Suggestions for WeGo System and Questions

[Saureus]

Hello, I’ve been enjoying this game quite a bit. Here are a few suggestions to improve realism and playability. Some might be easier to implement than others. They could be considered as a patch or perhaps improvements for the next installment. I also have some questions at the bottom.

Stacking

Right now, the stacking is mostly based on unit size. It’s a good starting point, but there are many situations where this runs into issues. For example, a regiment is four stacking points, but then it breaks down into three units with two stacking points each. The regiment is certainly easier to control when all together, but this seems a bit much. Also, there are some units such as engineers and big gun units that might be designated as a regiment, but are really more battalion sized (or perhaps two battalions, like a Soviet tank unit). The system doesn’t really take this into account. Adjusting stacking could thus entail a few changes.
1. Change the number of stacking point in each hex from 9 to 6. Make regiments could as 3 and battalions as 1. Let HQs and small company size units stack for free. Adjust the stacking size of all units to be based on the actual unit size rather than its formal designation.

Another issue is that when units are weakened, they still take up a normal amount of stacking, even when only at 1/3 strength. This is a common occurrence in many scenarios. While perhaps requiring more programming, this one has an easy fix.
2. To determine a unit’s stacking size, multiply its normal stacking size by the percent strength remaining and then round up. One complication is if a unit receives replacements in such a way as to put it into overstacking. I don’t think that this is a big issue, we should realistically avoid people exploiting the system by putting many small units in an important defense area and then heavily reinforcing them. This can be done by imposing a fairly harsh defense strength penalty if units happen to be overstacked (perhaps reduce the strength by 10% for each point that is overstacked while also increasing attacker strength by 10%).

A final issue is that not all space in a hex is the same. The infantry are undoubtedly occupying completely different positions than the vehicles and won’t feed crowded by them. In many cases, even the guns in a hex would not crowd infantry too much (especially artillery positioned for indirect fire), perhaps only competing with antitank guns, with a single gun only taking a single squads position.
3. Allow vehicles to have a separate stacking allowance. It could be less than 6, perhaps 4 to permit two soviet tank brigades to stack together as they can now. Optionally, have a separate stacking for guns, though this one is more debatable.

Road Transit and Unit Passthroughs

In general, units would often pass though each other going to or retreating from the front. Right now, this is not possible. However, these are not blocks of pikemen. They are highly dispersed in the hex and could easily pass though a hex even if there were a number of units equal to over twice the stacking limit. The stacking limit is really about not getting too concentrated for combat (against artillery in particular). Thus, I’d argue that units should be allowed to move though each other freely.
4. Units can move freely, regardless of the presence of other units. They must attempt to end their turn without being in an overstacked position. If something unexpected happens that results in them being overstacked, then players may be in an unfortunate situation if their opponent can take advantage of this (see #2 above).

If this seems to extreme, then perhaps at least allow units to passthrough others when moving along a road (other units certainly aren’t using the road for their deployment). This prevents units deployed in towns (such as HQ/AA groups) interfering with other units’ redeployment.

Organizational Cohesion

Right now, the organization cohesion strength reduction is a nice way to keep organizations together, something that is often missing in other games of similar scale, and I particularly appreciate the reduced penalties that German units get, due to their greater flexibility in these sorts of matters. It’s also nice to be able to reassign divisions between corps. However, we can sometimes run into some issues that reduce the realism of these implementations. One of them is obvious. Units shouldn’t get increased strength just because they are together with other units of the same organization. Command and control is important, but there’s nothing special about putting units together without a specific reason (especially if they are just broken down battalions of the same regiment).
5. Don’t increase organizational integrity to above 100 in any circumstance. There are plenty of other mechanisms for improved command and control.

