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: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05

 
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: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 5/18/2020 6:24:48 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1854
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
General losses should not be increased....is several times when Generals were flown out of pockets during the war. Even planes sent in at the last moment to pull out specific commanders/personnel so even if the HQ is destroyed the General and key staff could and did historically escape the pocket in small planes.

(in reply to eskuche)
Post #: 31
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 5/18/2020 6:28:13 PM   
MaB1708

 

Posts: 296
Joined: 8/13/2006
From: Freiburg(Germany)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eskuche

See here a few posts down:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4760396



Thank you morvael for pointing me in a good direction and eskuche for remembering where to find it. Really helpfull!

(in reply to eskuche)
Post #: 32
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 5/18/2020 6:51:00 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11753
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Thanks eskuche.

I think this is direct link: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4760480

(in reply to eskuche)
Post #: 33
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 5/23/2020 8:21:05 AM   
ErickRepie

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 11/6/2019
Status: offline
Dear Moravael,

YOur commitment to WITE patch amazed me , i wish for your enduring health, joy and prosperity in this world.
JBU


Tks,

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 34
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 5/23/2020 9:43:12 AM   
MaB1708

 

Posts: 296
Joined: 8/13/2006
From: Freiburg(Germany)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ErickRepie

Dear Moravael,

YOur commitment to WITE patch amazed me , i wish for your enduring health, joy and prosperity in this world.
JBU


Tks,


^^^
Well said! +1!

(in reply to ErickRepie)
Post #: 35
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 5/26/2020 5:06:55 PM   
Leutius

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 5/26/2020
Status: offline
I´m trying to assign support from Army Group North to the XXIII Corps and it is not appearing on the list of possibilities, however, If I use other HQ it is present on the list of options (1.12.95 Beta)

(in reply to eskuche)
Post #: 36
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 5/26/2020 5:29:00 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 4682
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leutius

I´m trying to assign support from Army Group North to the XXIII Corps and it is not appearing on the list of possibilities, however, If I use other HQ it is present on the list of options (1.12.95 Beta)



Sounds like the AGN HQ is to far away to reassign support units to it. Alternatively why not go to the HQ of XXIII corps and assign a support unit by the "pull down" method. You should find plenty available that way.

_____________________________

Wargamers Discord https://discord.gg/U6DcDxT

(in reply to Leutius)
Post #: 37
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 5/31/2020 10:35:59 AM   
Jemus

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline
What is the current status of this beta patch? Is it playable or are there more hotfixes coming? Will there be an official release soon? Maybe someone could give me his opinion. Playing a whole campaign takes an amount of time and it would be annoying to find some serious bugs after awhile.

Thanks a lot for your help + answer!

Jemus

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 38
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 5/31/2020 11:53:29 PM   
petertodd

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 2/13/2011
Status: offline
I observed a level 5.1 fort containing a German infantry division being destroyed in a single attack. Maybe it's reasonable because of the overwhelming odds and artillery (3 divisions), but I didn't expect it. Is this intended? In this case the fort was surrounded, but I also observed a 4.1 level fort that was not surrounded destroyed in a single attack (similar artillery).

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jemus)
Post #: 39
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 6/1/2020 12:02:15 AM   
petertodd

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 2/13/2011
Status: offline
Another unexpected event: I had a guards mech corps surrender when it was not out of supply (at end of Soviet turn). The picture shows unit information at the beginning of the Soviet turn (from reload). It was attaced only once, and surrendered (next post).

Attachment (1)

(in reply to petertodd)
Post #: 40
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 6/1/2020 12:04:05 AM   
petertodd

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 2/13/2011
Status: offline
Surrendered mech corps combat:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to petertodd)
Post #: 41
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 7/26/2020 9:23:18 AM   
tyronec


Posts: 4256
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline
From my limited experience playing 3 games under 12.05 these would be my priorities for a future patch:
1. Fighter intercept is seriously broken. You can only be sure of intercepts when the airbase the fighters are on is bombed.

2. AA appears to have little or no effect on the attacking aircraft or the bomb damage. When a hex is bombed twice then often the AA that are in that hex do not appear on the second combat report (see attached screenshots).

