WitE 2

[timmyab]

Excellent news, sounds great.

However I would like to see CCPs influence a unit's MPs as well as CVs. I would say the time lost due to being engaged by enemy units is even more important.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

*stacking points are 15=corps, 9=division, 5=brigade, 3=regiment

What is the total stacking points for a hex? (Sorry if this was already mentioned)

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

Here's an idea for WITE2

Attacking an enemy unit can reduce the MP's of that enemy unit in it's phasing turn.
I would make the reduction in the number of MPs dependent on final CV ratio.

For a start this would give Soviet players a good incentive to attack German units in 41 and 42.
It's also realistic generally. If units are engaged during their non-phasing turn why should they have as much capability to move as a unit that wasn't engaged. It doesn't make sense. Holding and spoiling attacks are a common feature of any battlefield.

This rule is already in WitW and WitE2 (from WitW manual):

15.15. REDUCTION IN DEFENDER MP’S When a unit is attacked, depending on the odds, it will suffer a loss in movement points during its next turn due to the attack. The loss of MPs is equal to the standard attack cost that a unit would have paid had it made the attack. For example, if it was a deliberate attack and the defending unit is motorized, it would pay lost 16 MPs from its next turn MPs. This standard attack cost is modified as follows based on the odds of the attack: No modifier if odds are 1.5 to 1 or greater 75 percent of cost if odds are 1 to 1 to 1.49 to 1 50 percent of cost if odds are .5 to 1 to .99 to 1 No cost if odds are less than 1 to 2. When a unit is attacked in the amphibious phase, which comes after the unit’s MPs are set, any loss of MPs due to enemy attacks is immediate and can leave a unit with 0 MPs at the start of their turn.

[timmyab]

nice one!

I'm thinking that this plus the CPP rule will give Soviet players plenty of incentive to attack German units even if it means placing the attacking unit in danger.

[rainman2015]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: timmyab

Here's an idea for WITE2

Attacking an enemy unit can reduce the MP's of that enemy unit in it's phasing turn.
I would make the reduction in the number of MPs dependent on final CV ratio.

For a start this would give Soviet players a good incentive to attack German units in 41 and 42.
It's also realistic generally. If units are engaged during their non-phasing turn why should they have as much capability to move as a unit that wasn't engaged. It doesn't make sense. Holding and spoiling attacks are a common feature of any battlefield.

This rule is already in WitW and WitE2 (from WitW manual):

15.15. REDUCTION IN DEFENDER MP’S When a unit is attacked, depending on the odds, it will suffer a loss in movement points during its next turn due to the attack. The loss of MPs is equal to the standard attack cost that a unit would have paid had it made the attack. For example, if it was a deliberate attack and the defending unit is motorized, it would pay lost 16 MPs from its next turn MPs. This standard attack cost is modified as follows based on the odds of the attack: No modifier if odds are 1.5 to 1 or greater 75 percent of cost if odds are 1 to 1 to 1.49 to 1 50 percent of cost if odds are .5 to 1 to .99 to 1 No cost if odds are less than 1 to 2. When a unit is attacked in the amphibious phase, which comes after the unit’s MPs are set, any loss of MPs due to enemy attacks is immediate and can leave a unit with 0 MPs at the start of their turn.

Wow, that is a big rule change! The leading German mech divisions will get hit regularly under this rule i would guess if the Soviets can find any way to do it, 16 MPs is a big loss.

Randy

[rainman2015]

Imagining in the summer of 41 where you have broken up motorized divisions to guard the sides of a pocket and their strength is only a 2-3 CV each regiment. Those regiments will all get attacked now somehow with the new lose MPs if attacked rule, since those motorized divisions struggle with supply issues to even get 30-40 MPs normally, and losing 16 of those MPs cuts their MPs in half each turn. BIG change in how the initial game plays out, and big implications for the entire game, late war also i am sure.

Hmmm

Not sure i like that rule, the Germans will not be able to keep up with historical movement rates with this i don't think in 41.

Randy

[EwaldvonKleist]

I never understood why there isn't such a rule in WITE 1, even some Android game have something like this. Soviet counterattacks really slowed germans down, even if they were unsuccessful and had bad loss ratios.

[HMSWarspite]

Some of the people need to remember that this game is still in alpha. This means they are testing the coding not the game as such. So comments about anything that can be adjusted by data if you like are premature.

I really like the idea of the prep points. This sounds like a really good idea and could differentiate between resting and refitting , and preparing for combat. Thus I think that prep points should be looked at to prevent rear area units gaining them too easily, charging forwards and behaving like they have been planning their next attack all that time. You could stop units on refit gaining them (too busy absorbing all the noobies to plan their next move) or units more than a few hexes from an enemy hex get them slower or not at all. We don't want an ability to save them up remotely and then magically release the effect...

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: rainman2015
..

Wow, that is a big rule change! The leading German mech divisions will get hit regularly under this rule i would guess if the Soviets can find any way to do it, 16 MPs is a big loss.

