WitE 2

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Expanded map North to include Murmansk, northern Norway to simulate operation Silver Fox and to try and stop Murmansk lend-lease.

As we are using the WitW map Murmansk and Norway are included.......however......using the map to include these areas slows things up and it is very difficult for the AI to play in an historic fashion as part of a Campaign scenario.

[morvael]

So maybe there should be two scenarios: one without northern theatre for playing against AI, and one with it,for playing PBEM/server games. There are already scenarios in WitE that mention they are not to be played vs AI or that AI should only play one side, if any.

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: morvael

So maybe there should be two scenarios: one without northern theatre for playing against AI, and one with it,for playing PBEM/server games. There are already scenarios in WitE that mention they are not to be played vs AI or that AI should only play one side, if any.

+1, to me it seems a clever solution.

Bye.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Expanded map North to include Murmansk, northern Norway to simulate operation Silver Fox and to try and stop Murmansk lend-lease.

As we are using the WitW map Murmansk and Norway are included.......however......using the map to include these areas slows things up and it is very difficult for the AI to play in an historic fashion as part of a Campaign scenario.

You probably need two AIs that are checked in sequence then, which gets complicated once they start trading units back and forth. The poor mans version would be to "fix" units regionally. Either that, or re-write the AI instead of making changes to WiTE's AI.

I know... AI is an incredible resource sink in your end. I will be happy, I am sure, with whatever solution you come up with.

[SeriousCatNZ]

If the only thing they changed were the supply system, it would be an instant purchase for me. I really want to grapple with the core issue of blitzkrieg, i.e. supply, such as you see in the Operational Combat Series (OCS) board wargames.

PS: Hmmm... that's a pretty poor show. I was just barred from posting a link to OCS on BoardGameGeek because it was 7 days within the 10th post, or something ridiculous. [:(]

[SigUp]

You should check out WitW and its supply system. WitE2 will continue from that.

[swkuh]

Hope that 2.0 stays within historical framework of the era. Trust it will.

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Hope that 2.0 stays within historical framework of the era. Trust it will.

What are you afraid might happen ? I'm intrigued.

[swkuh]

Ah... appreciate being asked.

West Front/South Front variations, technology developments, political changes, if outside reasonable history. Examples of reasonable possibilities: LW could delay things over the Reich a bit; Torch & Overlord more or less successful; Tigers/Panthers/Leopards might come sooner or later; national morale +/-; lend lease +/-; production & resource variations. And the same for Allies. Any variations allowed would have costs/benefits to other factors.

Things unreasonable: Franklin, Winston, Adolph, or Joseph (or respective nations) change their attitudes, gas or nuclear warfare, Eastern Europe political revolutions, Far East variations, etc.

Any improvement to the player interface will be appreciated as well as reporting strength, supply, logistics, population status.

[No idea]

Better tools for micromanagement should be among top priorities, imho. Simply shuffling support units is a pain. It would be far, far quicker an easier if there were two windows (like in the microsoft OS) and you could drag and drop

[RedLancer]

Thanks. You have no need to worry I believe.

Here's a brief glimpse of an idea we mightconsider. We are currently reworking production to centre on chassis production from which variants will then build. This has distinct advantages in the setting of historical production. Within a fixed chassis production should we allow players the ability to change variant numbers?

[Commanderski]

Here's a brief glimpse of an idea we might consider. We are currently reworking production to centre on chassis production from which variants will then build. This has distinct advantages in the setting of historical production. Within a fixed chassis production should we allow players the ability to change variant numbers?

Sounds like a workable idea. Should still take a realistic time frame from the time the change is made to when they are available to hit the field, which I'm sure you will do...[:)]

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: No idea

Better tools for micromanagement should be among top priorities, imho. Simply shuffling support units is a pain. It would be far, far quicker an easier if there were two windows (like in the microsoft OS) and you could drag and drop

Great idea but I'm pretty sure drag and drop is a coding impossibility unfortunately.

[Michael T]

Less micromanagement would be a blessing but I fear it will only get worse. What really is needed is a totally new combat model that works. Then build a game round that. But that would be revolutionary thought for these guys.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Less micromanagement would be a blessing but I fear it will only get worse. What really is needed is a totally new combat model that works. Then build a game round that. But that would be revolutionary thought for these guys.

Hmm I think that's an old 5 yr old request as we both know.

Just get the combat ratio's right and stop the retreat lose baloney.

The problem is the game was designed around the thought of tring to get players to attack attack attack as Hitler and Stalin did.

Which is why the retreat lose combat model - which has never gotten close to historical loses and has never worked as it forces players to turtle. Because there is no reward for Germany to attack WitE or WitW.

If they just came up with a good VP system players would defend and attack as per historical, which has been what players have been asking for for 5 yrs.

morveal has been tring with To the bitter end and more historical combat ratio in .08

hopefully minus any uber armament bugs .08 will be as close as things have gotten to date.

I can't comment on 2.0

[Michael T]

Did you see Timmyab's AAR? Soviet has 9 ID's retreat a Pz Korp that had air support. Just wrong. Morvael explained somewhere that the combat model is biased toward more elements firing and quality means not much. So combat always favors the side with more elements in an unrealistic manner. The problem has always been that it's to easy for the Soviet to push the Panzers out of their hex. Retreat losses aside (thats another story), the Soviet ability to dislodge German units in 1941/42 is overstated.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Pelton




The problem is the game was designed around the thought of tring to get players to attack attack attack as Hitler and Stalin did.

Which is why the retreat lose combat model - which has never gotten close to historical loses and has never worked as it forces players to turtle. Because there is no reward for Germany to attack WitE or WitW.

So the design to make players attack makes them turtle? Theoretically possible but in spite of its faults, completely untrue in the case of WitE. Turtling is a choice, and a bad one.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Soviet has 9 ID's retreat a Pz Korp that had air support. Just wrong.

Yes it is [:(] Didn't stop me doing it though [:D]
It's even more crazy to me because it's in open ground. Why no positive modifiers for armor in clear terrain [&:]

[Michael T]

Why no positive modifiers for armor in clear terrain

I can't think of any other game where this attack would be anything other than suicidal.

An act of the truly desperate. Yet in WITE it's quite a sensible attack.

If you think about setting up the attack in a tactical game, like Panzer Campaigns or Panzer Battles it also equals slaughter for the Soviets.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: Pelton




The problem is the game was designed around the thought of tring to get players to attack attack attack as Hitler and Stalin did.

Which is why the retreat lose combat model - which has never gotten close to historical loses and has never worked as it forces players to turtle. Because there is no reward for Germany to attack WitE or WitW.

So the design to make players attack makes them turtle?
Theoretically possible but in spite of its faults, completely untrue in the case of WitE. Turtling is a choice, and a bad one.

If I attack and win and the ratio is 1 to 1

If I do nothing and defend and lose the ratio is 1 to 1

If I do nothing and win and the ratio is 1 to 3

you have to be Theoretically, ignoranant