Combined arms

[Smirfy]

I actually agree at this scale it dont matter (to me anyway)the game does the strategy pretty well. As Ive said before the invasion mechanic is simple yet good. Its not Panzer Blitz or Squad leader nor can it be. I was simply working back from the strategy involved, my muse being the 25th Tank Brigade in Tunisia and Italy and how far removed attaching a Churchill unit was in game to the reality. The old V for victory games had an abstract system for armour and anti tank that worked on proportion and ratio so attaching armour or anti tank to the unit gave them a crt shift if it was not nulified by the defender having Armour and Anti tank. Quite simple and it got some all arms action going. Not your King Tigers and Me262's but it seemed to work. I am achieving a high degree of predictabilty already, that I would like to change.

[HMSWarspite]

Smirfy, I am having great difficulty in following your issues. I have done beta testing for games (not this one), and a lot of informal testing for WW2 games generally. If I may make a few suggestions, you will find a much quicker and wider take up of your ideas if you substantiate them. Ideally this should be in a numerate an controlled manner, but in a game such as WitW this is often impossible. In these cases, phrasing an initial comment as an observation and asking for other views rather than making poorly substantiated wild assertions often gets better results. You are dealing with people for whom the game is their 'baby'. They want it to be as good as possible and are usually desperate for data and other views of RL or the game. They are not likely to respond to unsubstantiated comments that can be read as 'the game is broken...' as this is an attack on their baby.

Can I suggest that, if in future you observe something that doest seem right, you phrase your initial post as just that 'has anyone else seen this? Is it right?'. Even better, cite (as specifically as possible) the RL experience that leads to your conclusion. A perfect example (unrelated to the game) is the old Hood vs Bismarck battle. If the game gives no chance of Hood exploding from a hit, it obviously counters real life. If the game is just a simulation of the battle of Denmark Strait, this is obviously a flaw. If the game gives 0.00001% chance of it happening, that is a game design decision that can be discussed but never 'solved'. My view might be that Hood blowing up was probably a once in 100 battles event, but that is just my opinion. Opinions that cannot be disproved cover at least an order of magnitude either way. That game would not be 'broken' in that case...

For the specifics in this thread: what is your issue with the Palermo battle from that thread? It is a null example for almost every mechanic. A huge attack by 4 Divs plus other assets completely overwhelmed a small force of about reinforced brigade size. I think the result shows that the attacking force was way larger than that required. So this battle shows that huge odds win. Thus showing rather little of use.

Your issue on combined arms is a mystery to me. You seem to say that you don't see a benefit from attaching armour to Infantry Divs. I do. We can either call each other names (no thanks), or we can have a numerate discussion. I have seen Cv for a div go up by 3 for an attachment. Thus something happens. But as to how that effects a combat, we will only know if it is tested (or a Dev explains more than I think they will about the combat mechanics).

Can I suggest that next time you find a battle with suitable forces, you save the game and then run the identical attack (at least ) 10 times. This will give the spread of results. Then run it a further 10 times removing the armour attachment. Then come and discuss it. If you have a RL historical engagement that is similar this is a huge bonus. Oh, and we need advice as to how the game deals with random number seeds, as we need to ensure the battle is not preordained by the time of the save...

As to what the difference in effect should be for a Tank Bde counter in a stack, as opposed to attached to a Div (or 3 divs), I have not got a clue what the difference should be as there is no real equivalent in RL. The best I can say is the Tank Bde (when attached) is under a Div commander and so in direct support. When as a counter, it probably has an attack role of its own (but a good Corps Commander would integrate it anyway). But what's the difference between a counter, and Corps having it attached and committing all 3 elements. I genuinely don't know.

However we can test the 'preset or not present' options. I have not seen enough testing to show me anything yet, and my (subjective) game play tells me I get acceptable results if I use them realistically, in line with the advice in the forum and rules.

Over to you.

Oh, and citing other games as primary references does not help.... A simple column shift for armour superiority does not allow command failures and incompetence. Try a 1940-41 desert game with that rule, and the British Army is not well simulated. They couldn't coordinate combined arms for anything - be careful what you wish for!

[Smirfy]

Warspite I have done Beta as well so the mysteries of computer game design and what is and what is not practical is not lost on me. I dont make "wild assertions" and I believe my breakdown of a battle in game in the AAR section is perfectly clear to anyone who wishes to read and examine issues. Some of those issues were obvious from my first "play" others had to be tested to make sure they were correct in a host of battles.

