WitE 2

[samthesham]

Just saw this thread for the first time: sorry if these have been covered. Getting back into it after a while off.

Add uncertainty to the Soviet 1st turn so that a perfect German 1st turn cannot be developed because of perfect knowledge.

possibilities include

1) 1 possible one hex variation in the location of rear units (optional setting)

2) Allow units in reserve (perhaps 3+ hexes away) that pass a admin check to move in response (automated) to the moving players actions. I think this is an interesting idea.

I also saw "combat delays" mentioned which I think would be cool of that meant panzers be deployed AHEAD of infantry, instead of the other way around now, inf does all of the early attacking and panzers follow up, which is a bit backward. Ref: the book panzer leader.

Loss of cities cause temp morale loss to Soviet units in 41 causing the Soviets to fight more forward.

My 2 cents

Great work guys, keep it up.

Paul

[821Bobo]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Curious about combat delay. Does combat delay also use fuel in the same proportion as normal MP?

It use more.

[joelmar]

ORIGINAL: samthesham

I also saw "combat delays" mentioned which I think would be cool of that meant panzers be deployed AHEAD of infantry, instead of the other way around now, inf does all of the early attacking and panzers follow up, which is a bit backward. Ref: the book panzer leader.

Funny, I read or heard last week that Guderian and other panzer group commanders were at odds with the high command because of this. He wanted the panzers divisions to do the initial attacks in order not to have infantry columns clogging the road and slowing the panzers down, but was denied in this because the high command wanted to save the panzers, so it was doctrine at least for Barbarossa and precedent mobile operations that infantry did the breakthroughs and only then the panzers were allowed to go.

ORIGINAL: samthesham

Loss of cities cause temp morale loss to Soviet units in 41 causing the Soviets to fight more forward.

+1

[Michael T]

It use more.

How strange.

[821Bobo]

Thats just my observation, but because delay cost also more MPs it is hard to tell unless you calculate it. With combat delay 1 the difference was 1-2% percents. Will try with some bigger delay.

[821Bobo]

Actually it may be the other way around. Really not easy to say if you don't know the code and/or do not run many tests.
So I tried again.
light woods with poor roads, delay 0 an moved to clear hex with poor roads, pz div spent 1MP and 2% fuel
the same div light woods with poor roads, delay 4 and moved to clear hex with poor roads spent 13MP and 20% fuel
here looks like it costs actually less fuel

[Michael T]

Generally I think for each 1MP used 2% fuel is used. But I have not been involved with WITE 2.0 yet. But that ratio is what happens in WITE. My query is that if combat delay is a rule used to simulate time lost due to follow on units waiting for the battle to take place (I like this) then really combat delay MP should *not* use up any fuel. This point is even more important if WITE 2.0 logistics are as sound as what I am hearing. Why would units use up fuel by biding there time waiting? If anything they would have more fuel as they would be spending that time preparing, not that I advocate that, just to highlight the strangeness of fuel consumption while waiting, if indeed the game works that way.

[loki100]

I think this part of the WiTE2 code is still identical to that in WiTW so its testable using that game.

If I understand the design intent its a mix of what you say (ie time waiting while the battle is resolved) and also a reflection that moving through what was recently an active battleground is not frictionless (burnt out wrecks, mines, ambushes etc). So I think that what is reported above sounds feasible, the fuel cost goes up but its not a linear relationship.

[Michael T]

I think the time spent waiting would be spent preparing (topping up fuel and ammo) and would more than cover any fuel used through friction in a post battle hex. Some battles would leave very little friction, it's not always the worst case. I hope the fuel used in delay MP is way way lower than normal consumption.

We know that 10MP in normal movement = 20% fuel used. But what is the fuel used for 10MP in delay only? I hope it's near zero. But I suspect it's probably closer to 20%. Please someone tell me I am wrong.

[Joel Billings]

All I can tell from doing some quick tests is that as always, moving less hexes uses less fuel, than more hexes, MPs expended being equal. I can't figure out exactly what the formula is through tests, but it seems that in your example of from 0 to 20%, it looks like it's coming in around 12% used for delay versus normal movement (so 60% of what you would have used). But that's a very small sample size. I suppose you could argue traffic congestion of trying to put a lot of units through a small area, and that they are burning fuel while waiting, but I realize this only goes so far.

[Michael T]

Well, it's not bad as I thought at least. But should be a bit lower still I think. I reckon ~25% of the normal consumption of fuel for delay would be about right.