3. Even if the above two items were resolved I think the air war is still biased in favor of the Soviets. To take the situation at the start of '42.
Germany has 800 Fighters and builds 43 per turn.
Soviets have 3k Fighters and build 244 a turn.
If the Soviets can run up Axis fighter fatigue then they can win the air war by causing heavy fighter losses not because of combat but because the German fighters start falling out of the sky. The only Axis counter is to keep their air bases back from the front line and thus avoid too much fighter-to-fighter combat. This is clearly unhistorical as the Luftwaffe still had the upper hand in '42 in at least some areas of the front.
To put it another way, the game logic is that there are operational losses that are exponentially proportional to miles flown/combats (am not at all sure how it is worked out). It is that exponential increase that is the problem, highly experienced Axis pilots who are fatigued taking heaver losses than inexperienced Soviet pilots who are not fatigued.
A suggested improvement would be to reduce the impact of fatigue so that losses were more directly related to combat and less to the amount flown.

4. On the other hand the ground war looks to be biased in favor of Axis. Even as things are, with the VVS able to gain the upper hand in '41, my impression is Axis have good prospects of taking Lenningrad, Moscow, Sevastapol and Rostov in '41. This should leave them well set up to effectively win the game in '42.
Most games reported on the Forum look to be being won by Axis.
This is not a huge bias, if one side is played better they will likely win, however game balance could do with a small shift towards the Soviets.

5. Retreating and Routing units are too often ending up in enemy ZOC hexes, as reported elsewhere.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by tyronec -- 7/26/2020 9:34:27 AM >

(in reply to petertodd)
Post #: 42
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 7/26/2020 1:16:17 PM   
Hanny


Posts: 174
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

From my limited experience playing 3 games under 12.05 these would be my priorities for a future patch:
1. Fighter intercept is seriously broken. You can only be sure of intercepts when the airbase the fighters are on is bombed.



Broken or a feature?, CAP on airfields would have the best intercept rates on incoming raids for that airfield, to intercept on another air field would require Radar ect to know the raid was inbound and allow redirect of assets, if available, and time constraints allowed, to intercept over the target from any other air fields.


_____________________________

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

(in reply to tyronec)
Post #: 43
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 7/26/2020 5:56:46 PM   
tyronec


Posts: 4256
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline
quote:

Broken or a feature?, CAP on airfields would have the best intercept rates on incoming raids for that airfield, to intercept on another air field would require Radar ect to know the raid was inbound and allow redirect of assets, if available, and time constraints allowed, to intercept over the target from any other air fields.

IMO it is broken.
Interception, apart from in the source hex, is so low that both sides are going to build up a glut of fighters as the game progresses.

(in reply to Hanny)
Post #: 44
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 7/27/2020 10:34:08 AM   
Hanny


Posts: 174
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

quote:

Broken or a feature?, CAP on airfields would have the best intercept rates on incoming raids for that airfield, to intercept on another air field would require Radar ect to know the raid was inbound and allow redirect of assets, if available, and time constraints allowed, to intercept over the target from any other air fields.

IMO it is broken.
Interception, apart from in the source hex, is so low that both sides are going to build up a glut of fighters as the game progresses.


Imo its intended as a feature, representing historical reality of the period, SU for instance had no independent Airforce, and its sorties v airfields amounted to 2% of all sorties flown, and the reason they attacked airfields, was to fight the axis air assets there, because thats where they were in the first place, defeat them and gain local air supremacy for the Army operations. If SU long range recce saw no assets, the airfield was not worth attacking. Its air missions were directed to support Army operations, by achieving local air supremacy, by fighting the axis forces on the air basses they were on, not those they were not on. Axis Airframes lost were 25% of its Eastern Front wartime losses on attacks on its own airbases, or fighting above them to protect them.

If you want to defend the airfields, put up CAP at the airfield, and the problem is mostly resolved.

Any glut of FTR assets accumulating over time players may or may not see, is not the result of a lack of intercepting raids on airfields from airfields far away.

A lttle old but well worth a read.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a166210.pdf


< Message edited by Hanny -- 7/27/2020 11:06:54 AM >


_____________________________

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

(in reply to tyronec)
Post #: 45
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 8/1/2020 1:54:59 AM   
Seminole


Posts: 1600
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
Is it a known bug that the Exported Commanders Report shows enemy location information (X,Y) despite the FOW setting?

