Withdrawls

[Helpless]

Btw, for the Soviets, are units that were e.g. destroyed historically, withdrawn & reformed in the same manner in the game?

Yes, for Soviet Fronts and Corps HQs, but these are hardcoded. We are thinking to add Soviet withdrawals, but this would be more useful for smaller scenarios.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Helpless
Btw, anyone who disagrees with logic of withdrawals can always change it in editor. It is not hardcoded.

But in that case forces would just stay around, right? Well, you could create house rules to have at least so-and-so much CV and planes sitting at the western edge, and south-western edge of the map so mimick good old WiR. But it isn't as nice as the old and simple fronts.

Yesterday again I read in the history of "SS LAH" that Hitler had actually ordered the withdrawal of this division from Russia for reformation at training grounds "Sennelager" on February 21st 1942. However, fighting and demands in the Southern Army Group Sector required this division to stay around until late May that year before the withdrawal actually took place. Similary in 1944 it was planned to throw this division to France, but OKW convinced Hitler to send a more easily withdrawable unit instead.

With the static system you are implementing in the game, the whole situation on the eastern front is entirely ignored due to fixed withdrawal dates. No flexibility appears to be retained, and this approximation is much too crude as any withdrawal decision does clearly interact with the situation in the east as much as the situation elsewhere.

Clearly using house rules could work, but it would mean making a step back from WiR here and would seem very unsatisfying. It would surely deduce a bit from the price I would be willing to pay since it just switches out a couple pro's and con's between this game and WiR, which is free.

[SGHunt]

But Janh - just look at this beauty.    There's surely no real comparison between the two games.    WIR was great for its day, but boy, is it clunky to play!   This looks easy to play with sooooo much going on under the bonnet to make it as good a sim as it seems to be (albeit that we are 'looking in' from the outside as it were).  

If I get to fight the war with the men and materials that were actually available, that's quite good enough for me.

And I am not on commission!  [:'(]

Stuart

[karonagames]

Everyone in the test team absolutely loves this game, but each of us has aspects that we would like to see done better/differently, but as in real life the good things far outweigh the niggles. My wife nags the hell out of me but I still love her.[:)]

The issue of withdrawals may continue to nag at you, but it should not stop you experiencing a truly great game.

You are quite correct, if you could find an opponent you could absolutely trust and you were prepared to pay the rail costs and the supply overhead for having units sit on the map edge for most of the game, you could edit the game and use house rules to replace the current reinforcement/withdrawal system.

[Smirfy]

Hopefully post release if it is viable an expansion could incorperate an enhanced withdrawl and other front model.

[janh]

Just had one more thought, kind of inspired by a similar discussion going on over at the WITP-AE forum.  There someone stumbled over the "irrationality" of withdrawing an almost completely wrecked battleship to save PP costs, though "logically" that ship surely would never have been requested back in Europe in its state of no combat value -- hence, the player either has to send it on a "gamey" suicide mission to get rid of it, or suffer the loss in much more valuable PP.  Similarly, players can send such assets on more risky missions since they are going to loose it anyway by a given date, unless they "pay the PP to keep it".

So that let's me wonder whether the withdrawal rules in WiTEast will also favor gamey strategies like putting units that will be withdrawn in burning points, where they would bleed down but at least save the strength of your permanent units?  After all, it seems even if they are essentially wiped out, they'll come back on a fixed schedule with a corresponding ToE, right?  Or would they not come back with the fixed equipment?  Maybe it has been answered before, but can you "buy out" withdrawals as well?

[Schmart]

I don't think it is too far-fetched to have a division like Totenkopf be withdrawn at a designated time. Think of it as a slight variation on the historical events of other fronts. Perhaps the British overrun the Afrika Korps and Hitler desperately needs a motorised division for north africa, or perhaps partisans in Yugoslavia have defeated a string of Axis units, and Hitler decides to 'teach them a lesson' and unleases Totenkopf on the partisans, etc.
 
One thing I might suggest, is perhaps adding a small variable into the withdrawl/return schedule, creating an unknown exact withdrawl turn, to avoid gamey tactics. For instance: Division XX will withdraw sometime during october or november 1943. The player who's unit will be withdrawn, gets a message 2-3 turns prior to the withdrawl, allowing him to prepare, but the opposing player won't know ahead of time exactly when the unit withdraws.

[Great_Ajax]

Not familiar with the withdrawals in WITP but there are no points to be earned by a unit withdrawing on a schedule and there is no way to alter the schedule. The gaminess in our case is that players who see units on the withdraw schedule may be tempted to try to run that division into the ground or disband the unit for the replacements before the withdrawal hits. If a player does this, the unit will sit back in its home territory frozen while drawing replacements from the player's production pool before it is taken out of the game. So if players try to abuse the system, they will end up paying with it by their replacements getting funneled back to get the unit back up to strength.

Trey

ORIGINAL: janh

Just had one more thought, kind of inspired by a similar discussion going on over at the WITP-AE forum.  There someone stumbled over the "irrationality" of withdrawing an almost completely wrecked battleship to save PP costs, though "logically" that ship surely would never have been requested back in Europe in its state of no combat value -- hence, the player either has to send it on a "gamey" suicide mission to get rid of it, or suffer the loss in much more valuable PP.  Similarly, players can send such assets on more risky missions since they are going to loose it anyway by a given date, unless they "pay the PP to keep it".

So that let's me wonder whether the withdrawal rules in WiTEast will also favor gamey strategies like putting units that will be withdrawn in burning points, where they would bleed down but at least save the strength of your permanent units?  After all, it seems even if they are essentially wiped out, they'll come back on a fixed schedule with a corresponding ToE, right?  Or would they not come back with the fixed equipment?  Maybe it has been answered before, but can you "buy out" withdrawals as well?

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Schmart
I don't think it is too far-fetched to have a division like Totenkopf be withdrawn at a designated time. Think of it as a slight variation on the historical events of other fronts. Perhaps the British overrun the Afrika Korps and Hitler desperately needs a motorised division for north africa, or perhaps partisans in Yugoslavia have defeated a string of Axis units, and Hitler decides to 'teach them a lesson' and unleases Totenkopf on the partisans, etc.
One thing I might suggest, is perhaps adding a small variable into the withdrawl/return schedule, creating an unknown exact withdrawl turn, to avoid gamey tactics. For instance: Division XX will withdraw sometime during october or november 1943. The player who's unit will be withdrawn, gets a message 2-3 turns prior to the withdrawl, allowing him to prepare, but the opposing player won't know ahead of time exactly when the unit withdraws.

Good suggestion -- adds back the element of uncertainty. Though since the developments in Africa, Sicily, Italy and France are still assumed to be "on schedule" and would have to be "randomized" within certain boundaries, which also would be very nice in terms of game value. The only catch to make sure the game engine picks such units "smartly", i.e. not pick the spearhead of a crucial advance, but one that's somewhere in the more rearward sections and logically easy to access and withdraw...

[wurger54]

[/quote]

Its been discussed at length along with many of the other topics that are discussed here (Finnish line is a favorite . Decision has been made to go with this system and we've moved on. Eventually you have to release a product and if you keep adding/changing features, this game will never get released.

Been watching the deveopment of this gem for well over a year. Decided the best input I could give was to let the boys do their work, and enjoy it when it was released... hopefully during this lifetime. It has all been discussed, input duly noted, and the decision has been made. I'm hoping for no major changes or delays. [:-]