[amatteucci]

ORIGINAL: loki100

several bits of a partial answer:

a) I'd agree that starting in June 41 is a good idea - it avoids the politics and multiple options of the 1939-41 period. After all what is the value to carefully modelling the shifting OOB/ToE if Germany has invaded Iran in 1939 or something of that ilk

But

b) the naval game does not really exist, this is fine for WiTW and WiTE but needs to be in for the period 41-43;
c) the in-game databases don't really cover the west in the period 41-43;
d) balancing such a game would be a massive task
e) the Theatre Boxes are an elegant low impact way to cover the rest of the war - remember no-one is playing the Western Allies in WiTE2;
f) balancing such a game would be a massive task
g) balancing WiTE2 is a massive task

in effect a WiE is a different project again to WiTE2

That why it's a few years I'm lobbying for a WiE campaign with a July 1943 (Husky/Zitadelle) start! [:D]

Seriously, a WitE2 Expansion featuring a 1943 starting grand campaign scenario that includes the Western Front would be a welcome addition to the series and, possibly, the easiest and quickest form of WiE doable with the current engine.

[Fetterkrolle]

I don't know if this has been adressed on this thread before.

After playing several games vs humans, I have found that most players are either overconfident or the opposite. This ends up with a lot of games being unbalanced and end up with one player resigning quite early. In my case I have played around 7-8 games and none have gone past turn 13.

My suggestion is that when you make a game (atleast a server game) is that there is an option to make the game "ranked". I am thinking of a basic ELO system, which can be split into Axis ELO rating and Soviet ELO rating. This would solve issues where instead of asking for "intermediate soviet opponent", you would instead ask for soviet player with 1200-1400 ELO rating. Hopefully this would make for more balanced games.

Do anyone reading this have any opinions please comment! And if any moderators or people working on WitE2 is reading this I would love to know if this is a possible feature in the game?

[thedoctorking]

I have played many games of WitE1 and never had one go past turn 45 or so. I like your "ranked" option, Fetterkrolle, though I don't know how many players would opt for it.

[Zemke]

The issue seems to lie with players playing the Germans. If they do not reach their "goals" early, most quit and the poor Russian player never gets a chance to have the same opportunities for "fun" as the German player.

I think any rating system should include how their games ended, played to the end, or resignation of one party or the other. This would allow everyone to see someone's past history. Also a method to "report" a game as abandoned by an opponent if no replay in several months, because I suspect many just stop sending turns, and not there is no way to report this behavior.

[Hanny]

Is 2020 still the plan for release?.

[Joel Billings]

That's what we are working towards, yes.

[AlbertN]

Less Micromanagement would do good.
The game currently to me it is far too 'mental' and 'bean counting' - players in general seek a game, not a scientific test.

There is lots of good in there, but hours and hours for 1 turn tends to be excessive for a game of this type of magnitude.

Excellent games are about decision making 'mental' business, not 'bean counting' mental business - and a strict historical railroading tends to be bad. Possibilities to expand factories, and deeper economical level would do marvels here, players deciding WHEN to change a ToE (and not that magically when historically happened, all the German infantry divisions turn binary).

To keep in line with Gary's products - World at War was exceptional from my perspective. Mechanics easy to grasp and elegant in design. One did not needed excess of bean counting (at top with supplies being shuffled around with railroad capacity for advanced supply - and that was an 'advanced' rule for experienced players). Players could decide on tech, kind of troops, and still had manpower limits and resource limits. Obviously it lacked the operational level details of the War if the X serie.

I'd imprint a War in the X serie (admittedly I'd do a whole War in Europe game) with economical / decisional aspect, and safekeeping the upper layers of the operational level. without descending in excesses of micromanaging.

[thedoctorking]

This game is all about micromanaging. The sorts of decisions you are making are the decisions that an operational commander, the STAVKA Chief of Staff or an Axis regional commander would be making. Though it covers the whole front, this is not a strategic game at all. As the Soviets you have a small amount of control over how many units are built but for the most part you are managing an army given to you by somebody else. For the strategic game, look to World in Flames, a fantastic game of the whole war at the scale and, I'd guess, the detail level you are looking for.

[Joel Billings]

I'd have to agree. At heart this is an operational game expanded to included a massive front. This is why I really enjoy the smaller scenarios like Drama on the Danube and most recently Road to Kiev in WitE2. The campaign is there for those that want it (I realize most aspire to play the campaign), but not for the feint of heart.