(in reply to Hanny)
Post #: 46
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 8/1/2020 2:08:54 AM   
Telemecus


Posts: 4682
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

Is it a known bug that the Exported Commanders Report shows enemy location information (X,Y) despite the FOW setting?


no it is WAD.

You can get enemy location information but only for units with sufficient detection levels. You only see information in the log that you can see on the map anyway - not every enemy unit.

_____________________________

Wargamers Discord https://discord.gg/U6DcDxT

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 47
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 8/1/2020 7:05:15 AM   
tyronec


Posts: 4256
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline
quote:

Imo its intended as a feature, representing historical reality of the period, SU for instance had no independent Airforce, and its sorties v airfields amounted to 2% of all sorties flown, and the reason they attacked airfields, was to fight the axis air assets there, because thats where they were in the first place, defeat them and gain local air supremacy for the Army operations. If SU long range recce saw no assets, the airfield was not worth attacking. Its air missions were directed to support Army operations, by achieving local air supremacy, by fighting the axis forces on the air basses they were on, not those they were not on. Axis Airframes lost were 25% of its Eastern Front wartime losses on attacks on its own airbases, or fighting above them to protect them.

If you want to defend the airfields, put up CAP at the airfield, and the problem is mostly resolved.

Any glut of FTR assets accumulating over time players may or may not see, is not the result of a lack of intercepting raids on airfields from airfields far away.

So here are the consequences to the way the air war is working at present:
Axis can defend their aircraft by keeping them in stacks each with a moderate number of fighters as long as those fighters don't have too much fatigue.
Axis can do a moderate amount of unit bombing every turn, either against units that are out of range of Soviet fighters or some attacks with Luftwaffe fighter cover against units within range of Soviet fighter cover. Limited by how much fatigue they can risk running up for their fighters.
Axis can use ground support in battles that are out of range of Soviet fighter cover and very occasionally, at high risk, for battles within range of Soviet fighter cover.
Soviets can do as much ground unit bombing and ground support as their bombers have capacity for. If Axis make any mistakes they can do serious damage by air base bombing.

Since there is little air to air combat in this model both sides are going to run up a glut of fighters. Axis fighters are simply not protecting their ground troops at all. By Spring '42 my Luftwaffe had 700 fighter losses and 600 fighters in the pool.

In my game with Brian on some turns in Summer '42 I estimate that about 75% of Axis ground losses were down to the VVS. It is an estimate because you can't really tell exactly what caused the losses, but typically the Soviets could be causing over 10k damage during the Soviet turn by preceding every attack with two ground bombings and then the attack itself with full Ground Support.

A long way from representing the historical reality of the period.

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 48
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 8/1/2020 8:31:44 AM   
Hanny


Posts: 174
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

So here are the consequences to the way the air war is working at present:
Axis can defend their aircraft by keeping them in stacks each with a moderate number of fighters as long as those fighters don't have too much fatigue.


Ok, just as was the Axis practice in Russia, so the game is getting history right and promoting historical game play in its mechanics. Preventing fatigue requires not flying sorties/engaging in combat etc, so the more you do the less effective you are in keeping it down.

Otoh if FTR can regularly intercept from other basses when a base they are not protecting is under attack, they leave it unprotected, and they are only up on CAP to protect assets on the base, and you get all FTR is range pulled into the first chosen airbase attack, this is repeated till all airbase attacks are completed, by which time FTR formations, had fought in multiple battles and are now burnt out. The later airbase attacks will therefore come in against basses all but devoid of effective CAP. I prefer existing game mechanics over your proposed improvement from both a game play POV and a historical realism POV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec
Axis can do a moderate amount of unit bombing every turn, either against units that are out of range of Soviet fighters or some attacks with Luftwaffe fighter cover against units within range of Soviet fighter cover. Limited by how much fatigue they can risk running up for their fighters.

Ok, just as was the Axis practice in Russia, so the game is getting history right and promoting historical game play in its mechanics. I agree that fatigue is the key element, giving auto intercepts and increasing the rate of air combats ( more CAP intercepts that result in combat) for CAP will take away the players ability to influence the rate of increase/decrease, he will just have the consequences of having CAP sorties, to deal with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec
Axis can use ground support in battles that are out of range of Soviet fighter cover and very occasionally, at high risk, for battles within range of Soviet fighter cover.
Soviets can do as much ground unit bombing and ground support as their bombers have capacity for. If Axis make any mistakes they can do serious damage by air base bombing.


