Differences between WitE && WiR

[janh]

This looks quite interesting, and until recently I used to play War in Russia occasionally although the AI would allow even a comparably easy 1943 victory for Germans, unless you'd back them up by benefits which then lead to ridiculous, unhistorically huge casualty lists. So I hope that in the new game the AI has been upgraded by worlds to be a challenge even without getting millions of extra resources.

I'd like to know now what is really intrinsically different from WiR. I have read the few AARs, and the Q&A a little, but there are a few questions that I'd like to raise to see how similar it is to WiR, and whether there is enough new features.
(1.) Production: How does it work here? Can you adjust industry output? Are resources taken into account? Transport of stuff?
(2.) How about European Air war (USAAF bombing in WiR)?
(3.) Are the Western and Italian fronts still abstracted but present? Any interaction with them? Any effects on the Russian Front?
(4.) Moddability. Can the map be modded (i.e. by enlarging to include the full European theater, mimicking the '40, '44-45 French or Italian campaigns etc)? Would AI be able to cope with 3 fronts? How moddable is the AI, i.e. is it scripted, or are there exposed dynamic functions and a whole library of scripting functions such as in Armed Assault 2 that would enable to edit the whole AI from its basics?
(5.) I read naval units are not included, which probably makes sens for chosen focus on the East. But could new unit types be modded and naval units (Black sea...) be modded and included (turning this thing essentially in the European counterpart of WiTP-AE)?

[Kesselring]

WitE is developed based on TOAW's east front scenario instead of WiR, so it is not a good idea to compare WitE with WiR.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Kesselring

WitE is developed based on TOAW's east front scenario instead of WiR, so it is not a good idea to compare WitE with WiR.

That is not true. I have never played TOAW and I doubt Gary has either. WitE is based entirely on previous Grigsby games and a LOT of original research that has likely never been incorporated into any other game previously.

[paullus99]

From what I've seen, the only real similarity is the location (Eastern Front). Otherwise, this looks to be a whole new ball of wax.

[Rasputitsa]

Most of the questions that you ask are covered in other threads within this forum, but it has been emphasised that WiTE is a new game and not a re-build of WIR. [:)]

[PyleDriver]

Yep this is a horse of a different color...And I will add, a fun horse to ride...

[Kesselring]

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Kesselring

WitE is developed based on TOAW's east front scenario instead of WiR, so it is not a good idea to compare WitE with WiR.

That is not true. I have never played TOAW and I doubt Gary has either. WitE is based entirely on previous Grigsby games and a LOT of original research that has likely never been incorporated into any other game previously.

Then try TOAW first and you will see.

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: Kesselring

Then try TOAW first and you will see.

The opacity of the combat mechanics in TOAW deterred me from enjoying that game. I also found the the rivers running down the middle of hexes a curious and rather inelegant design decision for an operational+ game. However I never played version 3.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Kesselring

Then try TOAW first and you will see.

You missed Jim's point. The two games have some similarities since they are both Eastern Front but WitE is not being developed based on any previous game including TOAW. It does use some code from earlier Grigsby games but obviously not from TOAW.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Kesselring

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Kesselring

WitE is developed based on TOAW's east front scenario instead of WiR, so it is not a good idea to compare WitE with WiR.

That is not true. I have never played TOAW and I doubt Gary has either. WitE is based entirely on previous Grigsby games and a LOT of original research that has likely never been incorporated into any other game previously.

Then try TOAW first and you will see.

Look, I developed the weapons data base (everything from hand grenades to the 600mm Karl), the ground unit data base (all the AFVs, squads, guns, etc.), the TOE data base (everything from a SP Infantry Gun company to a Guards Mechanized Corps), contributed to the air unit data base (primarily developed by Gary), and, along with Gary, developed and expanded the unit master file which contained all the units in the original version (pre-alpha) of the game.

I've been working on this game since 2000 and know what I'm talking about. I have never played or even seen TOAW (so nothing I developed could look anything like it) and have never heard Gary mention once TOAW in the past 10 years. Other than that there is an eastern front scenario developed for TOAW that covers the same subject matter at the same scale, I can't see how there can possibly be any similarity between the two games.

