Will this game really be cutting edge and addictive?

[GBS]

This is what I know from reading this forum dailey.

Lot of counters of which I have to move each one. This means long turns ala WiP.
Great looking map.
AARs indicate pretty standard war game stuff ie. combined arms, concentric attacks, soften them up with air and artillary etc.. Nothing new here.
ARRs show battle results statisticly but no indication of what is really going on or why.
Commanders are rated but what effect (calculation wise) do these ratings have?
Seems like logistics is the heart ans soal of this game much like WiP.

I'm already tired of reading the AARs and havn't even played the game yet. There is no indication of when will be available or even become beta for that matter. So I for one don't need to read any more of the standard fare AARs and I think it would be helpful that instead of another AAR, the testers and devs give some examples of what the WitE will present to a gamer that is different and exciting so to speak.

Matrix can check their files and see how many games I have purchased so I am a good customer. I'm sure I will buy this one as well.

[jaw]

If a divisional/brigade level game of the largest ground campaign in history doesn't excite you in and of itself then I doubt there are any features in the game that will sway you. To truly appreciate WitE you have to be enamored by things like orders of battle, tables of organization & equipment, armored fighting vehicles and combat aircraft and above all, the history of the death struggle between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. For those who are into these things, WitE provides endless hours of enjoyment. For those with only a passing interest in these subjects, WitE is a game to pass on. I can't put it simplier than that.

[karonagames]

As Jaw says what excites some people is boring to others. All I can say is that in some of the test games of the shorter scenarios, there have been some very close games that have gone down to the last turn to decide the winner, and that the participants have found exciting - you definitely sweat when the Germans are 20 miles from the Kremlin!

With regard to the campaigns, we do not know if they are balanced, as it takes a day a turn when playing PBEM, and I don't think anyone will wait the 224days it will take to complete a 1941 campaign! But the 1944 campaign is 55 turns, and we may be able to show something of the Race to Berlin if you think that might be interesting.

[GBS]

Thanks for the replys and I think you have answered my inquiry. I might just have to wait and see on this one and I like Garys games. I loved WiP original and AE but in the end they were to much and too big for me. I do think his Civil War game is the best of it's kind ...brilliant. I still have a campaign going as CSA. We'll see.

[wodin]

I don't often play games at this scale....infact I haven't played one that has got me really excited...I enjoyed the SSG games but never really got into the step loss business...so I see this game as the No1 game at this scale and will be buying it...I also believe I prob wont buy another game at this scale for a very long time after...it looks like it's going to be the sort of game that people say "if your going to own and play 1 game at divisional level then it has to be WitE"...

[ComradeP]

One note on the time required to finish a turn: like in WitP/WitP:AE, the initial turns take long because you have to get everything going. Unlike WitP/WitP:AE, you don't have lots of surface combat/carrier task forces or convoys to worry about, only a rail network to worry about basically. There are plenty of information screens, hotkeys and on map displays that make controlling the game quite easy. You're not going to run into many interface issues after you've played a turn or two. After the first few turns, turns can be finished in a shorter amount of time and mud turns can be a matter of shuffling some units around and hitting end turn as you probably won't be busy with planning attacks in those. Keep in mind that in the average year, around half the turns are mud or blizzard turns, with the rest clear or snow.

Late war Soviet turns take long because you have LOTS of units. The Axis armies are always of a manageable size. Just like there are people who can play some WitP/WitP:AE in 25 minutes, people should be able to play some turns in around an hour or so (keep in mind that the game has a scale of 1 turn=1 week). Micromanagers, myself included have lots of options to tweak various settings, similar to how players in WitP:AA that want to can spend time on their pilot training or how the Japanese production wizards in WitP:AE can spend a lot of time fine tuning the Japanese economy and production. If you don't want to dive that deep into the game, you don't have to. Not doing so will give you a disadvantage when facing a player who does, but thus far it seems the disadvantage will be less serious than in other games. The game doesn't micromanagement, but it does reward it.

[SeaMonkey]

Eventually someone, somewhere will produce a simplified Panther game engine for a game of this scale and then the Global conflict will be incorporated and we will have a game that will require a few years to perfect.

Once its done though, well....I feel sorry for the competition.[8D]

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: GBS

.........combined arms,

In one attack, all units are infantry and the attack values total 78.

In my other attack, it is a mixture of infantry unts and armour units and the attack values still total 78.

What is the benefit of using armour in an attack?

-

[Montbrun]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

ORIGINAL: GBS

.........combined arms,

In one attack, all units are infantry and the attack values total 78.

In my other attack, it is a mixture of infantry unts and armour units and the attack values still total 78.

What is the benefit of using armour in an attack?

-

It's in the "under-the-hood" combat calcs where the "magic" takes place. Each device has a range, various factors for armor, anti-tank, anti-personnel, etc., and that's where the various device type attributes, such as armor vs infantry, takes place.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

ORIGINAL: GBS

.........combined arms,

In one attack, all units are infantry and the attack values total 78.

In my other attack, it is a mixture of infantry unts and armour units and the attack values still total 78.

