WitE 2

[rainman2015]

As regards making the game reflect history more, the most important things to me are:

1) Make the runaway strategy a non-starter, make it such that you WILL lose the game (for either side) if they play a runaway type strategy. Using NM will help with this, but the only way to really do it is with VPs that accrue turn by turn for cities, if you run too fast on either side, this can be setup such that you will lose the game by victory points, especially if you had a scenario with sudden death VP marks. MAKE them fight for the cities!

2) Make losses quite a bit higher, especially for the Germans (i know this horse has been beat to death on the forums), such that their army is actually bled white by spring 42 enough and they cannot be the force they were the year earlier, but Soviet losses are too low also of course, especially combat losses.

3) Make Soviet counterattacks during the first years (not just during blizzard) a really good thing for the Soviets to do. Right now, it is almost never a good idea, have to seriously pick and choose your time and place for any counterattacks.

4) Make supply more realistic (in the ways that WITE2 already does, so that one is done). Note that the more realistic supply also makes other non-historical things like the Lvov pocket opening, or the massive panzerball tactic in 42, or massing forces in areas where the rail could never have supported those levels of forces (right hook towards Leningrad?) much less viable, and also hopefully will recreate the lunge forward then stop and rest/build up supplies before the next lunge type of offensives that really occurred on the Eastern Front.

5) Make the air war more realistic, especially make interdiction a huge part of the air war (right now, it is just an afterthought) (in the ways WITE2 apparently already does, so that one is also done it seems)

WITE is already the best, most engrossing wargame i have ever played. Add the above, and it will 'feel' much more historical though.

Randy

[RedLancer]

I think (1) is the only one on your list that has not been actively addressed so far. We are nowhere near setting VPs yet so that option is fully open. Whether we use NM in a more flexible manner is in the initial idea stage rather than accepted approach.

[HMSWarspite]

The idea of combat potentially improving combat doctrine is a very good one. I don't think there needs to be a different rule for each side either. There seem to be two competing factors in play: practice/experience in actual combat conditions, and the loss of the people who have this experience faster than they can pass it on. I think we are not talking individual or squad proficiency being what makes the big difference, but rather battalion, regiment/division coordination and usefulness. This in turn is a function of the commander but also the leadership chain down to the squad. The best trained squad on earth wont do well when put in the wrong place, without enough food, support or information. The Russians learned a lot as the war went on because they had a lot to learn, and despite heavy losses were able to capture the learning. The Germans had much less to learn in absolute terms,and so combats mainly produced casualties and loss of effectiveness.

The chance of learning something new in a combat is a function of having the combat and how good you were to begin with. Say each unit in combat has a chance of gaining a 'NM point', which is say 1-currentNM/ Thus at 40% NM, you gain a NM point 60% of the time. you then set a NM exchange rate... say 1000 NM points are needed to raise NM by 1%. Maybe attacks gain 2 NM points to reflect that mobile combat (attacks) teach you more. Maybe double it gain if the combat is a successful attack.

Then, simultaneously with this, the general corporate memory suffers from casualties (as well as the national will eyc), so you have a negative NM point per x casualties. Thus a linear negative for causlaies (with a dfferent value of x for each side), but a reducing one for combat. So Russia will increase o NM to a degree ( the less the overall casualty count the higher it goes). Germany, being much better to begin wit wil struggle to rise, rather casualties would drive t down. Cities could also be used to modify it - offsetting some casualties...

[EwaldvonKleist]

Well lets end the discussion about NM here we have all described what we think and now Devs have to judge. Maybe it was the problem that you were more talking about the "whether" and i about the "how" but i don't want to go deeper into this and respect your opinion.

@chaos45: About the resting and soldier breakdowns:
A quote from you some posts ago:

Allies studied this effect extensively and its one of the reasons they rotated and tried to rest units more than the Germans...not to mention the allies usually had the units/men to spare for these rotations.

This made me writing my comment of disagreement because I have evidence against I have evidence against it (Creveld) and IMO what you wrote in this lines is just exactly the opposite of how history was. I agree with the rest of your post however some good points there (the original one and your answer to mine).
Good evening (at least from my point of view, not sure where you are writing from [:)] )

[chaos45]

yes I know I was fairly general- but both sides pretty much agree on the viewpoint of troops needing periodic rest.

The German commanders voiced it differently than allied commanders but for all effects it was the same argument and same viewpoints.

German commanders usually voiced this lack of a 3rd unit after 1941 basically as a lack of reserves/lack of fresh troops/lack of troops to exploit or create beneficial situations. It really all has basically the same reasoning for a command decision which is their troops were tired and fatigued and they lacked the fresh forces to fight the battle the way they would like. Fatigue builds up on the human mind over time and you need that rest otherwise your Soldiers performance will degrade and yes even the Germans knew this. Its why in the AGC which was somewhat quiet compared to the south they rotated units off the line to farm or do other non-combat duties when they thought the units could be spared from manning the front line. This in turn gave the troops a break from the War however limited the break was.

The allies did a more clinically extensive study but if you read the books written by German veterans that are truthful you will notice the same things being said about the effects on the troops over time. Also drug use of speed was fairly widespread in the early days of war Im sure causing other issues over time with combat effectiveness. Good short term benefits but once the war went on so long you start getting more and more negative effects from long term use.

German Soldiers did on the average perform very well when adequately trained, equipped, and led. So I have no arguments against superior german unit performance but they for a fact are not supermen as none of us really are. I can also salt my views with abit of real life Army experience at least in the US military in the modern environment. Luckily I havent been directly engaged in combat so far in my career but have spent time deployed overseas so know abit about what Soldiers go through over time....and psychological issues is honestly one of the bigger issues the Army still has during deployments.

