WitE 2

[morvael]

This is 100% truth. Not a joke.

[drkarl143]

Hey guys,

im sorry to post into the wrong thread but since my other two posts have been ignored for hte last few days ill post it in here anyway.
I am playing the 1941-bitter end campaign (v1.08.07) as the Axis. This is my 3rd playthrough and right now im in turn 8. Since i progressed much better than the last two times i had the feeling that there were too few enemy units. So i turned off fog of war just to check and i noticed that there were 0 units in the rear areas of the enemy territory. Also the Soviets have 500! administration points available. Is this a bug? If so, should i start a new campaign or is there a fix for this problem?

Thank you,

drkarl143

[sillyflower]

What I want from WiTE 2 is a game as opposed to the management/spreadsheet exercise that WiTW is. WiTW's tedious air + logistic systems put me right off playing a 2nd game of that.

I know the saying that amateurs study tactics, but professionals study logistics. Problem is that I'm an amateur gamer who plays to have fun, not a professional logistics expert or dedicated exploit finder/user and I want to stay that way. Fine to have a complex system if you must, but it needs to be kept under the hood IMHO, and ideally exploit-free although that seem to much to ask for with a complex system. Nor am I interested in planning which squadrons fly which type of missions on which days, especially as I can't then decide their targets below a level of 'bomb random enemy units in Belgium' or similar. It's not what the the commander of several million troops should be doing.

Some may well argue that the WiTW systems are more 'realistic'. They may well be correct - and I'm in no position to disagree. I just don't care. Historic wargames are always fundamentally unrealistic because the players know what happened in real life. Both player know why the battle/war was won or lost and will do their best avoid making the same key mistakes.

WiTE is the best computer game I know. I love the madness of having umpteen versions of the Mk III panzer represented and the way that the combat system treats almost every shot fired as an event to be calculated separately, but because these are things I can ignore because I (rightly) cannot influence.

If 'inappropriate' fiddling/micromanagement is to be allowed, why not allow it for something interesting like altering unit TOEs?

[Kharkov]

Totally agree with sillyFlower, make the game interesting and fun for us amateur players. Cater for both types of gamer, those that want a handsoff approach to the detail and those that enjoy looking at speadsheets for 6 hours planning a turn.

I still think allowing users to command a subset of units whilst allowing the AI to control remaining forces is a feasible approach to this issue (e.g. allow me to play only Army Group North in Grand Campaign whilst AI control rest of the German forces)

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

What I want from WiTE 2 is a game as opposed to the management/spreadsheet exercise that WiTW is. WiTW's tedious air + logistic systems put me right off playing a 2nd game of that

I think you are overdramatising. The air system of WitW is no more tedious in my eyes. If I want to bomb three units in three adjacent hexes two times per unit for example I have to manually select the staging base, the target units, the air units to participate in the attack plus the launch button six times in WitE. In the WitW system I select the one target unit, extend the box by one hex, select the units to participate and the number of attacks and that was it. Frankly, I think the WitE system of bombing specific units and hexes is more inconvenient. The air game in WitW doesn't take long at all and then you factor in that on the Eastern Front you don't have strategic bombing... The air system will do great in WitE2.

And I don't get the complaint about the logistics system. The logistics system of WitE is one of its biggest problems. Why can the Germans run rampant throughout Russia where one bad mistake costs you the game? Because the of logistics. Why can the Soviets from 1943 onwards snowball west if the German player screws up once? Because of logistics. Implement halfway decent logistical constraints - and the WitW system does that quite well - and the game experience will improve tremendously. The game will give you more chances to recover from mistakes as logistical constraints will slow down operation tempo.

ORIGINAL: Kharkov

I still think allowing users to command a subset of units whilst allowing the AI to control remaining forces is a feasible approach to this issue (e.g. allow me to play only Army Group North in Grand Campaign whilst AI control rest of the German forces)

Looking at how the AI is doing things I don't think you get your desired result. The AI gives a damn about efficient command&control for example, just mixing all over the place. It's one reason why you need to give it significant bonuses. Have one part on human control and you'll notice the game getting out of balance rather fast with the AI just not being able to keep up with what you are doing. Also, the AI is cheating to a certain degree.

