WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 7 - Amphibious Ops

[warshipbuilder]

I don't find it all that complex. The biggest problem is that it is broken and needs fixing. Unfortunately at this late stage in it's life I don't imagine that it will ever happen. That is why I would like to see a new game that covers the war end to end. EDBTR Volume 2. Fill in the missing 41-43 time period, add an editor, and fix the broken parts. Also don't make so that it is strictly an offense vs defense game. That is a big problem if you are playing the bad guys, you just wait for the allied bombers and then try to start shooting them down. The LW still had teeth. Can you spell baby blitz or Bodenplatte? I think the allied player should have the added worry that some KG just might show up in the sky over as his nice fat bomb laden aircraft are taxiing along an airfield. Aren't drug induced fantasies fun?[X(]

[wodin]

Gary needs to go and make a monster tactical game and put aside this Grand Strat nonsense:)

Looking good though. I'm also very impressed with Decisive Campaigns 3 progress, unique features that will add so much to the immersion. Something I usually have trouble with when playing games at this scale.

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

ORIGINAL: warshipbuilder

Lonely voice in the wilderness here. I would like to see a 1940-45 strategic-tactical air war game. BTR&ED on steroids so to speak. Also a similar treatment for the naval side of things in the Atlantic. I have always been a dreamer.

Even in the Med it would not be a whole lot better. Allies stay away from any LBAs and the Axis stay away from any Allied naval forces. Then the Allies get air superiority and all the Italian navy is sunk.

It would definitely not be a game that I would want to play [:)]

Now combining that with the land war, like HoI or WiF, then we are talking [:)]

I disagree, first you can't stay away from LBA in Med, the Naval/Air Battles occur in a relatively closed area.

Obviously the problem with Med is two fold:

1-Needs Sea, Land , Air and Special Forces well developed. No computer wargame ever achieved that.

2-Not American, German centric. More Italy - British/Commonwealth.

Of course the point 1 is what makes it much more interesting. Also Countries like Greece, Yugoslavia.
Expansions like Spain and Turkey.
Another expansion to the War in East Africa.

But the future doesn't look promising that a game like that will appear. It starts first in the concepts and since most people don't know about War in the Med. There is nothing.
So we have a game like this that start with least interesting period: Husky invasion and the slug match op the Italian boot without consideration for strategies like what about invading Sardegna/Corse instead of Sicily what if going up trough Greece Yugoslavia to Vienna.

[Dili]

This is a Mediterranean calendar:

10 June 1940 War Starts: Countries in War: Italy vs France + UK
25 June France surrenders
September 1940 - Italian invasion of Egypt
28 October Italian invasion of Greece
6 April 1941 German attack against Yugoslavia.
21 May German attack against Crete
8 June British attack against Vichy in Levant
Mid 42 cancelled Sea-Air Invasion of Malta
Mid 42 arrive first USAAFE forces in Egypt.
November 1942 Torch invasion of Vichy North Africa - Axis invade Corse Island and Southern France taking a rich booty in merchant ships.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Dili

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

ORIGINAL: warshipbuilder

Lonely voice in the wilderness here. I would like to see a 1940-45 strategic-tactical air war game. BTR&ED on steroids so to speak. Also a similar treatment for the naval side of things in the Atlantic. I have always been a dreamer.

...
So we have a game like this that start with least interesting period: Husky invasion and the slug match op the Italian boot without consideration for strategies like what about invading Sardegna/Corse instead of Sicily what if going up trough Greece Yugoslavia to Vienna.

I am interested to find out whether Italy had to be a slug fest. In strategic terms, Italy was a major Ge success. I want to see if fluid and imaginative landings and manoeuver can change that...

[Dili]

More Salernos and Anzio's?
Italy has a mountainous interior so you go either to the Adriatic coast roads or Tyrrhenian coast roads otherwise it is Anzio type landings in either coast . Maybe a Market Garden could be pulled of in some places, around Rome for example. But the geography is not like France or Soviet Union for mass armored movements. In Italy the units spread out along the roads. Bottlenecks and traffic problems are much worse.

Then the Vesuvius might also erupt [:)]

[mariandavid]

Red Lancer: I am puzzled by the phrase ""In addition only Commando or Ranger Units and Naval Support Groups can be attached to the Amphib HQ to provide support during the invasion."" Not sure about the US but as far as the CW was concerned what was much more important was the endless variety of tanks - ARK,AVRE, DD, Crocodile, Centaur - that landed with or before the infantry. Are these not available for an amphib attack?

[RedLancer]

Yes - most of the equipments you mention are available but they have to be in units attached directly to the landing units.

During the invasion although landing units prepare and deploy by being stacked with the Amphib HQs they retain their normal HQs like VII Corps. However if you have attached SUs to VII Corps they won't participate in the landing combat.

It's difficult to explain so ask if you still don't understand what I'm tryng to say.

[Dangun]

I am disappointed.

While the scale is smaller than WiTE, WiTW looks more complicated with new turn phases and mechanisms.
No doubt some of the mechanisms will be broken just as they were dor WiTE.

