Surrealism in WiR

[K62_]

WiR is a great simulation, but not perfect. It only has two apparent weak spots:

1. Air Interdiction

The bombing hits those units that are ready and experienced. If you have low readiness/ green troops air interdiction won't affect you much. So a vehicle without fuel and a soldier who doesn't know anything about camouflage are impossible to hit by aviation!:D

2. Static Attacks

What the heck is a static attack?!:eek: It seems it is possible to drive the enemy back 20 miles without you moving forward You can just keep your place in your cosy entrenchments and preserve your readiness.

Now isn't that SURREAL

[ShadowPanzer]

1. Air Interdiction

The bombing hits those units that are ready and experienced. If you have low readiness/ green troops air interdiction won't affect you much. So a vehicle without fuel and a soldier who doesn't know anything about camouflage are impossible to hit by aviation!:D

Agree with you on this, dont make much since. A units thats green and in bad shape to begain with should take way more damage then a unit thats ready and experince.



2. Static Attacks

What the heck is a static attack?!:eek: It seems it is possible to drive the enemy back 20 miles without you moving forward You can just keep your place in your cosy entrenchments and preserve your readiness.

Will, static attack to me is like what happened in Italy. The allies would attack a position with everything they could and the Germans would hold ontill they reached a point that they could hold no more and they they would retreat and then the allies would move up to that position a little later. Not really a mobile battle in the since that forward movement was so slow that the enemy had lots of time to retreat and setup a new defince.

[K62_]

Oh yeah, you also do that in WiR all the time, especially if you're German in later years you withdraw troops all the time if they have too many casualties.

But a "static attack" is different: it's the attacker's option to do it It's an advantage for the attacker that his troops don't go out in the open where they lose readiness and are exposed to counter-attack.:rolleyes:

It's like you order your troops to scare the enemy away so that he runs away 20 miles even though nobody is following

[ShadowPanzer]

Originally posted by K62
Oh yeah, you also do that in WiR all the time, especially if you're German in later years you withdraw troops all the time if they have too many casualties.

But a "static attack" is different: it's the attacker's option to do it It's an advantage for the attacker that his troops don't go out in the open where they lose readiness and are exposed to counter-attack.:rolleyes:

It's like you order your troops to scare the enemy away so that he runs away 20 miles even though nobody is following

Yup it is kind of crazy, what should have be done is have it so that if you static attack an enemy unit it will not retreat no matter what but it might lose more of its readeness for the next turn.

[Rasputitsa]

Agree on the interdiction attack on low readiness units, unless you take the view that these units are scattered and difficult to find. I think that in Russia at this time any vehicle or significant group of people would have been seen as military (not much else around) and been attacked. Except that any unit scattered into cover (in woods, swamps and cities) would have been impossible to hit. only large formed units could be identified in those conditions. I think that Static attacks are a logical and essential part of the game. The Unit symbol represents the position of the Korps/Red Army HQ, supply dumps etc., The korps sends out divisional units to fight in the surrounding areas, but does not want to pay the fatigue cost and lengthened supply lines by moving to occupy these areas, with the whole korps, if the enemy reteats. The opposition can reoccupy the hex if they wish, but you can stop them settling into entrenchments unless they are able to come back with sufficient force to hold the ground. You need the Static attacks to hold successful units back, whilst others move through captured hexes in a chosen sequence.

[K62_]

Originally posted by Rasputitsa
Except that any unit scattered into cover (in woods, swamps and cities) would have been impossible to hit. only large formed units could be identified in those conditions.
B]

I also agree that a large unit is easier to hit. But, of two units of the same size, the one with better experience and readiness should be hit less, not more. It's easier to scatter into cover when your vehicle has fuel, when you're not exhausted, and when you have the experience of scattering on previous occasions.

I think that Static attacks are a logical and essential part of the game. The Unit symbol represents the position of the Korps/Red Army HQ, supply dumps etc., The korps sends out divisional units to fight in the surrounding areas, but does not want to pay the fatigue cost and lengthened supply lines by moving to occupy these areas, with the whole korps, if the enemy reteats.

Yes, static attacks can be very useful if you use them properly. Only they don't correspond to anything in real life.

The divisions are actually in the hex where they are represented (just right click on it and you don't see any korps HQ ) What do you mean you can send all the divisions in a corps forward and backward 20 miles but not pay "the fatigue cost and lengthened supply lines"?! You are talking of divisions as if they were small mobile recon patrols. Or maybe you mean bomber divisions

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by K62
Yes, static attacks can be very useful if you use them properly. Only they don't correspond to anything in real life.

WIR isn't the only game with static attacks, and I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for it being unrealistic. You launch an ordinary attack and drive the defender from his positions but once the defender has retreated you yourself "retreat" back to your original positions too. Since taking territory is a primary reason for attacking someone, obviously static attacks will be rare, but not unrealistic.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by K62
1. Air Interdiction

The bombing hits those units that are ready and experienced.