[sillyflower]

Sigup:

It may just be a matter of personal taste but my views are as they are and they are not unique to me. I agree about the WiTE logistics system and the need to improve, but I do not want to spend my gaming time faffing with supply dumps. I want to eat my cake without having to cook it first.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Sigup:

It may just be a matter of personal taste but my views are as they are and they are not unique to me. I agree about the WiTE logistics system and the need to improve, but I do not want to spend my gaming time faffing with supply dumps. I want to eat my cake without having to cook it first.

Speaking of exploits Silly check this out, not going to take long to get to
Berlin when Infantry divisions have 47 MP's or Moscow for that matter.

to be honest I really just started screwing around with "things" and found this as can be seen by time stamp.

Now got to figure out which switch or bug I tripped,

[robinsa]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

What I want from WiTE 2 is a game as opposed to the management/spreadsheet exercise that WiTW is. WiTW's tedious air + logistic systems put me right off playing a 2nd game of that

I think you are overdramatising. The air system of WitW is no more tedious in my eyes. If I want to bomb three units in three adjacent hexes two times per unit for example I have to manually select the staging base, the target units, the air units to participate in the attack plus the launch button six times in WitE. In the WitW system I select the one target unit, extend the box by one hex, select the units to participate and the number of attacks and that was it. Frankly, I think the WitE system of bombing specific units and hexes is more inconvenient. The air game in WitW doesn't take long at all and then you factor in that on the Eastern Front you don't have strategic bombing... The air system will do great in WitE2.

And I don't get the complaint about the logistics system. The logistics system of WitE is one of its biggest problems. Why can the Germans run rampant throughout Russia where one bad mistake costs you the game? Because the of logistics. Why can the Soviets from 1943 onwards snowball west if the German player screws up once? Because of logistics. Implement halfway decent logistical constraints - and the WitW system does that quite well - and the game experience will improve tremendously. The game will give you more chances to recover from mistakes as logistical constraints will slow down operation tempo.

ORIGINAL: Kharkov

I still think allowing users to command a subset of units whilst allowing the AI to control remaining forces is a feasible approach to this issue (e.g. allow me to play only Army Group North in Grand Campaign whilst AI control rest of the German forces)

Looking at how the AI is doing things I don't think you get your desired result. The AI gives a damn about efficient command&control for example, just mixing all over the place. It's one reason why you need to give it significant bonuses. Have one part on human control and you'll notice the game getting out of balance rather fast with the AI just not being able to keep up with what you are doing. Also, the AI is cheating to a certain degree.

I totally agree. "cooking the cake" is what I enjoy when playing these games. It's the planning process that I find enjoyable and its what makes executing the plans fun.

However, I totally agree that being allowed to influence TOE's to some extent and to allow the player to just play a specific army group would add to the game. Reducing the number of clicks needed is also fine, but don't remove the complexity.

For those that want a "simpler" game where everything is going on under the hood there are a ton of games out there to your taste already.

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Sigup:

It may just be a matter of personal taste but my views are as they are and they are not unique to me. I agree about the WiTE logistics system and the need to improve, but I do not want to spend my gaming time faffing with supply dumps. I want to eat my cake without having to cook it first.

Speaking of exploits Silly check this out, not going to take long to get to
Berlin when Infantry divisions have 47 MP's or Moscow for that matter.

to be honest I really just started screwing around with "things" and found this as can be seen by time stamp.

Now got to figure out which switch or bug I tripped,

Out of curiosity, why wouldn't a US Infantry Division have the same number of MPs as an Armored division? They were fully motorized.

[Peltonx]

WA HQ's are 27 hexes past closest RH and Tank Corps (27) are full of gas and units (32 from RH) full of MP's/Gas.

Allot of play in logistics system for sure and I am a complete newbie still at WA side of things.

Only thing stopping me being in Berlin already is the combat delay, but looks like there are ways to limit that -getting better at it.

Doing normal 1.0 rail line converting that puts Germans just out side Gates of Leningrad before turn 6 moves and past D-town.

Unless RC is 1 hex per turn.

Systems work the same RedLancer or is WitW logistics system completely different then 2.0?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Sigup:

It may just be a matter of personal taste but my views are as they are and they are not unique to me. I agree about the WiTE logistics system and the need to improve, but I do not want to spend my gaming time faffing with supply dumps. I want to eat my cake without having to cook it first.