It is as though Gary Grisby discovered the capabilities of a PC and DREW EXACTLY THE WRONG CONCLUSION.
PC games are good because they simplify enabling larger scale simulations. But WiTW seems to exaggerate what was wrong WiTE - drowning the player in too may, overly complex, ahistorical, and frankly boring mechanisms.

I was hoping to buy WiTW, as an improvement over WiTE.
But senseless detail has been added, not removed. Yuck!

[sh0nyu]

But Dangun: if you just replay WWII THAT would be boring.... WitW gives the player the possibility do plan the operations his way. It is necessary to have all these tables, calculations and "complex (...) mechanisms". Since I already did staff duty within the german armed forces I can say: It IS boring sometimes. But every bit of it has to be done - I think Gary and his staff are working to develop a game mechanism which is as detailed as possible and as "real" as possible.

Ok, perhaps the team should script some of Hitler's most genious military decisions [:D].

I think WitW will be great! The more detailed air operations and amphibious invasions will be highlights of a master piece [8D]

Perhaps I should build a second little shrine for WitW - so I install a WitE shrine in the eastern corner of my home and one for WitW in the western corner....Just kidding, somebody told about losing his wife to this hobby [8|]

[Erik Rutins]

Hi Dangun,

ORIGINAL: Dangun
I was hoping to buy WiTW, as an improvement over WiTE.
But senseless detail has been added, not removed. Yuck!

Which parts do you find senseless? I feel we improved player information management in many respects for WITW. We also had to add in the mechanisms for the Allied invasions and the air system which was never the focus for WITE had to be able to handle the strategic air campaign. For the air system, we specifically built it so that players who just want to deal with the ground war can automate it and players that also enjoy the air war can dive in.

I don't find the logistics significantly more complex than WITE, but they are much, much more realistic which ends up enhancing the gameplay and strategies.

The basic interface and gameplay is still very close to WITE, just more realistic and able to support the kind of strategic air and amphibious campaign that was key to the Western Front, rather than just the ground warfare that characterized most of the East.

Regards,

- Erik

[Dangun]

When I first played WiTE against the AI, I thought it was fantastic.
I could focus on core combat and movement, refighting historical events on a massive scale.

But when I started playing human opponents, victory seemed less determined by combat and movement, and instead victory seemed more determined by the min-maxing of "too many, overly complex, ahistorical, and frankly boring mechanisms." Victory was determined by whether I had spent hours allocating the right support units to max fortification growth, or had I mastered the magical aerial resupply of tanks with fuel... HQ build-ups, general reassignments, truck management, air op settings etc. etc.

IMHO, this is the type of detail that a PC game should simplify and expedite and not inflate it into a victory condition. The beauty of the PC is that it facilitates games of this scale, whereas using the PC to add compelxity is often a very mixed blessing.

That may be a longer answer than your question was soliciting. I was hoping that WiTW would learn more from what was (apparently from the forums) causing problems/turning people off of WiTE, whereas I see more non-core mechanisms and more complexity.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Dangun

When I first played WiTE against the AI, I thought it was fantastic.
I could focus on core combat and movement, refighting historical events on a massive scale.

But when I started playing human opponents, victory seemed less determined by combat and movement, and instead victory seemed more determined by the min-maxing of "too many, overly complex, ahistorical, and frankly boring mechanisms." Victory was determined by whether I had spent hours allocating the right support units to max fortification growth, or had I mastered the magical aerial resupply of tanks with fuel... HQ build-ups, general reassignments, truck management, air op settings etc. etc.

IMHO, this is the type of detail that a PC game should simplify and expedite and not inflate it into a victory condition. The beauty of the PC is that it facilitates games of this scale, whereas using the PC to add compelxity is often a very mixed blessing.

That may be a longer answer than your question was soliciting. I was hoping that WiTW would learn more from what was (apparently from the forums) causing problems/turning people off of WiTE, whereas I see more non-core mechanisms and more complexity.

It’s obvious this game is not for you, but getting angry and berating a game that I and many others enjoy immensely is not going to do anything except raise your blood pressure. There is a large audience for Gary Grigsby games and his designs are usually very complex in nature and appeal to a certain kind of gamer. I would suggest you look at games like WW2 Road to Victory or any of the offerings by SSG, they would probably be more in line with the kind of game you would enjoy.

Jim

[Dangun]

[/quote] It’s obvious this game is not for you [/quote]

Did you notice that I began by saying that playing against AI was fantastic?
Or do you actually mean that anything other than rabid enthusiasm is unwelcome in the forums?

[sh0nyu]

Don't want to argue now - but I will make clear that I enjoy WitE especially for the details of staff duty .
Sorry if this offends you...

Exactly logistics and all this "bloody organizing" of troops is the key for victory. Mostly the men in the field will perform well but all their heroism isn't worth a penny if there is a lack of leadership and organization. There Gary and the team make an outstanding job to add every possible detail. And that's why I'm a "rabid enthusiastic" - for sure!

[morvael]

Yeah, one has to have affinity towards staff work to enjoy a significant part of the WitE/WitW design. Myself, I prefer it more than the hex combat part.

To each his own, simple as that.