Basic info on War in the West 43-45

[mevstedt]

Hello!

This may be a bit out of place here but since the discussion in this topic is for the upcoming title War in the West and there is no similar topic for the rest of the titles linked to WitE I'm posting this here.

For the large scale game (or for any later games) is there any plans on revisiting the production/factory system?

I'm missing the option to change factory production of both planes and AFVs as well as the option to manually upgrade/change AFVs on units in the way it could be done in the previous games of the series (ie, Second Front/War in Russia where you could manually change what type of AFV a unit would employ). I feel this option added extra spice to the game as well as some replayvalue where it gave me the option to experiment with cases such as 'What if the germans decided to only build panzer IVs?' or 'What if the russians only built one type of fighterbomber?' etc.

[Joel Billings]

I'm betting on sometime in 2013.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: mevstedt

Hello!

This may be a bit out of place here but since the discussion in this topic is for the upcoming title War in the West and there is no similar topic for the rest of the titles linked to WitE I'm posting this here.

For the large scale game (or for any later games) is there any plans on revisiting the production/factory system?

I'm missing the option to change factory production of both planes and AFVs as well as the option to manually upgrade/change AFVs on units in the way it could be done in the previous games of the series (ie, Second Front/War in Russia where you could manually change what type of AFV a unit would employ). I feel this option added extra spice to the game as well as some replayvalue where it gave me the option to experiment with cases such as 'What if the germans decided to only build panzer IVs?' or 'What if the russians only built one type of fighterbomber?' etc.

That wasn't implemented for a variety of reasons. One of which how open to abuse it was.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: mevstedt

Hello!

This may be a bit out of place here but since the discussion in this topic is for the upcoming title War in the West and there is no similar topic for the rest of the titles linked to WitE I'm posting this here.

For the large scale game (or for any later games) is there any plans on revisiting the production/factory system?

I'm missing the option to change factory production of both planes and AFVs as well as the option to manually upgrade/change AFVs on units in the way it could be done in the previous games of the series (ie, Second Front/War in Russia where you could manually change what type of AFV a unit would employ). I feel this option added extra spice to the game as well as some replayvalue where it gave me the option to experiment with cases such as 'What if the germans decided to only build panzer IVs?' or 'What if the russians only built one type of fighterbomber?' etc.

That wasn't implemented for a variety of reasons. One of which how open to abuse it was.

I think the open production could very well be abused, but I don't think we're seeing much if any abuse (if even possible) with the manual aircraft equipment changing option already available in WitE. I definitely hope they can add the same option for AFVs, in either WitW or WitE 2.0.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Schmart


I think the open production could very well be abused, but I don't think we're seeing much if any abuse (if even possible) with the manual aircraft equipment changing option already available in WitE. I definitely hope they can add the same option for AFVs, in either WitW or WitE 2.0.

The reason you can manually change aircraft and not AFVs in WitE is that aircraft do not have fixed TOEs like ground units. The TOEs are designed to keep upgrading AFVs to the latest models so manual change would provide little benefit and AFV production is so much lower than aircraft production that surpluses are less of an issue. Actually to implement manual change for AFVs would require a system even more restrictive than the current one to prevent the kind of abuses seen in SECOND FRONT and WAR IN RUSSIA.

[mevstedt]

ORIGINAL: jaw
The reason you can manually change aircraft and not AFVs in WitE is that aircraft do not have fixed TOEs like ground units. The TOEs are designed to keep upgrading AFVs to the latest models so manual change would provide little benefit and AFV production is so much lower than aircraft production that surpluses are less of an issue. Actually to implement manual change for AFVs would require a system even more restrictive than the current one to prevent the kind of abuses seen in SECOND FRONT and WAR IN RUSSIA.

I will agree that manual production could be abused but that is something that should be taken into consideration in how it is implemented, not to mention it is fairly easy to add a game option like "Manual Production ON/OFF" much like Fog of War etc.

As for the TOE being the limiting factor, I doubt it. Look at the following:





Notice that the TOE just states that these divisions should have 151 medium tanks (the type, not any specific model) as well as 16 light tanks. Observe that neither of these divisions actually have the exact same vehicles types despite them all being the same 44 Panzer TOE.

[Baelfiin]

Updates for WITW are coming fast and furious.....

[murxus]

I share to some extent IronDukes sentiments against the scale.
A game gets (at least for me) most of the fun out of the mistakes one can make and/or avoid.
IDs point boils down to this - no matter how realistic on the 'physical' scale, how many numbers are crunched - if the only possible variable that can have some influence on the course of the game based on a fixed start/setting, the 'what if' factor is abstracted - then there is no 'game'.

So no matter how many numbers the naval system crunches, the air system or the logistic system - based on the 'historic start settings' the Allied player needs to be utterly stupid and incompetent to have some minor impact on the campaign. The Axis player on the other hand can be brilliant or stupid - it just doesn't matter.

While GG's games are very well researched and I really respect the huge amount of effort that is put into maps, OOBs, TOEs etc etc I think the 'game side' is somewhat... not creative.
This can be seen esp. in regard to 'historical correctness' (like the often discussed withdrawls for instance).