Speaking of exploits Silly check this out, not going to take long to get to
Berlin when Infantry divisions have 47 MP's or Moscow for that matter.

...

It may start that scenario fully motorised. Remember that in WiTW you have the choice to allow a unit to retain its trucks or just use it for one turn. However, its a double edged sword.

Once you start to outrun your supply those trucks will make that unit a liability and you may find you need to send it back to the rear for a few turns to rebuild its fuel stocks. So its not always a good idea to do this.

In respect of the wider discussion above, I'll freely admit I like WiTW and its air/supply systems. I've developed a routine around the supply part (with the Allies). Start of turn, check if I can create any new depots (town on a repaired rail line not in a ZoC) ... use the supply mode filter and counters not shown. Every now and then think about downgrading some of the ones I built to the rear or scrapping them altogether.

This matters more with the allies where you have the problem of supply via ports as opposed to what will be the norm in WiTE2.

For the airgame, you can get incredibly fixated with the options. Not just playing around with loadouts but giving different plane types to different directives and altitudes etc. I read something from Helpless suggesting using the FW-190s at 1000 feet to hit airbases - apparently their high mobility makes this a valid tactic. But for the most part its pretty sensible, keep your fighter bombers and level bombers in different air groups, think about what you want to hit and so on. I tend to re-use directives once they are set up, and every now and then do a massive rethink.

Not saying that those who don't like this are wrong, but its worth sticking with as once you get some basic ideas clear (both supply and the air game), its not that time demanding - I actually spend less time on the CR in WiTW than I do in WiTE

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Sigup:

It may just be a matter of personal taste but my views are as they are and they are not unique to me. I agree about the WiTE logistics system and the need to improve, but I do not want to spend my gaming time faffing with supply dumps. I want to eat my cake without having to cook it first.

Speaking of exploits Silly check this out, not going to take long to get to
Berlin when Infantry divisions have 47 MP's or Moscow for that matter.

...

It may start that scenario fully motorised. Remember that in WiTW you have the choice to allow a unit to retain its trucks
or just use it for one turn. However, its a double edged sword.


Once you start to outrun your supply those trucks will make that unit a liability and you may find you need to
send it back to the rear for a few turns to rebuild its fuel stocks. So its not always a good idea to do this.

In respect of the wider discussion above, I'll freely admit I like WiTW and its air/supply systems.
I've developed a routine around the supply part (with the Allies). Start of turn, check if I can create any
new depots (town on a repaired rail line not in a ZoC) ... use the supply mode filter and counters not shown.
Every now and then think about downgrading some of the ones I built to the rear or scrapping them altogether.

This matters more with the allies where you have the problem of supply via ports as opposed to what will be the norm in WiTE2.


For the airgame, you can get incredibly fixated with the options.
Not just playing around with loadouts but giving different plane types to different directives and altitudes etc.
I read something from Helpless suggesting using the FW-190s at 1000 feet to hit airbases -
apparently their high mobility makes this a valid tactic. But for the most part its pretty sensible,
keep your fighter bombers and level bombers in different air groups, think about what you want to hit and so on.
I tend to re-use directives once they are set up, and every now and then do a massive rethink.

Not saying that those who don't like this are wrong, but its worth sticking with as once you get
some basic ideas clear (both supply and the air game), its not that time demanding - I actually spend
less time on the CR in WiTW than I do in WiTE

It doesn't and I thought motorized units could not attack as I attacked with it turn 1?

It does have allot more options, but once you get a handle on them you can flip turns quickly. I think it will not take much longer to do 2.0 turns then 1.0 ONCE you get things set-up to your liking.

The problem will be finding the right set-up.

I be playing the AI for 4-6 months before playing a human. So your looking at probably 3x as long turns 1-2 but after that should be close to what we put into 1.0.

I spend 90% of your time on logistics system as that effects everything WAY more then 1.0.
Its day and night if you don't keep troops supplied-which is historical.
Defending is way easyer then attacking at all levels so far for me.

WitW has way more options in the air and on the ground and the same holds true for the logistics system.

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Systems work the same RedLancer or is WitW logistics system completely different then 2.0?

