The Lost Battles are coming!

[swkuh]

Can only second remarks in re "AI," as tactics, strategy, and force disclosure seem appropriate.

Only odd thing is that opponent force disclosure once battle reporting starts is sometimes unusual but "normalized" if follow-up attacks performed. Can say what's up with that?

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Hopefully this issue will be fixed in the new expansion otherwise I see no reason to purchase it.

tm.asp?m=3305426&mpage=1&key=

There is no change planned for this. There is a debate about whether corps HQ are useful, and that debate has not clearly shown a change needs to be made. Pavel, who understands the inner workings of the code more than anyone (even Gary, except for the AI code and a few other items that are all Gary) strongly disagrees that disbanding Corps HQ is the best strategy.

We appreciate the support of the community, and you should know that we're hoping to begin work on WitE 2.0 as soon as WitW 43-45 is completed. The good news there is that when we complete the final WitW map this summer, we will also have a near complete WitE 2.0 map done as well, so work will be able to start immediately after WitW is released. We think the WitE community will enjoy the new scenarios and campaigns that are in Lost Battles, and the release of the Sudden Death Campaign in Lost Battles is a direct result of listening to the WitE community. WitW is taking longer to complete than we had originally hoped, partially because we are tackling so many issues that people wanted to see addressed for WitE 2.0.

It's gratifying to see Pelton mention the AI, because so often the active community is focused on PBEM gaming, which is probably only about 20% of total WitE gaming. Gary has outdone himself on the AI in WitE. He continued to work on it for almost 2 years after release as we got various reports and saves. The DttD expansion allowed Gary to fix many of the AI quirks in the smaller battles, so there were only a few left to be addressed in Lost Battles. Although the AI is not a human, we think by adjusting the play level, players can get tremendous enjoyment out of playing the AI from either side. If you're a WitE player, please give Lost Battles a try. If you're a player of the long campaign, you'll probably want to start using the Sudden Death campaign in your future games.

Thanks so much for the reply Joel. You have really made me rethink things [:)]. So I will definately look forward to LB especially the new GC as that is what appeals to me the most.

[Michael T]

I won't be playing anything but the SD CG once its out. I have wanted it from day one. The thing is we now have 3 CG, the original, the 260 end July45 version, and now the SD version. So all tastes are accommodated for [:)]

[Manstein63]

Joel,
Any chance you can let us have an idea of what the sudden death rules will be?
Manstein63

[heyhellowhatsnew]

Can I slip you a extra 20 bucks so I can have this earlier?

What is the price going to be?

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Manstein63

Joel,
Any chance you can let us have an idea of what the sudden death rules will be?
Manstein63

Scenario 11: 1941-45 Campaign—Sudden Death (22 June 1941 – 4 July 1945)
Scenario Size: Large
Turns: 211

This campaign is a variant of the 1941-45 Campaign - Alt VC260 campaign, with the only change being additional sudden death victory conditions. The victory conditions are the same as that in the Alt VC260 campaign with the addition of three sudden death victory condition checks made during the campaign. The checks are made at the beginning of the first turn of April 1942, April 1943 and April 1944. If during one of these checks, a player is determined to have met their Sudden Death victory conditions, the game will immediately end and declare a Decisive Victory for the winner.

April 1942
German Victory if victory points are >=242
Soviet Victory if victory points are <=191

April 1943
German Victory if victory points are >=255
Soviet Victory if victory points are <=188

April 1944
German Victory if victory points are >=210
Soviet Victory if victory points are <=150

The Alt VC260 campaign victory conditions used in this campaign as well are:
1. The Axis Decisive Victory level (Automatic Victory) is 260 instead of 290.
2. The Soviet Major Victory timeframe ends on 31 March 1945 (instead of 31 May 1945) and the Soviet Minor Victory timeframe between 1 April 1945 and 30 June 1945.
3. A draw occurs if Germany does not surrender by 1 July 1945 and the Axis has less than 142 victory points.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: heyhellowhatsnew

What is the price going to be?

I assume the same as Don to the Danube.