Other matters are a little more subtle, and there are lots of possible variations for improvements, depending on the game designer’s preferences. For example, I’d argue that it is notably more difficult for two divisions in a corps to coordinate with each other than for one division to coordinate with corps troops, such as antitank or artillery units that may routinely be attached to a division.
6A. Thus, rather than counting organization integrity by upward jumps to higher HQs, I would suggest that you go in a path directly from one HQ to another. Moving “UP” the chain of command would carry a less harsh penalty than moving “DOWN” the chain of command (perhaps “down would count for double, which would necessitate making a new organization integrity table, so that shouldn’t be too bad).
6B. This means that there would be two types of “higher level” troops. One type would be directly attached to higher level HQs (such as corps and armies). These types of units could get along reasonably well with units under command of the higher level HQ. For example, an antitank battalion in a corps would integrate fairly smoothly with a regiment from a division that is part of the corps. The other type of higher level unit would have a “dummy HQ” such as the Soviet artillery groups. For these, you would have to trace up to the higher level HQ, and then down to the “dummy HQ”, so these types of support would be much less able to coordinate with lower level units (Soviet artillery being the best example).
6C. Right now, only one type of unit can switch it’s higher organization: divisions can switch corps within the same army. To a large extent, this makes sense because the battles are on a relatively short timescale of a few days or a couple weeks. However, some units would be even more likely to be shuffled between higher organizations. These include lots of corps-level support units (which could be moved as individuals rather than just HQs being moved, though HQ groups could be included in this). Perhaps they could be moved between corps, and support units could potentially even be moved up to “army level”. If this seems too flexible, then a small readiness penalty could be applied to a unit or HQ switching organization.

Shock

Armor shock is of course a necessary part of almost any operational level WWII game, and it is generally implemented pretty well here. However, there are some little situations where it perhaps doesn’t give quite the imagined result. For example, one of my rifle regiments supported by an antitank battalion was recent accosted by a panzer battalion plus accompaniments. They were dug in, so I thought there would be at least some level of anti-tank protection there... but I was wrong. Because the antitank shock of my antitank battalion was 2, and it represented only 1/3 of the total stacking in the hex, it shock was sadly rounded to zero. If it was with a motorized regiment, then it would have retained a shock of 2, but would this really have been that different of a situation “on the ground”? The motorized regiment certainly wouldn’t keep its trucks near the front, though potential for rapid redeployment would perhaps still have provided some advantage. At the same time, would the antitank battalion really provide no benefit at all against the panzer battalion when working with a foot regiment? Meanwhile, should a tiny half-strength tank brigade really provide the same level of shock shifts against a half-strength antitank battalion, compared to a robust antitank regiment (each together with some mechanized infantry to allow full shock)? There are several potential solutions to these, so here are two possible fixes (that should not be combined together).
7A. Quick solution: On defense, don’t penalize stacks for having some units that lack “shock zero” (are foot). On offense, cut shock in half at most, even if over half the stacking value is compared of units that are not “shock zero” foot (this is the “the StuG battalion can still help” rule).
7B. Complicated solution: Instead of the current method, calculate shock by a much more complicated method. Each unit would contribute “shock points” based on its size and strength (so no penalty for leg units, which just contribute zero, or perhaps even some very small number). The ratio of these shock points would determine the number of shock shifts, limited to a maximum based on the best attacker units (I could make a suitable table for this is needed).

Another aspect of shock is that it is not really just tanks, assault guns, and direct fire support. A bunch of tanks won’t be terribly useful alone in all but the most extreme circumstances (infantry in open terrain and not dug-in). The “shock” units need infantry support for combined arms!
8. If there is no battalion-sized unit with at least 50% strength (or regiment sized with at least 20% strength), then net shock is halved. This applies to both the attacker and the defender.

Questions

Do units with "hold at all costs" orders always take 20% more casualties, or only if they would have otherwise been forced to retreat?

Do air units assigned to interdiction ever suffer any strength or readiness losses?

Is there any way to assault over major rivers, or can you only sneak across if there is no enemy on the other side of a pontoon bridge?

I tried to give replacements to the guards division in the "6th Army attacks" scenario. However, the strength did not increase, even though almost all the units were at 90% strength. None of the units in this division moved, though during the turn, an enemy unit moved next to one of the infantry regiments. Is this a bug, or did I misunderstand something about replacements?