Randy

I'm not finding it that much of a problem to be honest. Typically (so far) these counterattacks tend to happen T4-9 when the Pzrs are, inevitably, in front of the infantry and at the end of their supply tether. You'll struggle for much over 30 MP in any case and losing a small bit due to the attacks isn't really what hampers your advance. The attacks are endless, fail, and cost (both sides) heavy losses. It really does feel right. So far even with the alpha state I've seen broadly realistic battles at Smolensk - Axis breakthrough, highly confused battle (who is actually surrounding whom), seal the pocket and then get hit by a Soviet offensive when all you want to do is to rest and rebuild.

Later in the game, I'd assume that armour massing for an offensive would be in the second line, so any pre-offensive spoilers are going to hit the covering infantry.

I'm also seeing much more realism in the Ukraine - with the Germans you are constantly looking for a way to tip Kirponos' well led SW Front over the edge, but even big victories only seem to yield small gains

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Some of the people need to remember that this game is still in alpha. This means they are testing the coding not the game as such. So comments about anything that can be adjusted by data if you like are premature.

I really like the idea of the prep points. This sounds like a really good idea and could differentiate between resting and refitting , and preparing for combat. Thus I think that prep points should be looked at to prevent rear area units gaining them too easily, charging forwards and behaving like they have been planning their next attack all that time. You could stop units on refit gaining them (too busy absorbing all the noobies to plan their next move) or units more than a few hexes from an enemy hex get them slower or not at all. We don't want an ability to save them up remotely and then magically release the effect...

One thing I've noticed (and like) is if you send a battered formation a long way to the rear (ie back to Germany) it will recover very well, if you just try to keep it near the front the recovery is slow and partial. Its not micro-management as such, but it does reward a realistic rotation of your armies and of course will lead to German problems by the mid-game when they really can't pull much off the front, never mind back to the Reich for a 'strength through joy' sabbatical.

Think its fair to say the prep points are a really neat idea, but the question of how to acquire them and how they are shed is being developed. Thing is you want to avoid too many discrete states - such as must not be in refit, must be 'x' hexes from front, can only attack after moving less than y hexes and so on - or it gets too much micro-management ... and I'd suspect in PBEM too easy to exploit. So for what its worth, I'm of the view that keeping it simple - ie hard to acquire but not so easy to shed (outside of combat) seems like a valid compromise.

[comte]

Loki really enjoying reading your thoughts on the new WITE 2 engine. Also a fan of your AAR's [8D]

[HMSWarspite]

One thing that could be considered - lose prep points when the HQ of a combat unit is changed... there is no penalty for doing it a present and people can do it on the fly too much I think. A unit should lose something when the org changes. This reflects the inevitable loss of focus and change in priorities when a division transfers to a new Corps. It penalises the old tricks of breaking out, meeting up with the other pincer and just changing HQ etc.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Not sure whether already suggested, but will there be any correlation among national or unit morale and captured territory/cities? Just some thoughts:
When germans advanced, it must have been caused some enthusiasm to enter major soviet cites like Kiev or Rostov. On the other hand, loosing your hometown must have hurted soviet morale.
Such a rule is maybe a motivation to defend forward in 1941 to deny fast morale gains to germany?
Of special importance are major cities like the L, M, R, Sev., Stal., for sure you can read in international press if they fall and soviet press can hardly deny the loss when it happens.
On the other hand, if soviets capture area like in winter 1941/42 or after stalingrad, this gives back a lot of morale because it shows that there is a chance to pay back/win.
This recapture-rule will increase the temptation for the late war defending german player to hold some dangerous positions to delay the soviet morale gain. I really miss the crazy bulges of the historic frontlines in WITE!
In some games players will probably pull out most troops of leningrad. Stalin would have never allowed to abandon the hometown of the bolshevik revolution!
The system would be: Loosing a city hurts, seizing it increases morale (and maybe number of volunteers?).
In addition, the morale of german allies should maybe increase when the front comes closer? I am sure hungarians and finns fight better when defending their home compared to fighting somewhere deep in russia for german imperialism.
Their should also be some "forgetting" included, so soviets do not suffer for the rest of the war when loosing moscow. But a short shock should be there.

<<Edits>>
It was not intended to be a reply to HMSWarspite!
And i just realized that the morale thing was already mentioned some fourty posts ago, but in less detail.

[morvael]

On the other hand some soldiers become really stubborn/berserk/desperate with every city of the Motherland/Fatherland lost.

[EwaldvonKleist]

I agree morale is a difficult topic.
In some wars the capital was taken and the country surrendered immediately.
In some wars the capital was taken and the country fought even harder. Russians, or better soviet, including all minorities, showed their will to fight on and keep their land free of the barbarism of hitler.
Maybe their should only be a bonus when Soviets are advancing, because retaking cities will for sure boost morale.
But in some AARs you see people withdrawing from entire regions without hesitation. This is not realistic.

How it looks in detail has to be discussed, but i would like to see a system where the national morale is linked with the ground action. Loosing or winning battles, taking ground and cities should influence the morale of the whole country.
I am sure the loss of stalingrad/6th army also reduced the will to fight of units located at leningrad.
While the loss of Kiev might have made some soldiers more stubborn, the capture of hundred of thousands of comrades for sure reduced morale (will this happen to me too? Will we ever beat the germans?).