The essentials of rails, depots and trucks remain the same but the calculations will be different and in some areas have changed already.

[RedLancer]

On the discussion of motorising units - remember in WitW there are 4 levels of motorization.

0 - NOT MOTORIZED - No additional trucks.
1 - MOTORIZED - Trucks as standard.
2 - MOTORIZED (Temp 1 Turn). Unit has additional trucks but will hand them back to the pool after 1 turn.
3 - MOTORIZED (Temp Multiple Turns). Unit has additional trucks and will retain the trucks until de-motorized by a player.

The precise impact of the motorization state that results is dependent on the TOE of the unit.

These are:
None - No motorization is possible.
Supply Only - The supply elements can be motorized e.g. German Inf Div
Non Infantry - All the non Infantry elements can be motorized e.g. British Infantry Division
All - Fully motorized e.g. Panzer Division
Rail - Can be moved by rail.

For example a German Inf Div will only receive additional trucks for supply whilst a British Infantry Div can become Truck mounted. The level of Motorization will affect the supply numbers. So don't think you can motorize German Inf Divs to make them Motorized Inf Divs - you can't. The functionality was added to allow Allied Motorization to be replicated.

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Sigup:

It may just be a matter of personal taste but my views are as they are and they are not unique to me. I agree about the WiTE logistics system and the need to improve, but I do not want to spend my gaming time faffing with supply dumps. I want to eat my cake without having to cook it first.

As Gary has to teach the AI to use depots, I can ask whether if it is possible to code a function to get the system to place depots for you (button push) but you'd probably need to still run your own rail repair.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Sigup:

It may just be a matter of personal taste but my views are as they are and they are not unique to me. I agree about the WiTE logistics system and the need to improve, but I do not want to spend my gaming time faffing with supply dumps. I want to eat my cake without having to cook it first.

As Gary has to teach the AI to use depots, I can ask whether if it is possible to code a function to get the system to place depots for you (button push) but you'd probably need to still run your own rail repair.

basicly work like 1.0 we have a few units to move ourselfs and the rest are basicly AI from the HQ's?

[Michael T]

If you want WEGO, and assuming you are not already very rich, then my advice is to win the lottery and pay morvael to develop a game from scratch. That is my plan - unfortunately despite my best efforts I never seem to buy quite the right ticket.

That is a team I would readily join.

[uw06670]

Just to throw my two cents in.

I'm more in Silly's camp that others. Adding to the ability to micromanage things is nice for those that wish it (assuming its balanced/not exploitable) but I would also prefer to see these types of things be an option that you can turn off or on. Red Lancer mentioned having an semi-automated way of placing depots, which seems like the right direction IMO.

Not sure where 2.0 will land in terms of production/assignment of ground units. I've heard some want to be able to control these things to the point of say building Pz IV F2 in 1941 (just to point out a German fantasy). As fun as that could be, I think allowing this level of change would be difficult to balance. The Soviets already have good tanks in 41. What do you give them to counter? Improve their command and control/organization? Increase the number of T-34 and KV factories pre-war?

In the "what if" world of things, instead of selecting which TDs get built when at what factory, I think a more abstract but still impactful and fun concept would be to allow emphasis to be placed on one of several options at war's outset. The old DOS game Clash of Steel (still one of my favorites) had a similar concept, but might have been overpowered.
For example Germany might have these options:
1) Heavy Tanks (earlier/more Tiger's)
2) Luftwaffe (higher output of aircraft, a "Ural" bomber, etc.)
3) Assault Guns (have the Panzer snobs embrace the cheap little TDs)
4) Motorized Army (horses are for farms)
5) Historic

Each would have an impact on some other facet of production (except Historic). Also could reduce Admin point accumulation.

I think those types of options (and Soviet similar) make for interesting changes allowing different strategies and might be easier to balance than allowing AFV micromanagement.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

If you want WEGO, and assuming you are not already very rich, then my advice is to win the lottery and pay morvael to develop a game from scratch. That is my plan - unfortunately despite my best efforts I never seem to buy quite the right ticket.

That is a team I would readily join.

morveal a genius yet humble

unlike others that are close minded and full of themselves.

[Peltonx]

Hmm June 22nd 1941

June 22nd 2016

75th

You guys going to make that?