Ea 2012

Menschenfresser

The Amazing Rando
Joined
Oct 9, 2002
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
1
Location
Hell's Kitchen
(i suppose EA used the bug as a feature).
Heh, EA has always been one big bug-as-feature extravaganza. I recall right before TOAW3, EA had been tweaked to where two medium skilled opponents could have a really good game. Here's to hoping Veers or, perhaps, a new generation of EA tinkerers will take up the gauntlet.
 

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
@Veers (if you're still around):

You definitely should look at the Maikop/Grozny/Baku disband units! Or do them away completely and replace them with a timed supply increase. The problem with these units is the uncontemporary equipment they add to the pool if captured early. Not to mention the bonus units, full of late war tanks, no matter the date of capture of the triggering locations. I.e. in my current game with Heldenkaiser the Axis field - at turn 163 (late summer 1942):

~ 2900 Panther tanks
~ 1670 Tiger I
~ 500 Tiger II
22 Maus
~ 125 StuG IV
75 Nashorn
~ 270 Jagdpanther
~ 270 Jagdtiger
~ 1000 JagdPz Hetzer
and last but not least:
564 T-34/85 ! I know, supposed to represent captured tanks, but hey...
Stefan, you're completely right about uncontemporary equipment.

However i don't feel shocked at all about it because EA always had a sound abstractionism on each side equipment which i consider very important on play balance and simulation terms.

I'm sure you're aware some equipment is not supposed to represent its historical counterpart but the need of making certain units perform as they should, when they should. And more important is the great playability feeling you get from this scenario. No chrome, that's right. But the wounderfull felling of units (or formations) acting as we historically expected them to do during the various moments of the war. It's not only the shock bonus/penalties which are determinant. The unit's available equipment at a given time is also very important.
Adding to this the complex but incredibly sucessful forces' inventory and replacements timetable which gives the player the true feeling of an accurate resources situation of the different powers through out the war. A true gem in strategical simulation terms.
I'm still not sure if this incredidle design was intencional or pure luck... :laugh: but is works like a charm...

I always fear EA being "touched" on its forces' inventory and replacements table without the necessary proportionality and extreme care.
 

Heldenkaiser

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
9
Location
19th century
Country
llGermany
~ 2900 Panther tanks
~ 1670 Tiger I
~ 500 Tiger II
22 Maus
~ 125 StuG IV
75 Nashorn
~ 270 Jagdpanther
~ 270 Jagdtiger
~ 1000 JagdPz Hetzer
Thanks. I feel much better now. :rolleyes:

and last but not least:
564 T-34/85 ! I know, supposed to represent captured tanks, but hey...
That's the only thing I *can* rationalize. We probably already lost 10 times that number ...
 

Telumar

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
1,690
Reaction score
6
Location
niflheim
Country
llGermany
Thanks. I feel much better now. :rolleyes:



That's the only thing I *can* rationalize. We probably already lost 10 times that number ...
Hmm. Maybe i can fend off the Americans, do a Sealion and march on Moscow at the same time.. that all in 43 lol.

Seriously. That you already have all that stuff like IS-II, ISU-122s and 152 and 34/85 should compensate that a bit. Plus your countless, dreaded Artillery Divisions.
 

Telumar

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
1,690
Reaction score
6
Location
niflheim
Country
llGermany
Stefan, you're completely right about uncontemporary equipment.

However i don't feel shocked at all about it because EA always had a sound abstractionism on each side equipment which i consider very important on play balance and simulation terms.

I'm sure you're aware some equipment is not supposed to represent its historical counterpart but the need of making certain units perform as they should, when they should. And more important is the great playability feeling you get from this scenario. No chrome, that's right. But the wounderfull felling of units (or formations) acting as we historically expected them to do during the various moments of the war. It's not only the shock bonus/penalties which are determinant. The unit's available equipment at a given time is also very important.
Adding to this the complex but incredibly sucessful forces' inventory and replacements timetable which gives the player the true feeling of an accurate resources situation of the different powers through out the war. A true gem in strategical simulation terms.
I'm still not sure if this incredidle design was intencional or pure luck... :laugh: but is works like a charm...