[The Guru]

The checks are made at the beginning of the first turn of April 1942

sob

I would have liked a couple of 1941 Sudden death VC too, to simulate Stalin's reluctancy to give up strategic cities such as Kiev, etc...
That would have been a opportunity for Cornelian diemmas: hold on and risk encirclement, give up and get dangerously close to the SD ( simulating moral collapse)

[Michael T]

sob

I would have liked a couple of 1941 Sudden death VC too, to simulate Stalin's reluctancy to give up strategic cities such as Kiev, etc...
That would have been a opportunity for Cornelian diemmas: hold on and risk encirclement, give up and get dangerously close to the SD ( simulating moral collapse)

Yes this Soviet runaway strategy needs to be rubbed out. I am thinking of a HR that prevents evac of IND from key cities before a certain date might work. So if you run too far too soon you loose all Tula, Stalino, Kharkov IND. So you need to fight fight further forward to save the IND. But you will loose more units doing so. The SD conditions will prevent the crazy Axis running in winter 41/42. Just need something to stop the Russian equivalent in Summer 41.

[gradenko2k]

Are there any on-going AARs that would have ended already under these rules? I wonder in particular about the Michael T/Pelton grudge match.

[Michael T]

Yes that would have ended in Apr 42 with SD VC.

[Simbelmude]

Yes this Soviet runaway strategy needs to be rubbed out. I am thinking of a HR that prevents evac of IND from key cities before a certain date might work. So if you run too far too soon you loose all Tula, Stalino, Kharkov IND. So you need to fight fight further forward to save the IND. But you will loose more units doing so.

I agree with the Guru and Michael T: something must, if not prevent, at least penalize the soviets from giving up their cities without a serious fight.

[Flaviusx]

Soviet summer 41 runaways cannot be fixed in a vacuum. The opening turn must also be fixed. MT himself has repeatedly demonstrated that a forward Soviet defense is impossible against high level Axis play. The runaways have developed as a response to highly optimized openings which dramatically accelerate the Axis offensive. Quite simply, so long as SW Front evaporates on turn 1, you're going to keep seeing runaways. It's impossible to hold the Dnepr much past turn 5. Note that Kiev historically fell in September of 41.

The various other checks are fine because the situation has stabilized by then.

[rmonical]

Soviet summer 41 runaways cannot be fixed in a vacuum.

A little variation in the setup would do it. Moving units around is one option. Another is throwing in a random 120% morale boost-particularly in AGS reserve units. I did not even try the Lvov opening after boosting the Soviet AI morale to 119%. AGC was able to repeat it's historical accomplishments at Soviet 119% morale.

My preference is a little complex - an absolute cap on morale for a newly created unit at say 5% below national morale until it has participated in at least X combats (5?). A greater role for experience in CV vis-a-vis morale and allowing experience to grow above morale.

Of course, all of this is moot in the face of the absurd first winter rules.

[Flaviusx]

I won't defend the first winter rules. But those too are going to be hard to fix in a vacuum and depend on other game systems being revised.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

Are there any on-going AARs that would have ended already under these rules? I wonder in particular about the Michael T/Pelton grudge match.

You play by the rulesets you start the game under.

I will only play the 41-45 SD now, easyer for SHC to get a SD win then GHC.

For GHC its all about Moscow really, but thats probably not far off from wht would have happened if Germany rolled Moscow in 41 or 42.

I thk what we have now for wite is basicly it until wite2 or some major issue.

We simply have to play by the ruleset and wait on wite2 and witw

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Yes that would have ended in Apr 42 with SD VC.

As you know MT that game had more to do with the 43-45 issue then fun for both of us, but it did its job and finally revieled the conversion issue( with the help of 3 amigos).

Sorry for using you as a lab rat, but you were the biggest rat [;)]

[Michael T]

I entered the game under the presumption it was a contest. After I nailed you, you claim it was some experiment. Well whatever it was I suggest in future you have the common courtesy to inform your opponent whether you are playing a game or running a test prior to accepting the challenge.

[mmarquo]

Life is a well of joy.

[8|]

[randallw]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I entered the game under the presumption it was a contest. After I nailed you, you claim it was some experiment. Well whatever it was I suggest in future you have the common courtesy to inform your opponent whether you are playing a game or running a test prior to accepting the challenge.

I approve of this response, which contains a proper level of snarkiness.