As for the battle of Palermo and battles in game in general I'm not sure there are many examples of 70,000 men attacking 5,000 in real life the general in charge would have a short career. You can read up on the Battles in Italy, The Storming of the beaches in Normandy, the taking of the Channel ports, the battles of the Riechswald it was all arms combinations that triumphed. That is my point we have all those lovely TOE's and its down to the size of your stack I can replicate this time after time after time. I'm not worried about detail as I said to Flavius what worries me is the "detail" is getting in the way of Strategy ie having to have huge stacks to get combat odds when a division some artillery support and some Churchills did the job in real life against a regiment (and larger formations)even in heavily fortified positions (excellent site online on the NIH telling how they broke the Hitler and Gothic line so there are plenty of examples in RL). Surely the TOE should work for us? So to repeat the "balance equipment and coordination" of the force involved was more important than raw numbers. If that cannot be replicated fine, thats the nature of the game but dont waste time then on the minutiae concentrate on improving gameplay, play balance and the interface (which is very good anyway)

The Hood is an interesting start point for looking at wargame design, there was a great computer Naval wargame way back in the day, highly detailed called "Action Stations" by an American team, had every warship in WWII had all there guns, ranges, pentrations etc etc based on US Navy fire control data used NASA AI routines. So because the Hood blew up every British warship had a percentage chance of blowing up, Americans will tell you today, Germans Too! British ships blew up at the drop of a hat in World War II. Yet when one studies the actual losses the US Navy and Kreigsmarine suffered more magazine explosions percentage wise of ships sunk than the Royal Navy. British ships burnt for days suffered more damage than any navy outside the IJN (The RN in Europe were hit by 1000lb bombs not prissy 250lb) and did not blow up but you have the Barham (unmodernized ship) on film and the Hood (unmodernized ship) in legend. So you get a game were RN ships blow up and the Arizona, Tirpitz and Scharnhorst never do. If you blow up in two feet of water or nobody discovers it until 40 years later it dont count obviously. Likewise if you knockout 25 AFV's you would never get ambushed yourself, wait a minute! or shoot down 200 Russian aircraft you can rack up simmilair scores with the big boys over Northwest Europe so obviously you need 70000 to beat 5000. Did I continue to play Action Stations? Yes I did played it to death because the rest of the game was amazing for the day.

I believe the game is 43-44 and I was talking about direct attachments the British developed an Infantry tank doctrine for co-operation with the grunts the "Danwey Doctrine" the NIH were so successful they never lost a single tank from November 1944 until the end of the war despite being involved in all the heaviest of the fighting, I was thinking column shifts might work better there and for Jagdpanzer, assault gun, anti tank etc *direct* attachments. Just my opinion actually having to think about attachments might be fun for the attacker and defender.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

...
As for the battle of Palermo and battles in game in general I'm not sure there are many examples of 70,000 men attacking 5,000 in real life the general in charge would have a short career.

...so obviously you need 70000 to beat 5000.

Again you are mixing your drinks. I would completely agree that the game was in error if you needed 70000 to beat 5000. However, where is your evidence? The Taking Palmero thread indeed has 70000 vs 5000 (actually 71k vs 6k, but who's counting). And the result is a total whitewash. The Italians lose 4778, and the allies lose ...9. Not 900, or 90. 9. And some aircraft. The final odds are 16.2:1. Thus there is no evidence in that battle that 70000 is needed to defeat that force. Simplifying it, you could argue that you needed one eighth of the attackers. I know it doesn't work this way, but 9000 (of the correct) men could have captured the town. It doesn't work that way because they wouldn't have inflicted the same losses, but thats not my point. I suggest that 1 of the 4 attacking divisions would probably do.

In order to understand the issue, we need examples where 70000 men have failed to defeat 6000 (thus proving that 71k is essential). Or other such battles that prove something. Also, even in the case we have, we need to know whether the result was a most likely, some sort of average, or a best/worst possible happening very rarely.

I agree the attack is way OTT. However, the game should allow the player to make the attack if they want to. There should be realistic effects (I think in this case there were) and realistic consequences... well, its up to the player to sack him/herself. The biggest consequence is more supplies used and a wasted opportunity to rest/refit probably 3 divs. But the Palermo battle tells us very little as is.