How do you figure that? Bombing hits the whole unit regardless of readiness and experience, the difference is a unit already with low experience/readiness has less to lose.

Readiness in WIR refers to how much of a unit actually shows up for battle (or can show up), the bombing therefore is on the targets that are actually *there*. Unready troops, by definition, are unlikely to keep up with the ready element. They are like stragglers and those stranded for lack of fuel, there is no implied rule that the unready are always in the same place with the ready element of the unit. This means a unit with higher readiness will have a larger part of its force present and thus will have higher losses. It does not mean that the bombers "know" which target below them is ready and experienced or not.

[K62_]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
You launch an ordinary attack and drive the defender from his positions but once the defender has retreated you yourself "retreat" back to your original positions too.

Plot forward and then backward. You lose readiness and entrenchment.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
obviously static attacks will be rare, but not unrealistic. .

How about I play German against you in '43 and we'll see how rare the static attacks are are how realistic is the game? :p

[K62_]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
This means a unit with higher readiness will have a larger part of its force present and thus will have higher losses.

Whaaat?:eek:

Gee, Ed, I didn't expect to have to spell it out for you. Oh well :rolleyes:

Consider korps A and korps B. They have 100 squads each. A is at full readiness and B at 10%.

Now miraculously, both get hit by the same amount of bombs. A shows up with 100 squads and loses 30. B shows 10 and loses 3.

Then the CinC retreats both korps and has them resupplied.

Now who has lost more and why, may I ask?

Did the attacking planes hit the place where all the ready troops were hanging out together? Gee, what precision. But how about someone is kind enough to say where are all those juicy sitting ducks called unready troops so I can hit them instead

[Rasputitsa]

Originally posted by K62

Yes, static attacks can be very useful if you use them properly. Only they don't correspond to anything in real life.

The divisions are actually in the hex where they are represented (just right click on it and you don't see any korps HQ ) What do you mean you can send all the divisions in a corps forward and backward 20 miles but not pay "the fatigue cost and lengthened supply lines"?! You are talking of divisions as if they were small mobile recon patrols. Or maybe you mean bomber divisions [/B]

I know how the game mechanics work, the question is are Static attacks realistic. This is only a simple computer game, the rest is imagination. The way I see it is, that when you plot a move against a hex held by the opposition, the available fighting units (the percentage of each division which is ready) move into the enemy held hex and combat takes place. The Korps/Red Army HQ, supply dumps and remainder of forces that are not ready (no fuel, no ammo, disorganised, AWOL, lost - whatever) remain in the original hex. If you win the combat, after a normal plot, then the Korps tail moves forward to join the fighting troops. If you have chosen a Static plot, the fighting troops return to the Korps area. This leaves other Korps able to exploit the gap you have made. I can imagine many real situations that fit the use of the Static plot. You can see WIR as a game of checkers with square pieces on a hex board, or you can imagine any number of real situations that it could generate.

(Did the attacking planes hit the place where all the ready troops were hanging out together? Gee, what precision. But how about someone is kind enough to say where are all those juicy sitting ducks called unready troops so I can hit them instead).

Forces that are ready are likely to be in contact with the enemy, in formed groups and easier to spot. Forces which are not ready could be spread anywhere in 20x20 miles, in the repair shops, scattered and out of fuel, hiding, looting, resting out of harms way, anything you care to imagine. That's why they are not ready and not facing combat losses. I agree that if the software permits, there should some air attack cost to non-ready forces, but I can live with it if it can't be done

[Svar]

Static attack is simply a mechanism to allow the player to control which unit advances into the vacated hex. If a hex is attacked from 3 sides without the static attack the higest ranking unit will advance. By using the static attack, on 2 of the attacking sides the player can designate which unit advances and possibly continuing for up to 4 more advances. Without the static attack the player has to know which unit is the higest ranking unit and give it the remaining advances. This is very important in the first move of the game.

That said, it is possible to abuse the static attack mode but it is really only meant to give the player control over the battle.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by K62
Plot forward and then backward. You lose readiness and entrenchment.

Your entire unit doesn't leave its original position, just some combat elements do.

How about I play German against you in '43 and we'll see how rare the static attacks are are how realistic is the game?

I've never played the '43 scenario, I understand its rather flawed. In a campaign game I'd love to see the German launching static attacks, losing manpower without any territorial gain, as bleeding him dry is my objective.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by K62
Whaaat?:eek:

Gee, Ed, I didn't expect to have to spell it out for you. Oh well :rolleyes:

Consider korps A and korps B. They have 100 squads each. A is at full readiness and B at 10%.

At this point, you've already missed *my* point. They DON'T have 100 squads each in their current square! :rolleyes:

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Svar
Static attack is simply a mechanism to allow the player to control which unit advances into the vacated hex.