In regard to 'historical correctness' I think most players want 'physical' correct game mechanics and a 'historical defined' STARTING situation - if players wanted a historical replay they would watch videos...

To include 'historical events' I think it would be wise to get a bit creative.
Take withdrawls for instance - yes, they happened - but on the other hand the player is OKH! And while some 'Führerbefehle' ordered some units from one front to the other most of the withdrawls were organized and ordered by OKH.
A creative solution would have been to have OKH decide on a unit to withdraw with strings attached (at least X% TOE, morale, vehicles etc etc) and only rarely use 'Führerbefehle'.
Or take the Soviet side - running for the hills. Yes, this is ahistorical and some suggestions were made to counter this strategy. The same is of course true for 6th Army/Stalingrad like situations for the Germans. A creative solution to this (besides the standard VP/AP/city-factory incentive) could have been to shoot the leading general. So if a unit retreats more then two hex backwards the general is shot and a fresh, inexperienced (but political correct) lakai takes the position.
THAT would be a 'historical' mechanism - and it would be up to the player if he wants his army conserved but led by 'noobs' - or take a chance and fight but conserve his generals. (Of course the same could be done for advancing/attacking, unless units don't advance at least x hex or at least fight one battle the commanding officer gets shot).

A game is not about the amount of counters put and the amount of numbers crunched - but about options and decisions to make - decisions that have an impact on the results of course.

[carlkay58]

If they have tightened up the logistics engine for WitW vs the existing one in WitE, you will see a very tight game as the Western player will have to balance the amount of forces that are fighting in the West with the amount of supplies that can be shipped in and transported to those units. A close examination of the Western front after Normandy shows that logistics were the major restraint on the Allies. Also note that Hitler planned the 'Battle of the Bulge' as a drive on the major port of Antwerp to cut the Allies off from the supplies coming in through that port.

The game should be a tight and tense balance between the number of units and the supply ability for the Allies which results in the Axis being able to take advantages of any mistakes the Allies might make to prolong the war or even damage the Allies sufficiently to make them pause or even withdraw from the mainland yet again. Things on the Western front were actually fairly close for the Allies. Britain was running low on manpower already, France did not have a formal governmental structure and was actually undergoing a purge/civil war as the front line advanced through France, and the US had political pressure at home to make some effort against the Japanese whose attack put them into the war in the first place.

So there is still plenty of 'game' and decisions to make. Historically the Allies decided to invade Normandy so they could capture and use the port of Cherbourg. But Cherbourg managed to hold out long enough to almost destroy the port and the Allies could not get very far because they could not land enough supplies to enable the breakout.

Of course, this all depends on them tightening up the logistics engine from its current state. Something that would really help WitE too. I wish them luck.

[Durgard]

It looks like a great project [:)].... I'm hurry to see 2013 now [:D]

[Tophat1815]

Lets get an update or 5 out here fellows.............[;)]

[Baelfiin]

Heres some goodies from the other thread that should probably get moved up here if someone gets a chance 8)

tm.asp?m=3207795

[Helpless]

Copied

In WITW you create air directive to the Air HQs, which are executed during the air execution phase. So it is very HQ centric and allows to model various doctrine limitations. Each air directive then can be adjusted next air planning phase with no need to set orders for each group or air base every turn. The goal is to allow most of the system to operate with minimal amount of orders.

As an example player should be able to create ground attack doctrine for the 2nd RAF Tactical Air Command. Specify the target (center) hex, area (radius), priority for the targets (interdict, units, air fields, railways, rail yards, ports, etc). After that system will generate certain amount of air strikes using available resources and air HQ's doctrine setting.

Depending on the air directive type, player can micromanage and assign particular groups to it, set way points, set intensity, set how many days a week it will fly, set altitude, set minimum planes (escorts) required, enable/disable partial escorts, set air directive's priority, etc.

The core system is almost in and we are getting ready to teach AI using it. At the end anyone could allow AI to run air war if he(she) wants.

[JamesM]

An important question for a person that only plays against the computer. How is the AI looking are there any improvements over WitE? I have stopped playing WitE at present because the late war German AI is poor.

[GARY L]

Hi

Can someone tell me what the specs are to run this game on your computer

Thanks

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: jamesm

An important question for a person that only plays against the computer. How is the AI looking are there any improvements over WitE? I have stopped playing WitE at present because the late war German AI is poor.

It's too early to say how the AI will ultimately play in WitW. It will get a lot of development before release (and since the game only lasts from 43-45 there is less to work on then in WitE which goes from 41-45. Realistically there are no big breakthroughs in AI development, and the basic movement and combat systems are similar, so I don't expect a major difference in AI play. The AI can be a challenge to new players. Those that spend the time to learn and master the game system can always increase the challenge by increasing the level of difficulty.

[Joel Billings]

Similar to WitE, although since there is more going on, especially given the new air game and logistics systems, a faster computer is always better. We won't have final specs until we're further along.

[GARY L]

Joel

Will it need an seperate Video Card

[Vyshka]

ORIGINAL: GARY L

Joel

Will it need an seperate Video Card

What kind of system do you have? Do you already play War in the East?

[GARY L]

Getting New System for Christmas

Yes I play War in the East on my Old Computer but it is very slow