WitE 2

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

@HMSWARSPITE - your argument makes no sense at all to me. Even the most rudimentary change to the zoc rules would be an improvement. You are happy with the zoc rules? Fine. But don't muddy the water with silly arguments about all this supposed added complexity a change would entail.

HQ's don't have zoc's. No need to say anymore on that point.

Who said it was broken? I said it can be improved. Spend some time thinking about what some good improvements would be rather than counting toothbrushes.

As for WITW, I was at one point a tester. Short lived as it turned out. But I did help make one or two small improvements. But in the end arguing with people like yourself wore me down and I gave up.

You really know how to upset people, you know? "People like" myself? So what am I? I have suggested many improvements to the WitE/W system.

You suggested an improved ZOC system based on the number of men in the hex. I pointed out some issues. Now you flame me, backtrack on what you said, and ask for a "most rudimentary change" to the ZOC rules.

I was pointing out what a can of worms complex ZOC rules can be... I didn't say it couldn't be improved, just that I think it would take a lot of work relative to the 'problem'.

Go on, what is your suggested rudimentary change? And while you are at it, why isn't stacking an issue?

[Michael T]

I said this:

These are just examples. I am sure those in the know could come up with better numbers and formula.

I always get the same responses from people like you. I suggest a change or improvement. Then the naysaying begins.

I don't offer a solution. Because I am not *the* programmer. I do know for a fact a simple and better system could be designed and implemented if the desire to do so was there.

Now for your benefit, stacking. All you need do is read the forum. Not for the first time, my most recent rant about stacking is here, just a couple of weeks ago.

tm.asp?m=4090905

You want to start a debate here about? Go ahead. Be my guest.

Sorry you feel upset. Maybe go play with someone else?

[HMSWarspite]

I think we both agree that both stacking and ZOCs are an abstraction at individual hex level that makes no sense and is highly unrealistic. However in a game of the scale of WITE (or even WITW) abstractions at hex level are not very important if they lead to the right effects at corps/army (or equivalent). I think we disagree whether this is the case (or I assume so), but each to their own, that is the fun of forums like this.

However, your first mention of ZOCs in this thread was "
What about variable zoc costs? Small units, for example brigade/regiments create just as much friction as a whole corp of Mech units ATM. This should be addressed. I am not sure what possible excuse could be offered for this kind of thing...."

And if I may, I might be able to help you. The game is designed, programmed, documented and tested by a finite number of people. I nearly said 'fixed' but the number does vary a little from time to time. Thus there is a finite amount of resource that is available to design and implement features. There are also other constraints like min machine spec memory and processor time. Many suggestions for improvements do not take account of these constraints, and given the number of posters vs the resource to implement, there are always more suggestions for improvements than can be done. So, ideas don't have to just be a good idea, they need to be better than all the other ideas (or better than all but a few, depending on how many ideas can be worked and released) that are fighting for a given game or upgrade/patch. Given gthat I (and I think probably some others, including the ones that need to make these choices) don't see the ZOC issue as particularly broken, there is your "possible excuse" (and it isn't an excuse).

I would love the stacking issue to be more logical, and this might be having an effect at corps level (ironically more in WITW I suspect) the "excuse" there (as already explained) is that the display issues are rather large so the time/resource ti make that change outweighs that for a simple update. Might be in WITE2 for all I know though.

Just thought I could help you understand you weren't necressarily oignored on all those suggestions. It really isn't personal from all those people "like me".


Oh, and in WITW, small units don't exert ZOCs in the same way as divs iirc... do they in WITE? (Long time since I've played WITE and as I said I think much larger than single hexes while playing).

[Michael T]

I understand what you are saying. But I obviously disagree.

If I hear you right you are saying words to the effect of, that to make zoc stickiness more proportional to a units actual affect in the real world, it is too costly to improve in terms of 2by3 resources and it is also low in priority.

We apparently agree it could be better.

I still say it could be improved with little effort and a simple rule. And, like others, I think it's important. I will leave it at that.

As for how zoc's work in WITW. I believe/thought that they impeded the movement of other units in an identical manner no matter unit size. This is the case in WITE. Are you saying that a reg/brigade in WITW has less effect on enemy movement than larger units? I don't believe that is the case and would have thought Red Lancer would have pointed that out to me if it were the case.

I find it puzzling that some players don't think this is a fundamental issue. But hey, each to their own. I get a lot of enjoyment out of solving and implementing tactical/operational challenges. This desire to see a more realistic zoc rule would add to that enjoyment for me, and others I assume.

The primitiveness of the current zoc rule, in my view, does not do the game justice.

[HMSWarspite]

You are right about ZOC in WITW (my mistake). I knew there was a difference at regimental level but a quick refresher reminded me that small unit ZOCs don't convert enemy territory into friendly territory. The big effect on Regiments is that they take extra MPs to move ZOC to ZOC above what divisions do.