Is this not also a real life issue? Coordinating an attack and specifying which units will actually pass through and/or occupy the area? When launching a large attack from multiple directions against one area, not all attackers can occupy it if the battle is won, indeed its unlikely you would want all forces to advance. Its a "game" mechanism that mirrors a real-world "mechanism".

[K62_]

Story #1

Our Kommandant was in a grave mood: "Our orders today are to make a STATIC ATTACK. Totenkopf and LAH will go forward and clear the ground of any Russians. Since there aren't enough supplies left, Viking will turn all of theirs to the attacking divisions."

Well, the orders were clear enough. A bulky blond, blue eyed corporal from LAH came and took all of my ammo and my food and drained everything he could from my Tiger. Then forward they went...

I've been starving for a few days, I must admit, and trembling with fear at night that some daring infiltrator might find me defenceless. But what great joy afterwards!

The boys returned after a great victory, pushing the Untermenschen 20 miles back with heavy loss. Fortunately, as always happens in these static attacks we are doing all the time now, they still had all the supplies they had left with!

I was so happy to see back my schnapps, my cabbage and my autographed .88 rounds ("from Peiper, to Stalin, with love"), all in perfect condition, just as I remembered them. Nothing was missing - you can always trust the static attacking guys, they might die but they'll always return with all their fuel and ammo.

Using specially trained homing pigeons, they immediately found their old spots in our elaborate trench system. We were just as ready and well entrenched as before the attack. We piled heaps over heaps the fresh Soviet troops that immediately moved up to counter-attack us.

Heil Hitler!:)

[K62_]

Story #2

"Now boys you know those Nazi bombers are on the way" said our platoon leader slowly chewing his poor quality tobacco. "You know what you have to do".

Indeed we did. I tossed a coin with Ivan and it went heads, so I got to go back. We went again through the entire air attack routine. I gave him my bullets, my vodka and my rifle, since his was jammed.

Then the difficult part followed. I had to teach him all the tricks I knew and do it quickly, those Nazis were coming at 200 miles an hour! Somehow, I managed to finish in time, though. Now Ivan was a fully supplied and fully experienced soldier and a great pleasure to look at.

He went to the intended air attack site and, 10 minutes later, a 500 pound bomb fell a few feet away turning him into minced meat. Many of our finest comrades met the same fate on that day.

I escaped, though. Without my equipment and with all my bravery transfered to Ivan, I ran quickly out of Nazi bomber range. I returned hours later and recovered half of his supplies.

Oh well, that's the way the war goes on. Long live Comrade Ed and onwards to victory!:)

[K62_]

By the way...

Campaign '43 is not a campaign but a scenario and it's flawed anyway.

Possum's is unhistorical - oh that furry Aussie Communist lover!

Static attacks are both realistic and an administrative game feature that can be abused.

AND A BIG THANK YOU TO ED FOR SHARING HIS WISDOM WITH US!

[Rasputitsa]

15th February 1944 - Mark Clark tosses his cigar into the corner of the room in disgust, he yells to his aide, 'Get Ed on the phone and tell him we just unloaded on the area of 14th PZ Korps at Monte Cassino and we didn't get any of them. Tell him to get Arnaud to rewrite this war or we're never gonner win.'

25th July 1944 - Bradley paces backwards and forwards in his command post 'Goddam it ! I plotted an air attack on the 84th Korps and they hit the wrong **** square, killing my commanding general and wrecking two of my own divisions. I wish I was on the Russian Front, they never bomb the wrong square in WIR'.

Patton often took supplies from other units (sometimes stolen from other commands) to keep the point moving.

Many things have happened in war which are stranger than the quirks in WIR. Most of the bombs dropped in WW2 just rearranged the real estate. Unless you gave the aircraft an easily defined target (which they often still failed to find) aircraft most likely did little real damage. Air attack could be deadly where elements of units could be identified in defensive positions, on airfields, or on the move in organised formations. It is very difficult to hit elements of a Korps which are dispersed. The even distribution of air attack, over a whole Korps area, could only occur in the massive carpet bombing missions flown in Normandy by the Allies. Never used on the Eastern Front.

A limitation of the movement plotting system is that units cannot move through other units. The Static plot is essential in timing the movement of your units, so that they advance, after combat, in the right order. Most of the Static plots I use result in the unit moving later in the the turn sequence.

WIR does a reasonable job of simulating the realities of the war. Its not perfect, but the fact that we are discussing a game I first played nearly 20 years ago means it must be pretty good. Thanks to all that have kept it up to date.

[K62_]

Originally posted by Rasputitsa

Many things have happened in war which are stranger than the quirks in WIR.
WIR does a reasonable job of simulating the realities of the war. Thanks to all that have kept it up to date.

True! I couldn't agree more with you. WiR is a great simulation and the people who created and maintained it did a wonderful job. I was just noting, on a note of amusement, that it does have a couple of quirks (incredible, isn't it?;) )