[Flaviusx]

Leadership is the one part about the series combat engine that I really like and thinks does well. And about 50% of figuring out how it works is getting leadership and C&C generally right. Coordination penalties and blown leadership rolls will kill you and then, yeah, all of a sudden you need humongous numbers to make anything happen.

Unfortunately this part of the game is very mathy and unintuitive in terms of how it is displayed.

[cmunson]

At some point you have to take the combat engine on faith and accept it for what it is. Flaviusx

Agreed. Reluctant as I am to wade in here I was a WitW beta tester and there were many refinements to the combat engine. When results didn't look right they were posted and 9 out of 10 times the issue was us testers not grasping the way disruption or logistics impacted combat.

Per HMSWarspites excellent posts I agree it would be all so helpful to everyone Smirfy if you posted some screenshots with your observations. If you find a flaw Matrix and 2b3 will undoubtedly address it.

[HMSWarspite]

To be fair, Smirfy has put a combat in the AARs, but I couldn't really draw conclusions from it, as he concentrates on the details and doesn't really cover the big picture. It appears he was bothered about the detail of what hit what, but missed the fact that a giant (5 div plus support) attack achieved an easy victory.

[JeffroK]

I sometimes get the feeling that those involved in testing the game are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome.

I'm not one to go into the minutae like Smirfy but having 3-4 attempts at the DDay campaigns do not get the right "feel" out of the game.

IMVHO, the 7 day turn is wrong.

The air game lacks the control that you want, and you are forced to attack targets which rip out VP instead of you making the choice. Losses are too hign, Ive had the RAF with a majority of Hurricane IIC & the USAAF with stacks of P40 in early/mid 44.

Stacking is off, You can have 3 GS Engineer Rgts concentrated on rail line repair, or 2 US "Heavy" Armoured Divs, 1 British Infantry Div plus another 9 Battalions, at total of approx 50 Battalions, all in a 10 mile hex. But the these troops cant project enough force to inhibit movement through their ZOC (Or as an AI game is this WAD? An Amphib unit, hopefully with its LST's parked at sea, takes up stacking limits. If you want to control the size of invasion, limit the lift capability.

Reserve movement is wierd, Ive seen reserves coming in from 50 miles away. Of course they can travel this distance in a week, but as they dont move it doesnt affect their defensive position.

Prepping for an invasion takes too long, coming from WITPAE I;m used to it. However most invasions were planned by HQ, Combat units were not required until much later in the process, maybe a speeded Prep if stacked or adjaecent to your HQ.

Movement, I know this is feel only, but with no roads your troops "appear" to chose their own way. Feels odd.
Armoured units seem to be too effective in Mountains, maybe they should not be permitted at all or "cost double sttacking"?
Advance after combat, I assumed that my troops were fighting like the devil to evict the enemy from the hex they occupy, only to find that they stopped at the hex edge and let them flee!!! If the wanted to enter I had t pay again. Why not auto advance after combat with the ability to not advance if you wish, or make it really cheap to enter as you have already advances "halfway"

Theres lots more, but I dont keep notes. The game has so much potential but just falls short.

As for Smirfy, Ive lots of games out of the Gary Grigsby stables and while most introduce challenging system its been the players, modders & developers who have picked up the game and raised it to a higher plane. If you dont like Smirfy's or any other owner of this game's comments dont look. Devs & Modders, look closely, they may not be perfevt in their communication styles but regularly see things which are wrong or need tweaking.

[nedcorleone1]

ORIGINAL: JeffK
If you dont like Smirfy's or any other owner of this game's comments dont look.

You seem to misunderstand...

I support and admire those who take the time to understand the game in ways that someone like me doesn't have the time to do. I'm grateful that people like Smirfy take the time to report their findings in the quest to better improve a game enjoyed by many people. I just hope that the efforts of those that do this do not fall by the wayside simply because they are coming across as something less than pleasant.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I sometimes get the feeling that those involved in testing the game are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome.

I'm not one to go into the minutae like Smirfy but having 3-4 attempts at the DDay campaigns do not get the right "feel" out of the game.

IMVHO, the 7 day turn is wrong.

Why? You want 1 day turns? 1 month turns?