[bcgames]

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. It will take me some time to digest your critique. I can answer one of your questions with certainty:

Q. Do air units assigned to interdiction ever suffer any strength or readiness losses?

A. No, they do not suffer strength losses; Yes, they do suffer readiness losses.

[bcgames]

On Stacking.

In WEGOWW2, stacking isn't a stand-alone system. WEGOWW2 combines the interactions between stacking, zones of control, movement factors, supply, time frame, and--simplicity.

Stacking points define the "hardness" of zones of control. Movement factors define how permeable enemy zones of control are--or not. Move+ increases permeability of enemy ZOCs. A unit's Stacking Points decrease ZOC permeability. A regiment with four SPs has twice the ZOC influence of a battalion (two battalions up, one back). A battalion with two SPs has twice the ZOC influence of a company (two companies up, one back). If you change the stacking points for the various echelons, you change the permeability of ZOCs...and if that change allows or prohibits the ability of a unit to move from one ZOC to the next...then you got some changes to do to re-balance basic game play.

Simplicity...our game system is too complicated as it is. We continue to seek better ways to streamline--and simplify--game play.

[bcgames]

Is there any way to assault over major rivers, or can you only sneak across if there is no enemy on the other side of a pontoon bridge?

Not sure I understand the question...you can attack enemy units on the other side of a pontoon bridge. Sneaking across works too--if the enemy is unaware.

[Saureus]

Regarding stacking, I agree with keeping things simple, and of course, adjustments should not overly influence other mechanisms except where appropriate. For things like AA defense and ZOC, I’d argue that more accurate stacking would actually greatly benefit these as well. After all, why would a unit at 1/3 strength still be able to exert a full ZOC or provide full AA fire? Of course, if the new stacking limit is 6 compared to the old limit of 8, then instead of saying that stacking limit = ZOC and AA fire, the stacking value should probably be added and then multiplied by 1.5 (rounded to nearest whole number) to determine ZOC and AA fire. This means that slightly more could fit into each hex, but it should be a rounding error. For example:

1 battalion = 2 old stacking points/AA/ZOC = 1 new stacking points and 2 AA/ZOC
2 battalions = 4 old stacking points/AA/ZOC = 2 new stacking points and 3 AA/ZOC
3 battalions = 6 old stacking points/AA/ZOC = 3 new stacking points and 5 AA/ZOC
1 regiment = 4 old stacking points/AA/ZOC = 3 new stacking points and 5 AA/ZOC
1 regiment+1 battalion = 6 old stacking points/AA/ZOC = 4 new stacking points and 6 AA/ZOC
1 regiment+2 battalions = 8 old stacking points/AA/ZOC = 5 new stacking points and 8 AA/ZOC
2 regiment = 8 old stacking points/AA/ZOC = 6 new stacking points and 9 AA/ZOC

In this table, the AA and ZOC are never off by more than 1 compared to the old method (I didn’t look at every possible combination or adjustment from quality, but even in extreme circumstances, it should be pretty close).

For regiment, you would often have four stacking points as two battalions up and one back, but at the tactical level, the reserve unit could still be extremely active. If anything, this unit may be better placed for AA, and having reserves would allow for more patrolling or a sudden reorientation of combat power toward an enemy moving around the flank, which is approximately what ZOC represents. Meanwhile, if there are many battalion units in a hex, they probably have some reserves too, but it’s not quite equal to assume only the regiment is doing 2:1 in the first place... There’s also the matter of these being big hexes. A single infantry battalion occupying one of these hexes would have trouble keeping both a continuous line and also reserves, so it may be better to look at units whole capabilities.

One issue is the company units in my proposed system, which of course in some cases should still have AA value and ZOC. I haven’t seen any super-impressive companies here, so perhaps they could have a simple stacking value of 1/3, which would round to 1 for ZOC/AA after multiplying by 1.5.


For the pontoon question, the manual states that:

“A pontoon bridge is removed from the map if at the end of a turn:
* Enemy Adjacent to the bridging engineer (i.e. the enemy is on the other end of the pontoon).”