I always fear EA being "touched" on its forces' inventory and replacements table without the necessary proportionality and extreme care.
Yes, i can "see" what you mean. It's just no my cup of tea. Gameplay, strategic scope all works fine (ok, a Heeresgruppe in the Caucasus supplied via Turkey and Middle East stretches everyone's imagination.. ;) ) and i have a great time battling Dierk. But then, if this is intended by the designer, why chose TOAW with its detailed unit/equipment design as a platform? Wouldn't "force performance" not better be modelled with shock? Which it indeed is in EA. Why exact TOEs at all?

EDIT: I understand that in a scenario covering entire WWII, with Corps sized units that stay for the entire length of the scenario there has to be a certain degree of equipment abstraction. I'm not complainig about abstraction. It's exaggeration what i'm up against.
 
Last edited:

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
I understand that in a scenario covering entire WWII, with Corps sized units that stay for the entire length of the scenario there has to be a certain degree of equipment abstraction.
Yes, that's what i meant.


It's exaggeration what i'm up against.
That exaggeration was much more pros than cons at actual scenario status. But it can be dealt. However only with delicate "pincers"...
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
You'll never ever, ever get, in a scenario of this size, the right equipment for the right unit at the right time, if you're making a comparison with what happened historically. It simply isn't possible. The Germans started researching the Tigers and Panthers because their Pz IIIs and IVs couldn't match the T34/76s, which were being upgunned to 85mms to match the heavier German models, then the Germans introduced variants with stronger armour and bigger guns - all lovingly modelled in the TOAW database - so the Soviets produced those big JSUs. This is one of the reasons I passed the baton on this scenario - the harder I looked at it, the more I realised that we would never get the German XIII Corps exactly as it was on July 14th 1943, let alone how it might have looked if it had encountered Soviet T34s six months earlier than it did historically. And it's difficult to simulate the extra boosts that would have come from capturing oilfields, etc. Raising supply is perfectly possible, and more accurate in some ways, but it applies equally well to the Italians in the Desert as to the Germans in the steppes. Simply dumping a big 'disband' unit full of goodies like King Tiger IIs seemed like an easy way to represent the German armaments industry producing more equipment that would only go to German units. Admittedly if that happens in 1940 a certain suspension of belief is required.

It might almost be better to start from scratch with generic infantry/motorised/mechanised/armoured corps for every nation, with spare slots for the later war equipment, but it would be very difficult to decide when the later models should start production - and with the TOAW engine it's a once and for all choice - and how to reflect changes caused by the war developing differently than it did.

But I understand an Allied player's grief if a Tiger comes along and squishes a Matilda in 1941.
 

Telumar

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
1,690
Reaction score
6
Location
niflheim
Country
llGermany
Admittedly if that happens in 1940 a certain suspension of belief is required.
Admittedly, this "suspension of belief" also is required if that happens in 42.:D

It might almost be better to start from scratch with generic infantry/motorised/mechanised/armoured corps for every nation, with spare slots for the later war equipment, but it would be very difficult to decide when the later models should start production - and with the TOAW engine it's a once and for all choice - and how to reflect changes caused by the war developing differently than it did.
I can see and fully understand that. However, one solution could be disband units. When the German-Soviet war breaks out earlier than historically and thus the Germans begin to develop new tanks earlier than historically, the disbands would happen earlier than with the 'closer to history' course of events. So.. that's something for 3.5 with increased units and formation numbers per side (also more event slots - 10,000).

But I understand an Allied player's grief if a Tiger comes along and squishes a Matilda in 1941.
I've seen Soviet stuff coming in earlier too btw.
 