Ok, just as was the practice in Russia, so the game is getting history right and promoting historical game play in its mechanics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec
Since there is little air to air combat in this model both sides are going to run up a glut of fighters. Axis fighters are simply not protecting their ground troops at all. By Spring '42 my Luftwaffe had 700 fighter losses and 600 fighters in the pool.


Players chose how much air combat they want, by setting your Air doctrine values, the model just provides the outcomes of their choices, different values produce different outcomes.

Hooton ( The air campaigns on the Eastern Front 1941-45) gives German FTR losses by April 42 as 859, so your game is close to historical casualty rates, ie similar Air Doctrine values being chosen. Germany had on March 1 1,766 operational air assets on the Eastern front, in the next three months they consumed 388,000 gallons of AVGAS, 55,000 gallons above that which industry produced for all Theatres. Game has an issue with unlimited supply reaching those consuming it, allowing Air formations unlimited sorties and distance to fly CAP successful sorties simply makes the problem worse, giving the Axis a historical capacity they did not have, and if you change that further in increase the chances of CAP intercepts resulting in combat you introduce a game mechanic that can be abused.

Could the Air war be better modelled?, sure anything can be improved. To do that the Devs would require accurate data to work with, that shows the model would be probably improved by those changes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec
To take the situation at the start of '42.
Germany has 800 Fighters and builds 43 per turn.


So in your game, you have a LW FTR strength around half that the Axis had by 42. 700+600=1300 FTRs in game, 1500+900=2400 historical. Otoh your game has c40 a turn production and c900 at start, so ought to be in the 1900s.


quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec
In my game with Brian on some turns in Summer '42 I estimate that about 75% of Axis ground losses were down to the VVS. It is an estimate because you can't really tell exactly what caused the losses, but typically the Soviets could be causing over 10k damage during the Soviet turn by preceding every attack with two ground bombings and then the attack itself with full Ground Support.


If you set the display low enough, it will list all the combat outcomes, its unplayable as a game, but if one wanted to find the data, it is there. Brain as SU, it appears, has achieved air superiority and is reaping the benefits from doing so.
quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec
A long way from representing the historical reality of the period.


Given you have posted no such historical examples, and want to give the Axis unlimited fuel to fly sorties they generally lacked both the infrastructure and doctrine to perform, i find that an odd thing to have to read.

< Message edited by Hanny -- 8/1/2020 10:13:05 AM >


_____________________________

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

(in reply to tyronec)
Post #: 49
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 8/1/2020 12:29:06 PM   
tyronec


Posts: 4256
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline
quote:

Brain as SU, it appears, has achieved air superiority and is reaping the benefits from doing so.
quote:

That is exactly the issue. And I would assert that any skillful Soviet player could do the same, starting in '41 and then continue to reap the advantage in '42 when they get more bombers.

So either you think Axis can prevent this by playing better; in which case how do they go about it ?

Or you think it is fine for the VVS to have air dominance wherever they want it.

(in reply to Hanny)
Post #: 50
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 8/1/2020 1:15:27 PM   
Hanny


Posts: 174
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

quote:

Brain as SU, it appears, has achieved air superiority and is reaping the benefits from doing so.
quote:

That is exactly the issue. And I would assert that any skillful Soviet player could do the same, starting in '41 and then continue to reap the advantage in '42 when they get more bombers.

So either you think Axis can prevent this by playing better; in which case how do they go about it ?

Or you think it is fine for the VVS to have air dominance wherever they want it.


Tactical or even theatre air superiority did and ought to confer significant advantages to ground combat. How this is achieved in the simulation is through player or AI if playing v AI, on where to place airfields what assets and what missions, and what doctrines etc, and there is a wide range of variance from those choices. You claim those choices preclude axis gaining air superiority, when playing against a skilled player. The simplest answer if often the right one, your just up against someone with a high skill set, so if he can do with the Axis what he has done with the SU, its not a problem with the simulation. Have you played both sides against each other?.

Now if, and i really have no idea how often this occurs in player v player,if every game has the SU achieving this in 41 then there is problem, i would have to look (and i have not) at enough 1.12.05 games to see if that was the case. I do know, not just think, ( please dont try and frame the debate of what i think for me as you only know what i post, not what i think think) that i dont see this as a problem when playing the AI.