The air game lacks the control that you want, and you are forced to attack targets which rip out VP instead of you making the choice. Losses are too hign, Ive had the RAF with a majority of Hurricane IIC & the USAAF with stacks of P40 in early/mid 44.

What control do you want then? You can control who flies, where and when. The only think you cant do is jump into the cockpit! Vastly better than WitE.

Stacking is off, You can have 3 GS Engineer Rgts concentrated on rail line repair, or 2 US "Heavy" Armoured Divs, 1 British Infantry Div plus another 9 Battalions, at total of approx 50 Battalions, all in a 10 mile hex. But the these troops cant project enough force to inhibit movement through their ZOC (Or as an AI game is this WAD? An Amphib unit, hopefully with its LST's parked at sea, takes up stacking limits. If you want to control the size of invasion, limit the lift capability.

Reserve movement is wierd, Ive seen reserves coming in from 50 miles away. Of course they can travel this distance in a week, but as they dont move it doesnt affect their defensive position.

Prepping for an invasion takes too long, coming from WITPAE I;m used to it. However most invasions were planned by HQ, Combat units were not required until much later in the process, maybe a speeded Prep if stacked or adjaecent to your HQ.

Movement, I know this is feel only, but with no roads your troops "appear" to chose their own way. Feels odd.

Have you any idea of how many roads, lanes, paths, bridges there are in W Europe (even in the 40's. I challenge you to find a single 10 mile circle without roads going pretty much everywhere. The scale is just way too big for roads to figure

Armoured units seem to be too effective in Mountains, maybe they should not be permitted at all or "cost double sttacking"?
Advance after combat, I assumed that my troops were fighting like the devil to evict the enemy from the hex they occupy, only to find that they stopped at the hex edge and let them flee!!! If the wanted to enter I had t pay again. Why not auto advance after combat with the ability to not advance if you wish, or make it really cheap to enter as you have already advances "halfway"

Not a bad idea... a 0 point move for units already in the successful attack.

Theres lots more, but I dont keep notes. The game has so much potential but just falls short.

As for Smirfy, Ive lots of games out of the Gary Grigsby stables and while most introduce challenging system its been the players, modders & developers who have picked up the game and raised it to a higher plane. If you dont like Smirfy's or any other owner of this game's comments dont look. Devs & Modders, look closely, they may not be perfevt in their communication styles but regularly see things which are wrong or need tweaking.

No one is saying that things are perfect. It is just that we should goon data and facts (not least facts about what the game does, and the ranges of possible outcomes) not gut feel and issues that are from 'bad play'

How on earth do you kill the AFs? You need to learn how to pace them and not attack continuously at full bore... AFs (in RL) are fragile. Rest them, avoid death traps, read the forum and rules. If it aint working, try something else.

[Smirfy]

HMS, JeffK makes excellent points and Ive sent a save in with some of the stuff he is talking about. I have decided to send saves direct rather than attempt to debate. Working my way through Halders Journal (Alanbroke's put me in mind of trying it) and after reading that weekly turns make little sense to be honest. When you think about it the the advances in communication, the widespread application of the internal combustion engine and especialy aviation makes weekly a bit out of whack with divisional and squadron scale. Those guys at IGS and OKH worked by the day.

[cmunson]

I sometimes get the feeling that those involved in testing the game are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome. Jeff K.

Perhaps.

If you dont like Smirfy's or any other owner of this game's comments dont look. Jeff K.

I have no complaint against Smirfy or anyone else pointing out perceived game issues or making suggestions. The frustration comes when vague comments like "Combined arms, it's not working" is thrown out and 20 posts later we finally determine what the issues are. I am sure Smirfy is a fine gentleman and his points may very well be valid but I suspect he throws bombs just to get a response and then the civility of the forums retreats to something many of us don't relish such as the suggestion testers aren't in our right minds.

I love this game and am very grateful so many put so much effort into it. If there is a market for a WWII strategic level game with 1 days turns and micro control of thousands of airplanes I'm sure some developer will deliver. That is the beauty of Adam Smith's invisible hand.

Happy gaming to all.

[Baelfiin]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I sometimes get the feeling that those involved in testing the game are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome.