I interpret this as enemies being across the river on the other side of the pontoon. Thus, if two opposing units are separated by a river, the engineer cannot make a pontoon bridge. Is this a misinterpretation? Should it be “the pontoon is removed if there is an enemy unit next to the bridge engineer on the same side of the river”?

[Saint Ruth]

For the pontoon question, the manual states that:

“A pontoon bridge is removed from the map if at the end of a turn:
* Enemy Adjacent to the bridging engineer (i.e. the enemy is on the other end of the pontoon).”

I interpret this as enemies being across the river on the other side of the pontoon. Thus, if two opposing units are separated by a river, the engineer cannot make a pontoon bridge. Is this a misinterpretation? Should it be “the pontoon is removed if there is an enemy unit next to the bridge engineer on the same side of the river”?

Hi, that was the rules a while back, but it's changed so that you CAN make a pontoon bridge when the enemy is on the opposite bank. That rule was changed so you can have contested crossings.
Manual needs updating!

For the stacking, will look into it. But with reduced stacking for reduced strength units, what we don't want is huge stacks again like in Desert War. Anyway, it's something we can look at all right!

[Saureus]

Okay, that's good news about river crossings.

For stacking, with the above rules, there would only be a very small amount of situations where stacking could actually increase. Mostly, it would just be possible to have a regiment and three battalions, rather than a regiment an two battalions as is maximum right now. This probably wouldn't even be very common.

After playing a multiplayer game, I have some additional observations.

Stacking can be really troublesome in current rules when mortars/rocket artillery are considered. These units often need to be concentrated immediately behind the front lines as Soviets due to their range of 2, allowing them to strike enemy units (protecting friendly units would not be too efficient due to organizational integrity, unless they have combat supply). However, they are also large units because they are listed as regiments. This tends to create traffic jams immediately behind the front, with al sorts of negative and unrealistic consequences. With some of my proposals above, this issues would be eliminated. On another note about unit size, I see in the later city scenarios that some Soviet divisions are listed as regiment size, so in principle, the designers sometimes accept that smaller units need smaller stacking, regardless of their designation.

Recon units have interesting properties, but they are a little inflexible. Sometimes, I would like for recon units to retreat upon contact, but other times, I'd like for them to act more like normal units. Currently, this is somewhat possible, but it requires "hold at all costs" orders or "move and attack" orders. Thus, recon units seem to only have super-cautious and super-aggressive settings. It would be nice if instead of the current rules, recon units had a "tick box" in their orders. When checked (the default), then the behave cautiously, retreating from contact. When not checked, they behave like other units, allowing "move and defend" to contact, or "retreat when attacked" orders. This would increase flexibility in a realistic manner, allowing recon units to more properly fight for information without being suicidal.

When units retreat after combat, their orders are canceled. This creates a problem. Sometimes (playing the Soviets in the first 6th army campaign scenario), I wanted units to just run as fast as their legs or wheels would carry them. However, these orders kept getting canceled when they retreated. This kept them in contact with enemy units, making them suffer many bad combats in a row without being able to retreat. In some situations, this might be realistic (panzers overrunning infantry in open territory), but in others, it was absurd (motorized rocket artillery being unable to simply run away from advancing enemies). It would be nice if units kept trying to follow their movement orders if at all possible (if they are still next to a hex in their movement plan, they might be able to continue to move their, and perhaps they could even have a retreat preference in the first hex they try to move to).

:ate in the battle, I managed to surround several German units, and they seemed unable to move, even though they weren't in a super-tight encirclement. Is it impossible to move from one enemy ZOC to another if there are insufficient movement points, or is one hex movement always possible? They might have been prevented from moving by getting attacked, but I'm not sure. Anyway, units should probably be allowed to retreat into enemy ZOCs, even without a friendly unit there, at the cost of suffering more damage based on the strength of the ZOC (thus preventing tiny units from decisively surrounding a large unit).

[bcgames]

Yes, the stacking rules are part of the decision-making calculus of the game. Stacking problems are problems you and your opponent are challenged to solve. Pawn moves forward, attacks to left or right. These are the rules. Work your game around these restrictions. Best player wins.