< Message edited by Hanny -- 8/1/2020 3:10:19 PM >


_____________________________

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

(in reply to tyronec)
Post #: 51
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 8/2/2020 5:46:00 AM   
tyronec


Posts: 4256
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline
quote:

Have you played both sides against each other?.

I would be reluctant to play Soviets with the VVS being such a super weapon. Was not intending to start another game until there had been a fix until S-T suggested one with a house rule to restrict the air war.

If you say the game is working fine playing the AI then that is good news.

(in reply to Hanny)
Post #: 52
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 8/2/2020 9:36:12 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1854
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
one thing i would almost argue is the soviets did have defacto air superiority over alot of the front most of the time. Only when the Germans concentrated air power for a major operation did they usually achieve complete air superiority. This is at least previously was modeled well when the Germans have most their fighters in one area of the front its a death trap for soviet planes.

Alot of things factored into this- size of the Russian front, lack of planes for the Luftwaffe, and lack of fuel for continuous operations. I think in 1941 was even a lack of bomb munitions at one point.

Even then with air concentration you see the air superiority starting to Flip to the Soviets towards the end of summer of 1942, and by 1943 the Soviets had achieved relative air superiority due really to some superior tactics that they perfected during the air combat over the Kuban bridgehead in early 1943--mainly having to do with more air/ground coordination for better directed results of the air units.

The luftwaffe was simply historically way to stretched by 1942. You had the british bombing campaign being an annoyance but pulling resources, you have north africa/Sicily/Italy which is a huge drain on luftwaffe resources, and then the continuing massive conflict on the eastern front continuing to eat up resources. Training resources for new pilots was a continuous issue for the Luftwaffe they never were able to train enough new pilots to replace losses--fuel and just overall training resourcing seeming to be the major issues.

It really drives back to the Germans planned to fight a short war, and by the time they realized it was going to be a long war they were way behind the power curve to fix many of their mistakes. What's interesting is the USA planned to defeat Germany even if the Soviets gave up---its why the original US plan was to field something like 200 division, but once they realized the Soviets would stay in the war and keep the majority of the German Army tied down in the east they lowered to a final fielding of 90 divisions which ended up being almost exactly enough---also as the Allied nations stayed in the war the USA planning was just to equip manpower from other nations to fight the war to make up the difference in divisions.

Also this allowed the USA to keep full industrial production and even increase it because it wasnt forced to dip into real manpower reserves at all during the war. Was actually part of the debate that went into the final amount of men to be mobilized was how best to not impact war material production. Combing the rear in the USA was even done to keep division strengths up instead of calling up more men late in the war.

The politics of the war is something most ppl dont discuss but really politics/economics is the reason for the war, and the reason different combatants fought the war the way they did. If it hadnt been for Nazis politics then the Germans probably could have conducted the war much better on economic terms, but then you remove Nazis politics and you probably dont even have the war. I also personally find it interesting how much of the world has forgot how brutal real large scale wars like this are. In the 70+ years since the end of WW2 the lessons learned seem to be fading from collective human memory. Its something we as humans should not forget which is how brutal humans can and have been to each other through the majority of Human history. That whole saying about forgetting the past and being doomed to repeat it.


(in reply to tyronec)
Post #: 53
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 8/2/2020 6:31:52 PM   
tyronec


Posts: 4256
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline
quote:

one thing i would almost argue is the soviets did have defacto air superiority over alot of the front most of the time. Only when the Germans concentrated air power for a major operation did they usually achieve complete air superiority. This is at least previously was modeled well when the Germans have most their fighters in one area of the front its a death trap for soviet planes.

I agree.
Axis should be able to sustain some sort of air superiority over most, but not all, of the front in '41. I think both AGS and AGN had problems at times in the early weeks.
In '42 that reduces to just where they are really concentrating the Luftwaffe, they were able to manage it around Stalingrad.
From '43 onwards things just went from bad to worse, though they were able to provide some effective ground support and air supply.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 54
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 8/2/2020 9:18:06 PM   
Disgruntled Veteran


Posts: 615
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline
To repost my observations: I agree with Tyronec.

1. Flak is almost completely useless. Perhaps a middle ground from the last official patch? Notes said that 1.12 halved AA effectiveness, how about somewhere in between? It works for both sides.