The Vince

Recruit
Joined
Nov 18, 2002
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
Lost my first game with the Veers version playing Axis against Steve. All went ok till Moscow. Before winter of 1940 i took the bad decision to overrun the city at all costs. Even that went well but i lost a lot of panzer units in the process.
After Moscou most of my lost panzer units did not reconstitute, and i realised i had a big problem. In 1941 i resumed my offensive towards Stalingrad wiht only a handfull of armoured units but Steve skillfully held on to the city. Even before that i tried on other fronts also but my inf units could not manage make much progress. Without armoured units its hard attacking. I dugin before winter and started thinking about staying in Russia or fallback. Decided to try 1 more time after winter but the tide already changed and after the attack failed i started defending the line. Steve took over the initiative and it went downhill from then on slowly but surely. All the way to Berlin later from all sides.

Really enjoyed this epic game. First with Toaw 3 and first with the Veers version. Thx to Steve also. ( Hope we can resume our 2 game )

The Veers version plays very smooth. Thx Veers, i did not encounter any problems.

Only remark is about the Panzers. Lots been said about it but i think its only fair they should come back. Cause in WW2 Germany started new tankunits almost untill the end of the war. Even production went up over the years.
Its either that or dont loose any of your armoured units as Axis.

Writing this down makes me wanne start look for a new opponent soon.
 
Last edited:

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
If anyone else sees any issues with the events in EA, feel free to speak let me know. :laugh:
Axis keeping the 130% shock bonus after France falls bug continues in this latest version. It already happened in 2 different games.

I can't get it why... I think solving this is a task for our event magician... Lou
 

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
Axis keeping the 130% shock bonus after France falls bug continues in this latest version. It already happened in 2 different games.

I can't get it why...
Well, finally i got...

This is kind of complicated so read it at your own risk... if you aren't familiar with event engine or EA just forget it.

In this latest version (Veers 2012) there are 2 events cancelling the German 2nd offensive (130% axis shock bonus) when Paris falls before the 10ish turns this event can last.
One (Ev. 255) created originally in previous versions and one new created by Veers in this his version (Ev.511). Both events do the same thing: they cancel (try to...) a event which is already active (Ev. 252). By doing this - canceling an event already activated - they fail to do it. Just because the event is already in effect. Both events could (and would) cancel an event, preventing it to activate. But as soon an event is activated the command to cancel doesn't work.

So IMHO the simple repair is:

Ev.255 should be by modifided to => event activated / event 82 - Shock 1 / value 115 (instead of cancel Ev.252). Eliminate debug and rephrase the news string.
Ev.511 should be deleted because is redundant.
 

Lou

Event Engineer
Joined
Sep 6, 2002
Messages
162
Reaction score
1
Location
Rockford, Il
Country
llUnited States
Well, finally i got...

This is kind of complicated so read it at your own risk... if you aren't familiar with event engine or EA just forget it.

In this latest version (Veers 2012) there are 2 events cancelling the German 2nd offensive (130% axis shock bonus) when Paris falls before the 10ish turns this event can last.
One (Ev. 255) created originally in previous versions and one new created by Veers in this his version (Ev.511). Both events do the same thing: they cancel (try to...) a event which is already active (Ev. 252). By doing this - canceling an event already activated - they fail to do it. Just because the event is already in effect. Both events could (and would) cancel an event, preventing it to activate. But as soon an event is activated the command to cancel doesn't work.

So IMHO the simple repair is:

Ev.255 should be by modifided to => event activated / event 82 - Shock 1 / value 115 (instead of cancel Ev.252). Eliminate debug and rephrase the news string.
Ev.511 should be deleted because is redundant.
I believe you are right. Will do some testing and be back in 7-10 days
 

Lou

Event Engineer
Joined
Sep 6, 2002
Messages
162
Reaction score
1
Location
Rockford, Il
Country
llUnited States
I believe you are right.
I WAS WRONG ! ! ! :eek:

I am absolutely positively certain this change can not solve the problem.

Beyond that I remain uncertain of the exact cause. I am assembling a demo to work through the events faster so no promise on when it will be solved.
 
Top