What is the benefit of using armour in an attack?

-

It's in the "under-the-hood" combat calcs where the "magic" takes place. Each device has a range, various factors for armor, anti-tank, anti-personnel, etc., and that's where the various device type attributes, such as armor vs infantry, takes place.

And all of that stuff is impacted by the terrain in the hex, which dictates the ranges at which battles pulses are being fought at. Long range weapons fighting in clear terrain will do much better than in a more cluttered terrain type.

[Fred98]

And the third attack the units are all armour and the combat values still total 78.
 
What is benefit of using combined arms?  ( In SSG''s games, armour provides a benefit in "shock" value addaed to the attack value and the attacking infantry take the loss meaning the armour remains available for the next attack. There is a massive benefit in using combined arms).
 
 

[Joel Billings]

Combat is resolved at the micro level, squads, tanks and guns firing at each other at different ranges. Some weapons are better at different ranges than others. I don't know the guts of the combat system, but I would bet that Gary built in various factors that benefit combine arms forces.

[PyleDriver]

Keep in mind a PzD in 41, once air support hits, was a combined attack force. The Germans molded it thru 39 and 40. The only problem is armor losses get high (their tanks suck), so I hit a section with infantry units hard and squrm my panzers into there rear. I'm like a bad meal the next morning.

[paullus99]

The US & Germany had very similar ideas of how armored units should be utilized (exploitation forces rather than breakthrough/tank-on-tank), at least at the beginning. German generals quickly realized the need for up-gunned tanks and mobile anti-tank units and you saw a fundamental shift in doctrine as the war progressed.

Unfortunately, US doctrine wasn't as flexible (and US tanks - particularly the Sherman) were never up to the task of handling German tanks one-on-one once the PZIVFs were fielded in North Africa.

I'm saving up for a new computer, just so I can be ready once this game is available.

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

The US & Germany had very similar ideas of how armored units should be utilized (exploitation forces rather than breakthrough/tank-on-tank), at least at the beginning. German generals quickly realized the need for up-gunned tanks and mobile anti-tank units and you saw a fundamental shift in doctrine as the war progressed.

Unfortunately, US doctrine wasn't as flexible (and US tanks - particularly the Sherman) were never up to the task of handling German tanks one-on-one once the PZIVFs were fielded in North Africa.

I'm saving up for a new computer, just so I can be ready once this game is available.

The German's got a surprise when they met the T-34 and KV's, the Matillda was bad but no gun as was the French Char B. That's why there armored tecnique changed.

As for the Sherman it was a good tank when first deployed in Africa but that was when the Germans were up-gunning because of the T-34. It was also transportable by LCM landing craft, important for invasions, and could not have any weight added to it like with the Sherman Jumbo. All in all the Sherman with it's gyrostabilized gun did well when it could manuever and outnumber the German tanks. The "super" tank idea like the Tigers and somewhat the Panther fell prey to the raptor packs, the M-4 and T-34. Now American TD's are another story ... I do love the M-18 Hellcat!!

[ComradeP]

The problem with the M-18 was that if you threw a rock against one side, it would come out of the other. It had extremely poor armour compared to the firepower of the tanks it was fighting. The American TD's in general faced the problem of having inadequate armour to deal with the tanks they were fighting, but the problem was worse with the Hellcat than with other TD's. You'll see that the German and Soviet SPAT/TD vehicles in the game generally offer more protection to their crews, at this scale their lack of a turret isn't much of a problem.

[Kiith]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Keep in mind a PzD in 41, once air support hits, was a combined attack force. The Germans molded it thru 39 and 40. The only problem is armor losses get high (their tanks suck), so I hit a section with infantry units hard and squrm my panzers into there rear. I'm like a bad meal the next morning.

I’m just trying to understand how the combat system works in WitE, so just using your example. Do you plot movement and combat for one hex at a time or does it use a plot based system like WiR did where everything happens together?

If it’s the first way did your panzers loose any movement allowance from waiting for the combat to be finished? or do they have their full movement allowance available to exploit the breakthrough?

[PyleDriver]

Picture WIR, got it. Now forget everthing you see.... This is a move attack and move attack and move game (IGOYUGO). It's a whole different system than WIR. Dont get me wrong I played WIR for over 10 years. What this has is alot more research and a vastly more complex system. You want detail, it's here....

[karonagames]

I think that you have to approach WITE with absolutely no pre-conceived ideas as to how it plays. Elements of the gameplay can be seen in Panzer General, TOAW, SSG's engine etc., but this game is very much more than the sum of it's parts.

It definitely is not WIR with prettier graphics and updated OOB.

[SGHunt]

GBS - can I add my two penn'orth?  

Is it cutting edge?   I have played a lot of the SSG games and I think this is better - on the technical aspects others are better placed, but in terms of game play this is sweet and easy (at the top level).   Under the hood it is massive.  

Is it addictive?  Yes.  And I am resisting all attempts at a cure.   I can get bored quite quickly (I did with SSG's Kharkov DotD - the game was great but it didn't offer enough challenge or variety) - with this I am still just starting to learn.

Stuart