Another question: Is there an alternate blizzard system in WITE 2? So no simple reducing combat efficiency by a multiplier?
In a "perfect" simulation, the reduction of combat effectivity should only be a result of worser supply situation due to blizzard, frostbitten losses, raising fatigue after month of fighting, resulting in a small percentage of TOE still ready to fight and much damaged, while soviets get rested far eastern troops etc.
THx for the interesting discussions here!
I don't know whether i will ever have time for WITE 2 but it sounds like one of the best games ever.

[Joel Billings]

This discussion about morale comes up periodically. The way Gary sees morale in WitE/WitW is probably better described as doctrine/national training level. It is not intended to be morale in the sense it is used in games covering pre-20th century warfare (Napoleonic period comes to mind). When you think of it this way, you can still make the argument that instead of a fixed morale table over time, that it should be impacted by the disorganization caused by heavy casualties and/or loss of territory. It is used in the game as a way to heavily impact the experience level that a unit can obtain and to double up the importance of these values. Having dynamic morale levels sounds like a good idea, but do not underestimate the difficulty of getting the numbers right.

The complexity of the game system and the size/length of the game makes it virtually impossible to test these kinds of changes except in AI vs AI tests, and those of you that play head to head are constantly reminding us of the weaknesses of the AI. I do believe the AI, especially in defense, is good enough with some help to provide most players with a satisfying experience. However, it it can't compare to an experienced player in terms of thinking outside the box. Sometimes I long for the simplicity of a boardgame that can be played to completion in 3-4 hours, but then, that's not what WitE/WitW is all about.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Thx for the discussion, i haven't read the entire thread because its too much, so sorry for warming up old food.
When seeing morale as a kind of operational brilliance of a unit it makes a bit sense, but why not divide into "national experience" which includes doctrine, training etc. and national morale including the will to fight?
To make it short:
Experience: How should i fight? Teach me!
Morale: Do i want to fight? Convince me!
Fatigue: I am exhausted from marching. Feed me!

[barrykimmerly]

As for other theaters, we are developing a system of Theater Boxes to represent other fronts in WitE2 (like Western Europe, North Africa). These boxes will have events that can be triggered based on what's in them. In theory we could remove these boxes and replace them with a playable map area in the future (thus moving from WitE to a multi-front game, but that's way off in the future). We currently expect that the game will be structured to allow historical flow of units between the map and the theater boxes for those that want to follow the "historical flow" (and most likely for the AI), while it can also be set to allow player management of the forces (with consequent impact on the events).

This system will take time to properly develop, but we feel it's the best way to deal with this going forward.

Thanks for the explanation Joel. I have another idea to submit to this forum however:

As always I fully accept this approach and love this whole game, and game system, but what about this: In the interim, (Before this game encompases multiple fronts in one game release), would it be possible to create a utility that modified the contents of the, "East front box", and, "West front box", with data from game saves of WITE2 and WITW? In this way players could play both games, (As long as they kept the dates in sync), save the turns.... then run a separate utility that would rewrite the contents and state of the respective other front boxes with the data from the game turn saves. In this way you could in effect play both fronts using WITW and WITE2 when it comes out.

If this would be too much of a diversion of effort would 2by3 allow another agency to write a utility that would do this? I am NOT volunteering as I do not have the programing skills for a project such as this but I wonder if there is the will and the talent, "Out there", among this community to do this? Is this something that you guys would even want to have?

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: barrykimmerl

Thanks for the explanation Joel. I have another idea to submit to this forum however:

As always I fully accept this approach and love this whole game, and game system, but what about this: In the interim, (Before this game encompases multiple fronts in one game release), would it be possible to create a utility that modified the contents of the, "East front box", and, "West front box", with data from game saves of WITE2 and WITW? In this way players could play both games, (As long as they kept the dates in sync), save the turns.... then run a separate utility that would rewrite the contents and state of the respective other front boxes with the data from the game turn saves. In this way you could in effect play both fronts using WITW and WITE2 when it comes out.

If this would be too much of a diversion of effort would 2by3 allow another agency to write a utility that would do this? I am NOT volunteering as I do not have the programing skills for a project such as this but I wonder if there is the will and the talent, "Out there", among this community to do this? Is this something that you guys would even want to have?

This was in fact one of the ideas that we considered at the outset. However we decided against it as the challenge of matching two separate games was too complex. It's not just the units - that is easy-ish. It is all the production, where you draw the line on the map as well as the challenge of maintaining data integrity.

I still have a mind to create a WitE2 May 43 scenario that matches the starting setup of WitW and has the arrival/departure synched for play with the Boxes switched off. Production would be out of synch and you would lose the flexibility to move units between theatres but it would be sort of there.

[A game]

Is there any information yet on the balancing of victory conditions for WitE 2?

One of the fatal flaws of WitE has been the ability of the Soviets to simply run for the hills in 41 with very little consequences. Which really just makes a boring game to play for both sides.

Im hoping there is some work being done for version 2 on creating rewards vs punishments for actually fighting forwards with the soviets.

[sillyflower]

You can use sudden death scenario or agree house rule for victory conditions to limit excessive withdrawls by either side