However I still do not see that the ZoC system in game breaks it, or even really affects it much. I would not update it for less than a really detailed one: pseudo combat evaluation (portion of unit creating ZOC vs the CV of the unit trying to enter) and that removing the ZOc in hex for as long as friendlies are present, and the harder it is, the more MPs it would take. This is not a trivial load on either CPU or designer. Arbitrary 'regt's dont have ZOC is not much better than today. Should 3 Regts in a hex have a ZOC

If the ZOC was locking (ended movement) that would be an issue for small units, but it isn't...

[RedLancer]

I did take the time to get the rulebook out and look at what might be entailed. I cannot read the code so this is a bit of a guess on my part.

The current rule set means that any enemy unit impacts a hex equitably as all hexes are either friendly, pending or enemy. An enemy hex is any hex adjacent to an enemy unit.

For this discussion I'll only consider entering an enemy hex rather than ZOC to ZOC.

The cost on entering an enemy hex is the movement cost plus a value mitigated by a bonus for moving unit morale. +1 is added for Regts and Bdes.

So to code what Michael proposes I think requires at least one complete additional step to be added - not just a check on whether the hex is enemy but also a check in any of the 5 possible adjacent hexes what enemy units are present and what is the total score to impact movement.

Currently to enter a hex the added cost / bonus reduction is +((120-Morale)/20) ROUNDDOWN. This means that the score to impact movement has to change the 120 value in someway.

I agree that there is a better way but I'm not convinced that it is worth the effort. As Loki100 has stated the need in WitE2 is less.

I don't know how difficult this is. Those who understand the code read the forum and may comment. My big worry is not in the coding of new rules but the impact on the AI. You would need to teach the defending AI the difference if it is the defend to the same standard as at present and that is significantly more challenging.

[Michael T]

There is some confusion here. *I am talking about zoc to zoc*

I always have been. This is another problem. Getting the message across. I am not concerned with changing ownership, or moving into enemy hex costs.

Friction, stickiness, zoc to zoc, crossing a river in to a zoc. These are what matter.

I cannot understand why you think it's a non issue. But you don't so I will just have to leave it. But I can't believe after all this you guys still don't see what I am on about.

I will provide an example of what I mean:

If a Panzer Division moves between two regiments the added cost is +8, same as if it tried to move between two tank corp. That is what I mean by stickiness. Thats why a carpet is so effective.

If Pavel said to me words to this effect: You can have the existing zoc to zoc rules OR you can have reg/brigades with no zoc at all I would say remove zoc to zoc costs for these units. It would be better.

Another problem here is general wargaming experience with operational games. A lot of guys here Mechfo, for example and others know exactly what I mean. But Red, Warspite and Loki I don't think know really what I mean.

Again. The current rules are saying that a security regiment can influence the movement of a passing unit in an adjacent hex to the exact same degree as a whole hex full of tank corp or Panzer units.

Should I perhaps post a screenie with two examples? Would this clear it all up?

[Great_Ajax]

I get it and I agree with you. I hate the carpets as they are purely a method to soak up enemy movement capability instead of using the more common sense method of placing your combat power forward while maintaining a reasonable reserve. I see this as both a ZOC issue and the lack of options a defender has in blunting penetrations of his line due to the turn based nature of the game. I think ZOC adjustments based on hex occupation are valid as are MP adjustments for attacking different sized units. A panzer division conducting a deliberate attack against an enemy brigade is going to take a lot less planning (and less MPs) than the same unit planning an attack on a hex with three rifle corps. I also think the way that reserves work should be looked at to allow more options for the defender to actually plan for his mobile reserves to respond to enemy penetrations of his line. In order to discourage the tar baby defense, the defensive player needs more options for planning reserves.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is some confusion here. *I am talking about zoc to zoc*

I always have been. This is another problem. Getting the message across. I am not concerned with changing ownership, or moving into enemy hex costs.

Friction, stickiness, zoc to zoc, crossing a river in to a zoc. These are what matter.

I cannot understand why you think it's a non issue. But you don't so I will just have to leave it. But I can't believe after all this you guys still don't see what I am on about.

I will provide an example of what I mean:

If a Panzer Division moves between two regiments the added cost is +8, same as if it tried to move between two tank corp. That is what I mean by stickiness. Thats why a carpet is so effective.

If Pavel said to me words to this effect: You can have the existing zoc to zoc rules OR you can have reg/brigades with no zoc at all I would say remove zoc to zoc costs for these units. It would be better.

Another problem here is general wargaming experience with operational games. A lot of guys here Mechfo, for example and others know exactly what I mean. But Red, Warspite and Loki I don't think know really what I mean.

Again. The current rules are saying that a security regiment can influence the movement of a passing unit in an adjacent hex to the exact same degree as a whole hex full of tank corp or Panzer units.