[janh]

Ok, I see people discuss heritage, but I'd like to know now what it is about the new WitE, how it differs from any possible predecessor (i.e. what new/more features, functions etc I get and which I loose if I decide to switch). I'd like to know what I can really expect if I buy in, without being disappointed by say "having expected loads of new possibilities or a world different AI from WiR". So I'll try to summarize what I have gathered here, but please correct me if I have misunderstood any of the information in the various threads:

To me WitE looks very much like the game core of WiR, with some differences but otherwise mostly similarities (kinda like comparing one version of Windows to another). In its core, it is still a campaign game on the operational/strategic level focusing purely on the Eastern Front. The map is more detailed (10mile quantization), but not larger in sense of extending to Murmansk (Europe, or Africa etc). Rail functionality is now more obvious with repair units. Rail heads and an abstract "motor park" for supply are clearly a new feature. Rivers seems to make a more measurable difference (giving rise to "crossings and bridgeheads", that appear in many war books as long discussions). Naval warfare remains abstracted. "Airfield type HQs" have been added as another feature. AI seems to be a lot stronger judging from the two AARs so far (which is the main "upgrade" that I see here, and the one worth by far the most to me).
On the other hand, many old functions are apparently gone: Production is abstracted and can't be influenced directly; the role of the USAAF bombings is gone and included in resource production (not a real loss here); the italian and western fronts are gone, but units withdraw by historical timelines and you seemingly can delay the war in africa or france anymore by stripping your own units;

And finally answering my own questions from the Q&A thread, it seems that unlike WiTP you cannot influence in technology progress here; resources are present in abstract fashion, including oil. Regarding moddability, I am not very sure, but I saw a unit/TOE editor screen, and some mention that initial targets of units can possibly be scripted. So map seems out of question, as adding new unit types ("ships"), or dynamic scripting of AI functions etc. And adding the full European theater (France, Africa) as well as getting the AI to cope with 3 fronts (in essence modding it to a WITP counterpart).

So, how much did I gather correctly here? I think if the AI holds up to real standards and isn't just another PBEM preparation tool, this game may be quite promising, one of the highlights of this year. Particularly if there would be in-depth modding support added later (map, AI etc).

[PyleDriver]

Dude theres nothing in common with this and WIR other than Gary, and the eastern front...And as Jim stated this has been in the works for 10 years, so this TOAW most of us havn't the time to search or play other games. So if theres some simularies, its just by chance...Bet we got it beat thought...lol...

[Endsieg]

Jan,
from what i have gathered so far, you wrote a decent summary.(you also meant to say CANT, see below purple)

my 2 cents as to the major differences WIR diehards have been waiting for:
-the game is now at divisional level with 10 mile hexes(incl. breakdown to regiments and brigades). WIR fans have been waiting for this for 15+ years. we want to spend 6 hours on a turn, not just 2.[:)]
-no plotting...but instead attack and watch, and then attack again and watch and then possibly attack again and watch, continue to attack at your own peril...
-the map is beautiful.
minor, repeat, minor blemishes:
-no player tweaking of AFV or aircraft production
-no player rotating of air units between East, Ital or West fronts for rest/refit/or training
-no player potential to gamble by temporarily stripping West or Ital fronts of some units(esp in '41-42)...
the potential:
-in the future the hexes will be only 3 miles wide, the map will be even larger and even more beautiful and the game will be at the regimental level...and turns will take an entire week to complete[8D]

ORIGINAL: janh

So I'll try to summarize what I have gathered here, but please correct me if I have misunderstood any of the information in the various threads:

To me WitE looks very much like the game core of WiR, with some differences but otherwise mostly similarities (kinda like comparing one version of Windows to another). In its core, it is still a campaign game on the operational/strategic level focusing purely on the Eastern Front. The map is more detailed (10mile quantization), but not larger in sense of extending to Murmansk (Europe, or Africa etc). Rail functionality is now more obvious with repair units. Rail heads and an abstract "motor park" for supply are clearly a new feature. Rivers seems to make a more measurable difference (giving rise to "crossings and bridgeheads", that appear in many war books as long discussions). Naval warfare remains abstracted. "Airfield type HQs" have been added as another feature. AI seems to be a lot stronger judging from the two AARs so far (which is the main "upgrade" that I see here, and the one worth by far the most to me).
On the other hand, many old functions are apparently gone: Production is abstracted and can't be influenced directly; the role of the USAAF bombings is gone and included in resource production (not a real loss here); the italian and western fronts are gone, but units withdraw by historical timelines and you seemingly CANT delay the war in africa or france anymore by stripping your own units;

And finally answering my own questions from the Q&A thread, it seems that unlike WiTP you cannot influence in technology progress here; resources are present in abstract fashion, including oil.

So, how much did I gather correctly here? I think if the AI holds up to real standards and isn't just another PBEM preparation tool, this game may be quite promising, one of the highlights of this year.

[SGHunt]

"...in the future the hexes will be only 3 miles wide, the map will be even larger and even more beautiful and the game will be at the regimental level..."

Now, there's a thought! And the regiments can break down into battalions. There would be Divisonal HQ units and the support units would be Tiger Companies etc.

The map for such a game would be truly wonderful and allow for tactical gameplay, roads, bridges, balkas, villages, minefields, fortifications with facings etc.

It would of course be impossible to play except for people who are retired, divorced and without social lives. Ok, where do we sign? [;)]

[paullus99]

And it would probably be ready just in time for my kids to graduate college (in about 22 years) - so yeah, sign me up!