What is the rational ? 230 vs. 2

[Grymme]

Nukx. Chill down a little. You get answers suitable to your question. As i am sure you remember (because its earlier in the same thread) you can get nice and explainative answers if you just calm down and ask serious questions.

[Strategiusz]

The game is for strategists not for history geeks. Sorry.

[Josh]

Well I play WitE and ATG both. Both are great games, but IMHO ATG has the greatest fun factor. WitE is very deep and compelling, ATG vanilla (without mods installed, or Grymme's excellent scenarios) can be somewhat easier to play.
I read lots and lots of criticism in the WitE subforum of how *historical* the game is, then that raises the question (and it has been debated ever since its release) of how much fun it is for the Germans to Blitz your first 20 turns or so... only to defend for the rest of the game. ATG can be very a-historic,that's in my book a big plus, I like what-if's. The very generic types (or OOB, TOE) of ATG can be somewhat "unrealistic" as you say, then that raises the question; does the quite historical OOB's of TOAW and WitE give you more immersion? For me that's a negative, I find myself deeply immersed in both WitE and ATG games.
 
OTOH the last time I found something unrealistic was that dreaded "Spearman" defeats "Bomber" in CiV I. [:D]
 
Oh, there's one huge thing WitE doesn't have, and that's production. *You* decide whether you want to produce Flak for your East front, or Tanks to take that oil-rich island.

[nukkxx5058]

I'm not talking about being "historical" but a panzer division with 250 strenght having 10 miserable tanks, one bazzoka and 25 wankers armed with rifles is just not credible at all. It requires a lot of imagination to believe in it. I'm definitely not a History geek. I just require a minimum of credibility. Otherwise call the game "Space Conquest" or "Dugeons Supremacy" if you want us to believe in miracles.

But as far as I'm concerned the main issue I have is the stupid comments "yes" and "yes" of Grymme and Keunert. It just disgusted me from going forward with this game. I certainly don't wanna play pbem with these dudes. I never saw that on Matrix's forums... Thought we were between adults.

Back to WITE. Next time I will better check the forum and its mentality.

Sorry for the others who gave useful answers. My comments are definitely not for them.

Good bye.

-------------
delete *.*
-------------

[Vic]

Players who like a high level of historical accuracy and realism will like Decisive Campaigns : Warsaw to Paris better then AT(G).

Best regards,
Vic 

[Grymme]

But sir. Nobody has said anything insulting or disgusting to you. You basicly asked a yes or no question  and got answers accordingly. If you are so displeased with those answers maybe it would be prudent to examine the merits of the question you asked instead.
 
Anyway. You have only played one of the ca 200 scenarios in this game for a week or so. There are other scenarios that are less abstracted. You should know that since people have aldready written that to you in another thread. If you give up on the game because you didnt like me answering Yes to that question then you are not hurting anyone other than yourself. You will be missing on of the best and most realistic wargames out there. 

[Strategiusz]

But 10 tanks is a significant force in ATG XD
Oh, come on, you are mad because it is 5 tanks instead of 500? Look at the wealth of possible tactics allowed by the engine! 5-50-500 who cares?

In WitE you have a zillions of units, but is there such an advanced combat algorithm? (I don't know, maybe there is?)

[Josh]

ORIGINAL: Madlok


In WitE you have a zillions of units, but is there such an advanced combat algorithm? (I don't know, maybe there is?)

Yeah WitE has that, if you press "9" for the highest combat resolution you can almost see each and every unit shooting at each other from the start of the battle, guns with longe ranges start to shoot first, then with the distance decreasing as the opposing forces close in on each other, you can see tanks and subsequently infantry shooting. In large battles such a high combat resolution can take *quite* a while. So I guess most play at "3", some combat info but not one that takes too long.
Anyways, Vic is right, the Decisive Campaign series offers more historical acccuracy.

[82ndtrooper]

So you play one scenario that was created by another player and you blame the whole game because that one scenario isn't realistic enough for you ?

If you don't like that one small scenario then pick another of the dozens and dozens scenarios to choose from.

It certainly isn't the games fault that that one scenario isn't 100% historically accurate.

I really don't understand your thinking on this. But the beauty of this game is you have so many different scenarios to choose from, unlike most others where you have to play the same thing over and over.

[Falkon1313]

ORIGINAL: nukkxx
I'm not talking about being "historical" but a panzer division with 250 strenght having 10 miserable tanks, one bazzoka and 25 wankers armed with rifles is just not credible at all.

I never thought of it that way. Since they're called subformations, I just assumed that they were formations, not individual people and vehicles. If a panzer division typically had around 150 to 200 tanks, and there were around 15 to 20 per company, about 10 companies of tanks seems reasonable. With 75 squads of infantry, about 4 per platoon would yield almost 20 platoons. Throw in some more infantry if you're missing your heavier infantry support (mortars, MG squads, infantry guns), to get 25 platoons. I would expect to see more support (some arty or AT) in a panzer division, but maybe they had to leave it behind.

Given the mix of types available in the standard random game, and the stacking limits, it makes sense to me to consider them platoons of infantry types and companies of vehicle types. I usually change the default unit title to 'Battalion' instead of 'Division', since it makes sense to me given that I usually build units of about 3-5 tanks or about 30 infantry subformations.

[GrumpyMel]

The answer is that ATG doesn't have an "over-run" function. It does miss out a bit on realism in that regards...as SOME of the time a force with overwhelming odds would treat a light opposition force as little more then a speed bump. On the other hand, there ARE situations where small groups of defenders have held up very large forces for periods of time far in excesss of what one would expect. Heck, armies have been held up just on the RUMOR of enemy forces in the vicinity.

If you want to rationalize it, you could look at it as the commander of the 21st Panzer not really knowing what sort of opposition is holding that town. He has reports of a few riflemen, but it could be alot more...and he's not going to send his valuable panzers rushing off into terrain ill suited for them unprepaired and risk getting a black eye. He's going to take some time to setup what he believes is a minimaly proper attack on such terrain.

Note in terms of the SFT's...they are intended as an abstraction of forces, not raw numbers. Because AT works on a variable scale....it's upto the scenerio designer to determine what a single SFT actually represents. For instance, in the ETO scenerio...I generaly set infantry SFT's to represent roughly a company of troops......for other scenerio's it might be at the platoon level or battalion or something else entirey. It's really upto the scenerio designer to determine scale....sometimes they'll do that explicitly other times not.

IMO, one of the big strengths of the AT engine is that is versatile enough to represent the feel of operational or strategic conflicts without forcing the player to get too bogged down in some of the minutia. At the same time, alot of the detail IS there.....and there is alot individual scenerio designers can do in terms of options to make it feel more realistic or more abstract.

There probably are a couple optional rules I wouldn't mind seeing included in AT to better represent some aspects of combat.... and a mechanism for "over-runs" would probably be one of them.....but all in all I think it strikes a really nice balance. Maybe in a few years if Vic does a 3rd version of the series, he'll consider adding something like that.

[Rosseau]

ATG also now gives you extra detail about combat results, too. Quite a bit for a game of this type. As Falkon describes, you need to use your imagination a bit. Grumpy describes the game well. There's WitE and BftB and then there's ATG. Combat Command Matrix Edition might be a happy medium. Emphasis on Happy!