[bcgames]

...Stacking can be really troublesome...

As a former Armor Battalion S-3, Mech Brigade S-3, and Armor Brigade XO acting as the ribbon-bridge crossing commander of the Imjin River on three different occasions, I can assert--as TRUE--that "...Stacking can be really troublesome..."--every single time.

Learn to stack.

[Saint Ruth]

Recon units have interesting properties, but they are a little inflexible. Sometimes, I would like for recon units to retreat upon contact, but other times, I'd like for them to act more like normal units. Currently, this is somewhat possible, but it requires "hold at all costs" orders or "move and attack" orders. Thus, recon units seem to only have super-cautious and super-aggressive settings. It would be nice if instead of the current rules, recon units had a "tick box" in their orders. When checked (the default), then the behave cautiously, retreating from contact. When not checked, they behave like other units, allowing "move and defend" to contact, or "retreat when attacked" orders. This would increase flexibility in a realistic manner, allowing recon units to more properly fight for information without being suicidal.

Good idea, I like this. Might be possible to do this.
I'll have a look.

When units retreat after combat, their orders are canceled. This creates a problem. Sometimes (playing the Soviets in the first 6th army campaign scenario), I wanted units to just run as fast as their legs or wheels would carry them. However, these orders kept getting canceled when they retreated. This kept them in contact with enemy units, making them suffer many bad combats in a row without being able to retreat. In some situations, this might be realistic (panzers overrunning infantry in open territory), but in others, it was absurd (motorized rocket artillery being unable to simply run away from advancing enemies). It would be nice if units kept trying to follow their movement orders if at all possible (if they are still next to a hex in their movement plan, they might be able to continue to move their, and perhaps they could even have a retreat preference in the first hex they try to move to).

I can have a look at that too, especially the first retreat hex being their movement hex.
Note that if the attack is small, the unit will continue on its movement. The notion here is that if a unit suffers a large attack, it needs to turn and fight and will therefore have less time to move (even if it does not retreat). I'll have a look through and see what's what.

:ate in the battle, I managed to surround several German units, and they seemed unable to move, even though they weren't in a super-tight encirclement. Is it impossible to move from one enemy ZOC to another if there are insufficient movement points, or is one hex movement always possible? They might have been prevented from moving by getting attacked, but I'm not sure. Anyway, units should probably be allowed to retreat into enemy ZOCs, even without a friendly unit there, at the cost of suffering more damage based on the strength of the ZOC (thus preventing tiny units from decisively surrounding a large unit).

Yep, ZOC stops retreats, regardless of the ZOC strength... will have a look.
Thanks for your input!
/Brian

[Saureus]

...Stacking can be really troublesome...

As a former Armor Battalion S-3, Mech Brigade S-3, and Armor Brigade XO acting as the ribbon-bridge crossing commander of the Imjin River on three different occasions, I can assert--as TRUE--that "...Stacking can be really troublesome..."--every single time.

Learn to stack.

It should certainly be troublesome, and indeed, your experience with river crossing might be relevant to the situation. Right now, I'm not sure if crossing a pontoon bridge is really more troublesome than moving down a road. Perhaps it should be, with a more strict limit on how many can cross in a certain time interval?

At any rate, stacking can involve spreading out units over a very large area. It's most relevant to combat densities, where all the good positions are taken first, and then anything beyond that is either exposed or too concentrated an artillery target. The hexes are big, 2.5 km across. Many more units can fit in the hex than would actually be deployed in the hex under any circumstances, BUT I would still argue that units should be able to pass through a hex where other units are in frontline deployment positions, or when artillery is dispersed for firing. I don't think these kinds of deployments would be too troublesome for other units moving through the hex (or at least trying to, enemy action has the potential to create awkwardness here).

There's also the matter of true unit size. The two battalions in the attached pictures are size 2, but clearly one unit is much bigger than the other (with an even larger difference at maximum strength). There are also many Soviet units that are considered the same command/stacking level, but actually have a 3-fold size difference.