2. In my game, I have to turn ground support and interdiction completely off in my off turn or else my Airforce gets destroyed. I lost about 1200 from Soviet airbase bombings before the first mud season. The soviet can recon spam and draw a lot of fighter and flak use to a couple of recon planes, then attack the bases when the fighters are sapped and kill 50-100 fighters a turn. It's a tactic I have no defense against save for withdrawing my airbases beyond the reach of Soviet bombers.

Stacking your airbases with fresh fighters and a billion flak guns does little to stop this. The luftwaffe shouldn't be chased off the field in 41. I'm fine with Soviets uses sheer volume to cover much of the front, but the LW should be able to dominate where it concentrates its force and airbases shouldn't be so damn defenseless.


(in reply to tyronec)
Post #: 55
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 8/3/2020 2:36:36 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1854
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Flak seems to either be worthless or way overpowered each patch...needs to some type of middle ground.

I do agree Luftwaffe quality should win out for most of 41/42 as long as they have decent concentration of various fighter groups.

Just a historical counterpoint about supposed axis Air superiority in 1941---think it was Guderian in his book that complained about being bombed continuously around Tula and the Luftwaffe doing nothing to stop it and how it slowed down his units and cost troops, he even says the bombing was so intensive that it basically destroyed the only hard paved highway around Tula which then due to weather made the German situation worse. So is historical evidence that even in 1941 the luftwaffe was not as overpowering as some believe.

(in reply to Disgruntled Veteran)
Post #: 56
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 8/5/2020 8:34:00 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 1600
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

Is it a known bug that the Exported Commanders Report shows enemy location information (X,Y) despite the FOW setting?


no it is WAD.

You can get enemy location information but only for units with sufficient detection levels. You only see information in the log that you can see on the map anyway - not every enemy unit.


Most welcome news, I didn't pay close enough attention and feared a filter was breaking down.
I like to keep track of German mech formations turn to turn and this will be a nice addition to that effort.

I do wish that WitE and WitW had found a way to track unit movement and allow MP opponents an opportunity to 'replay' their opponents turn (with relevant FoW enforced as with single player).


(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 57
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 9/4/2020 1:15:35 AM   
Technopiper

 

Posts: 148
Joined: 2/11/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Flak seems to either be worthless or way overpowered each patch...needs to some type of middle ground.

I do agree Luftwaffe quality should win out for most of 41/42 as long as they have decent concentration of various fighter groups.

Just a historical counterpoint about supposed axis Air superiority in 1941---think it was Guderian in his book that complained about being bombed continuously around Tula and the Luftwaffe doing nothing to stop it and how it slowed down his units and cost troops, he even says the bombing was so intensive that it basically destroyed the only hard paved highway around Tula which then due to weather made the German situation worse. So is historical evidence that even in 1941 the luftwaffe was not as overpowering as some believe.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, and you could be right. Just need to point out that Guderian was relieved partly because of poor performance at Tula, and that - in his memoir - he had always been able to find someone or something else to blame for his failure. Hitler, winter, T-34, take your pick. Not a totally reliable source, in other words.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 58
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 9/7/2020 8:33:40 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2047
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

It's hard to balance that formula, perhaps it should have some hard caps rather than just plain chance of happening. Make it slightly too big, and no famous Soviet general will survive the war. I still remember it, having been on receiving end.
Chance is now very very low, and this seems preferred by players, even when not enough generals bite the dust.

I think the current lack of commander deaths is a really bad feature. Some years ago I listed the deaths of German officers represented in game and dozens died from combat, accidents, ill health, execution, partisan attacks etc,were retired or transferred out of theater. Sure, it hurts to lose a good leader. Soviets lost loads, even late war like Vatutin, ambushed by UPA fascists. They still won. In game you can make it right through the war and lose nobody. Much better to go back to how it was at game release.

Also annoying is the AI promoting a commander to take a senior post and the leader losing skills.

_____________________________

“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 59
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 9/7/2020 9:03:49 PM   
thedoctorking


Posts: 1905
Joined: 4/29/2017
Status: offline
There's a whole book on Soviet general officers killed in WW2. Granted, most of them are divisional or brigade commanders, still many who appear as characters in this game became casualties.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 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

0.281