I get the feeling that those involved in complaining about how the game was tested did not do any testing themselves.
And if you think that there is Stockholm syndrome going on, you have not seen the dev forum. I promise you that there are many dedicated individuals with varied backgrounds and experience that have contributed considerable time and effort to War in the West. Many of them of their own free will.
Your complaints are all about the basic fundamental design of the game. It is done on a one week turn. Come to terms with it. Don't say it is wrong to have a one week turn and say it wasn't tested because you don't like a one week turn. I would love to play your game that you want, it sounds a like it would be a lot of fun.

When do you think you will have it released?

[Baelfiin]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

HMS, JeffK makes excellent points and Ive sent a save in with some of the stuff he is talking about. I have decided to send saves direct rather than attempt to debate. Working my way through Halders Journal (Alanbroke's put me in mind of trying it) and after reading that weekly turns make little sense to be honest. When you think about it the the advances in communication, the widespread application of the internal combustion engine and especialy aviation makes weekly a bit out of whack with divisional and squadron scale. Those guys at IGS and OKH worked by the day.

Smirfy I think you bring up a lot of interesting points.

It seems to me though that some of your issues are because the game doesn't do what you think it should. I think it would be really cool to play this type of a game on a 1 day or even 3 day turn cycle. I don't know of one out there though. WitW doesn't operate at that scale for sure.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

HMS, JeffK makes excellent points and Ive sent a save in with some of the stuff he is talking about. I have decided to send saves direct rather than attempt to debate. Working my way through Halders Journal (Alanbroke's put me in mind of trying it) and after reading that weekly turns make little sense to be honest. When you think about it the the advances in communication, the widespread application of the internal combustion engine and especialy aviation makes weekly a bit out of whack with divisional and squadron scale. Those guys at IGS and OKH worked by the day.

Smirfy I think you bring up a lot of interesting points.

It seems to me though that some of your issues are because the game doesn't do what you think it should. I think it would be really cool to play this type of a game on a 1 day or even 3 day turn cycle. I don't know of one out there though. WitW doesn't operate at that scale for sure.

Its just an observation and as you admit the correct one. But as you say we have got weekly turns ,I would not waste time and energy trying to change that. It would be as silly as tilting at the ten mile hexes windmill, though if you want to save on processing (just like if it were shorter turns) you could make production monthly. I tend to look at things from a practical standpoint and then decide, I tend to err on the playability side and have little time for redundant feature sets. If it dont do anything lose the chaff and have a CRT roll, if it does, make it work in a rational way. But thats just me.

[HMSWarspite]

Monthly production probably would be a minimal effect on the feel of the game, you are right. However I suspect it is also a minimal effect on the cpu as well. The time will be all the supply calcs moving all that stuff to depots and units.

I am curious about what people find undesirable about weekly turns? Traditionally games like this would be 2 weekly or monthly. What is missing with 1 week? If you shorten the turn you run the risk of movement being about 1 hex per turn, and that is just a poor mans WEGO, isn't it? If this goes daily I am out of here. 100 turns to break a line in Italy? 10 turns to build up supply while doing little? No thanks!

[Smirfy]

The benefits for campaigns whether North Africa, France 40, Norway, any one in Russia or Normandy are obvious, dont think supply would be a problem mechanics are our friend though inactivity for the western allies could be. But then again if they ever decide to do daily turns and have naval and air you will still have something to do. But like I say that is an aside. Where were we? Combined arms I believe

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


The benefits for campaigns whether North Africa, France 40, Norway, any one in Russia or Normandy are obvious, dont think supply would be a problem mechanics are our friend though inactivity for the western allies could be. But then again if they ever decide to do daily turns and have naval and air you will still have something to do. But like I say that is an aside. Where were we? Combined arms I believe

Good point, and sorry if I have contributed to the little detour.

On Combined arms, I get that you find the damage causedby individual elements is a little odd sometimes (from your AAR), but is the overall effect off? And if so, how often? I haven't got a suitable game on at present (not invaded It yet vs AI in my latest), but the next time I get one, I am going to take a combat and repeat it several times (restoring from save). I need to know the 'norm' and the variation before I can comment on that detail.

In another game I play I am always amazed at how often someone complains about an ahisorical effect happening. When we test it under controlled conditions, it is amazing how often it turns out to be a very rare result, the majority of outcomes being just what people expect. It is human nature to remember the one time their game was 'ruined' by 'broken' results and forget (or not notice) the preceding many that go just as expected...

