the Axis player achieves spectacular results)

To explain; in general, the course that any military conflict takes has an effect on the mindset of the people in charge politically and militarily. Historically, the sense of crisis in Stalin's mind during the second half of 1941 was so great, that he seriously considered surrender to Nazi Germany (Anthony Beevor; Stalingrad) and made him, quite uncharacteristically be more trusting towards the advise that his top soldiers and administrators gave him. Basically, military disaster usually has the effect of forcing leadership to rethink its ways, increases the urgency to correct inherent faults, results in the swift replacement of commanders, etc. etc. Vice versa, military succes usually enforces a belief in the correctness of oneself, hubris, the lack of urgency to asess the shape and effectiveness of the armed forces, etc. etc.

In my opinion, WITE is suited to simulate this in one and maybe two ways:

- firstly through the system of administration points. I'd like to suggest a system wherein the the magnitude of the sense of crisis within the Soviet command structure is simulated by the succes of the German advance in 1941 by decreasing the Soviet AP allowance if the Axis advance in 1941 is weaker than normal. This would simulate a less effective Soviet political response to the events of 1941 due to Stalin not recognizing the extent of changes needed to shape the Red Army into an effective fighting force.
- secondly through delaying the introduction of new/more effecient weapons and command structures to simulate the same thing.

Both effects can be based on losses suffered, losses inflicted and the ownership of victory hexes.

These suggestions would hopefully result in a reduction of the Soviets' ability to mount a decisive offensive in the first months of 1942, altho perhaps the changes that you are testing for 1.04 already fix that issue.

In the mean time I am looking forward to learn the game better and getting some PBEM games in :)

Cheers,

Adi



I like the idea of the campaign game being more flexible for both sides depending on how the war goes. For one I believe that had Moscow not been so threaten and the Soviets doing fairly well along the fronts there's a chance the Siberian transfers don't occur or maybe not in such depth. It would not be easy to code and even harder to test/balance, but if this game flexibility were to ever be added and tested it would make this game truly a pioneer in the realm of war games.

I go back to an idea that I think abulbulian had about adding some variant cards that could be purchased by APs.
Thus, these variant cards are added to a players hand based on how the war is going for them. Axis player is struggling in the south in 41-42, maybe a card to purchase(APs) another Rom or Hun army is made available. The Soviets find Moscow in real danger of being lost in 41 (based on near cities take or some formula on axis CV strength near city), then a AP card for additional Siberian troops becomes available. I personally think it's a great idea and could add so much variation to each and every game!


+ 2, like what both of these guys say...

(in reply to kirkgregerson)
Post #: 59
RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now - 4/1/2011 10:47:26 AM   
karonagames


Posts: 4681
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
Joel is busy with translation stuff atm, but Andy is close to turn 25, in his schizophrenic hot seat game, and this should gives us some good 1.04 blizzard data - he is good at defending and attacking in the Blizzard.

There is another test PBEM game which I think is at about turn 8, that has raised a couple of other issues that are being looked at.

Can't really give an indication on when Joel will want to go public, but he should have plenty of data to look at when he gets back to WITE.

_____________________________

It's only a Game


(in reply to Lrfss)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Latest on the 1.04 in test now 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

0.200