Should I perhaps post a screenie with two examples? Would this clear it all up?

[Michael T]

@ Trey , thank you, thank you. You have saved me a trip to the local mental institute, I can put away my straight jacket [:D]

Hooray, someone from the dev team finally gets it [&o][&o][&o]

Now I can rest easy, nothing may change but at least someone in the team is on the same page. Thank you. You have no idea how much frustration you have relieved me of. [:)]

[Michael T]

+1 on the reserves issue from me too.

[Great_Ajax]

NP Michael We have these kinds of discussions all the time through emails and the development forum. Sometimes I win a little victory and a change gets done and sometimes I can't. Many of the changes depend on current priorities and the difficulty of the task. When I lose, I just bide my time until the discussion pops up again and then I add my two cents. I will say that Pavel, Joel and the 2by3 team always listen and even though I get frustrated at times, I understand the resource constraints.


Trey

[Capitaine]

In appreciating the game, I think it's important not to let "perfect" be the enemy of "good".

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is some confusion here. *I am talking about zoc to zoc*

I always have been. This is another problem. Getting the message across. I am not concerned with changing ownership, or moving into enemy hex costs.

Friction, stickiness, zoc to zoc, crossing a river in to a zoc. These are what matter.

I cannot understand why you think it's a non issue. But you don't so I will just have to leave it. But I can't believe after all this you guys still don't see what I am on about.

I will provide an example of what I mean:

If a Panzer Division moves between two regiments the added cost is +8, same as if it tried to move between two tank corp. That is what I mean by stickiness. Thats why a carpet is so effective.

If Pavel said to me words to this effect: You can have the existing zoc to zoc rules OR you can have reg/brigades with no zoc at all I would say remove zoc to zoc costs for these units. It would be better.

Another problem here is general wargaming experience with operational games. A lot of guys here Mechfo, for example and others know exactly what I mean. But Red, Warspite and Loki I don't think know really what I mean.

Again. The current rules are saying that a security regiment can influence the movement of a passing unit in an adjacent hex to the exact same degree as a whole hex full of tank corp or Panzer units.

Should I perhaps post a screenie with two examples? Would this clear it all up?

I know exactly what you mean but used entering a ZOC as an easier example as many of the challenges are similar. ZOC to ZOC adds 4 points to the cost. That provides a little more flex in the rule set. Please post screenshots if you wish.

I never said it was a non issue. I did say that it was less of an issue for WitE2. This is very much like the process I went through with Pelton about combat losses. Before I ask for a change I understand all the facts first.

[Michael T]

Ok give me some time and I will do some shots. Right now I am building a chicken coop.

[notenome]

About the zoc cost thing (bearing in mind I am massively rusty with this game)

I think part of the challenge is that whilst unit size should have an impact on zoc, one should also remember that blocking detachments are valid (and in the time period, frequently used) strategy.

I honestly can't think of a good solution to this though, especially since move costs in open terrain are so low there isn't much wiggle room for granularity.

The best I can come up with is to make it a check where you would have a normal zoc movement penalty (as you have it now) which could be halved (the penalty) if the interfering unit fails a check.

So out of ten, for example, (commander inf or armor rating/2 + 2/4/6 (brig/div/corp) or something like that.

Which would make some sense, Raus (iirc his name correctly) in his book spends a good deal of time detailing how in the early days of Barbarossa his regiment was isolated for a couple of days by a single KV tank that would neither die nor move from a critical road junction. You want it to be possible for interference to occur without necessarily mandating it.

That said it is a rather complex solution and WITE already has an awful lot of rules.

[rmonical]

Variable strength zones of control could add a lot of color to the game. I especially like it if there is an element of variability to the ZOC strength check. Not sure about the complexity it introduces since the calculation must be performed at the beginning of each turn and again each time the defending side yields a hex. The algorithm could make the ZOC weaker or stronger based on the units exerting influence into the hex. Longer ranged indirect fire weapons would have the greatest influence. If you consider a movement to contact for a deliberate attack. The whole thing becomes an adventure.

As a note, HPS Smolensk shows Soviet divisions deployed fully forward defending 18-19 KM with a battalion every 2 KM. This is similar to regimental breakdowns in WITE with 2 regiments per hex.

[Michael T]

I can't post any screen shots here for some reason. I will try again later.

[Michael T]

Here are some screenies of what I am on about. Note the MP cost as the Mech units move past the weak Soviet brigades/reg. Each unit has from 700 to 2000 men. They exert the same strength zoc (and hence MP cost to bypass) as any other unit or stack of units you can imagine. A 50% strength security reg = a hex of 3 X 100% full strength divisions in the case of zoc to zoc OR zoc across river costs.

Case A

[Michael T]

Case B

[Michael T]

Case C