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I sometimes get the feeling that those involved in testing the game are suffering from the Stockholm syndrome.

I'm not one to go into the minutae like Smirfy but having 3-4 attempts at the DDay campaigns do not get the right "feel" out of the game.

IMVHO, the 7 day turn is wrong.

Why? You want 1 day turns? 1 month turns?

The air game lacks the control that you want, and you are forced to attack targets which rip out VP instead of you making the choice. Losses are too hign, Ive had the RAF with a majority of Hurricane IIC & the USAAF with stacks of P40 in early/mid 44.

What control do you want then? You can control who flies, where and when. The only think you cant do is jump into the cockpit! Vastly better than WitE.

Stacking is off, You can have 3 GS Engineer Rgts concentrated on rail line repair, or 2 US "Heavy" Armoured Divs, 1 British Infantry Div plus another 9 Battalions, at total of approx 50 Battalions, all in a 10 mile hex. But the these troops cant project enough force to inhibit movement through their ZOC (Or as an AI game is this WAD? An Amphib unit, hopefully with its LST's parked at sea, takes up stacking limits. If you want to control the size of invasion, limit the lift capability.

Reserve movement is wierd, Ive seen reserves coming in from 50 miles away. Of course they can travel this distance in a week, but as they dont move it doesnt affect their defensive position.

Prepping for an invasion takes too long, coming from WITPAE I;m used to it. However most invasions were planned by HQ, Combat units were not required until much later in the process, maybe a speeded Prep if stacked or adjaecent to your HQ.

Movement, I know this is feel only, but with no roads your troops "appear" to chose their own way. Feels odd.

Have you any idea of how many roads, lanes, paths, bridges there are in W Europe (even in the 40's. I challenge you to find a single 10 mile circle without roads going pretty much everywhere. The scale is just way too big for roads to figure

Armoured units seem to be too effective in Mountains, maybe they should not be permitted at all or "cost double sttacking"?
Advance after combat, I assumed that my troops were fighting like the devil to evict the enemy from the hex they occupy, only to find that they stopped at the hex edge and let them flee!!! If the wanted to enter I had t pay again. Why not auto advance after combat with the ability to not advance if you wish, or make it really cheap to enter as you have already advances "halfway"

Not a bad idea... a 0 point move for units already in the successful attack.

Theres lots more, but I dont keep notes. The game has so much potential but just falls short.

As for Smirfy, Ive lots of games out of the Gary Grigsby stables and while most introduce challenging system its been the players, modders & developers who have picked up the game and raised it to a higher plane. If you dont like Smirfy's or any other owner of this game's comments dont look. Devs & Modders, look closely, they may not be perfevt in their communication styles but regularly see things which are wrong or need tweaking.

No one is saying that things are perfect. It is just that we should goon data and facts (not least facts about what the game does, and the ranges of possible outcomes) not gut feel and issues that are from 'bad play'

How on earth do you kill the AFs? You need to learn how to pace them and not attack continuously at full bore... AFs (in RL) are fragile. Rest them, avoid death traps, read the forum and rules. If it aint working, try something else.

Rather than just repeat the posts

Turns - I think 2 or 3 day turns would be better, but dont think 1 day turns impossible.
(Having played WITP, WITPAE, & John Tillers France 14 & East Prussia 14 it would be relativly short.

Havent played WITE, cant compare, played plenty of GG's BTR & board gamed a few others. Maybe a shorter game turn would help.

Stacking, Prepping, Reserve, didnt get a comment.

As I said, movement is a "feel" only, after poring over US Army topographical maps for a few years I do have some idea of the road net. I would also bet you would struggle to funnel a Panzer Division down most of them.

Not everybody can be bothered to sit down and write copious notes and spout data about what the find dubious. But my $100 has again been spend on something 80% right, despite having WITE out there testing much of the engine.

PS The AI is so great, too till end of Oct to capture Sicily, landed 10+ Divisions on Sardinia and is struggling to clear the at start Axis forces.

I may go elsewhere.

[Smirfy]

Good points again JeffK especially with regards the maturity and evolution issues of WiTW with WiTE being out for ages in relation to its cost. Your comment on stacking are bang on.

Like I said I'm just sending my saves direct now without debate here when things are broke, saves time.