In WW2 both sides had the same issues just culture and training differences in how they dealt with it you see instances of suicide by enemy fire being mentioned about several veteran german leaders as the war went on....my guess is this has something to do with the mental strain over time and not just for honor.

[rmonical]

Remember there is national morale at the macro level and combat experience at the unit level. My suggestion for pockets is no unit ever gets destroyed, it just takes much higher casualties when routing out. But gains experience. I want experience to possible be higher than morale - more like for air units. The experience/morale combination can show a lot more variability then is currently the case.

[Michael T]

How do people feel about the Partisan War in WITE 2.0?

I really don't like mucking around with the partisan stuff in WITE at all.

I would rather see no partisan units or security units at all. Simply adjust the supply formulae to account for the effect they had and save some micro management.

Interested in other players thoughts on this.

[NotOneStepBack]

I don't like bothering with the partisan war either, it's a nuisance at worst on the German side and on the Soviet side I usually have bigger fish to fry. Instead of straight abstraction, perhaps a middle ground could be achieved?

WITW handled it that you had to have a minimum amount of CV in a region or you'd lose massive VPs. I would say keep the CV req but if you don't have it in a region it hits supply rather than hurt your VPs

[Michael T]

I would say keep the CV req but if you don't have it in a region it hits supply rather than hurt your VPs

I like that. I hope it gets transported to WITE 2.0.

[smokindave34]

I agree - I prefer the way it is handled in WITW regarding the minimum CV. A supply hit seems more appropriate than a VP hit. I had some massive VP hits in WITW because I was 1 CV short of my garrison requirements for a week.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: smokindave34

I agree - I prefer the way it is handled in WITW regarding the minimum CV. A supply hit seems more appropriate than a VP hit. I had some massive VP hits in WITW because I was 1 CV short of my garrison requirements for a week.

As long as they address the rounding issue.

I did not care for the system.

If the area required 20 cv and you put 20 cv many times it was 19.8 or 19.9 and you think it was ok because you had 20.

The next turn you took a VP hit and you had 20 CV still.

Also because of unit ungrades/swapping ect unit CV could drop and again you were hit for a -20.

If they fix it I would be fine with that system, but the current WitW system would need to be fixed.

Even weather could change CV.

It was a pain in the butt, the current system require less thinking and hoping and praying.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Northern Star


What happens with the Baltic rail lines?

AGN was really not an issue for German. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were standard line before Russia annexed them and had not
converted most of the line over at the time of invasion.So they had engines,rolling stock and usable rail lines in place before the invasion even started.
Also Germans were able to supplement the rail transportation network
with sea-borne transportation and to a lesser degree, vehicular transportation modes as a result of the excellent maritime and
road networks in existence in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Thus, fewer rail units would be needed in the north. As far as during
the winter of 41/42 went the Germans were able to finish most of their gauge conversion efforts to such a degree that it was still
possible to send supplies from Germany all the way to the Leningrad front on one track system. During these harsh winter months, the
German conversion and supply shipment efforts could not have been as successful as they were had it not been for the willing
assistance of former Estonian and Latvian railway personnel. They provided the Germans with invaluable service and technical
expertise; doing so primarily because they were just liberated from the holocaust of the first Soviet occupation and did not
wish to see the Soviets return any time soon.

Supplies and good roads were never and issue for AGN until they were at Leningrads door step.

4th PG took Porkhov on July 11th and the 1st supply train arrived July 18th. That's 40 hexes in in 4 game turns.

The current WitE model 1.0 that is 8 turns 40/5=8

Is WitE 2.0 going to model this more historically?

Also will the good road net works of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania be "good" unlike most of the Russian road systems.

The Donets is another area that had "good" roads compaired to the rest of Mother Russia.

[RedLancer]

Garrisons and Partisans - These have not been coded yet. It is likely it will be similar to WitW as an abstracted system but remember the WitW system catered for the need to maintain historic garrisons and not just partisan suppression. To help (if needed) we now have regions coded in the map data. Sensible thoughts appreciated but as always no promises.

Rail - the rules are different as we now have double rail lines. We also have the underlying road system too. One of the new systems is that not all captured rail hexes need repair. This element of uncertainty prevents too much templating of opening moves. This is one area we are actively looking at currently as at the moment we feel auto repair is too generous but that is testing for you.

[Commanderski]

Has the weather been modeled in yet and will it be similar to how it acts in WITW?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Commanderski

Has the weather been modeled in yet and will it be similar to how it acts in WITW?

yes, it seems less variable than in WiTW but the effects are similar (in this respect it feels like a half-way house between playing WiTE with fixed weather and the more variable weather I feel you get in WiTW).

Notable that you get turns of rain with reduced combat/movement capacity but this does not reflect the binary mud/no mud of WiTE. Also the first turn with the autumn rains allows quite a lot of combat as it models how wet the sky is separate to how wet the ground is.

So if you get a turn with rain on dry ground, seem to lose about 20% of cv/mp compared to dry. But if you get a second week of rain (or heavy rain) then the impact is more substantial.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Garrisons and Partisans - These have not been coded yet.
It is likely it will be similar to WitW as an abstracted system but remember the
WitW system catered for the need to maintain historic garrisons and not just partisan suppression.
To help (if needed) we now have regions coded in the map data. Sensible thoughts appreciated but as always no promises.

Rail - the rules are different as we now have double rail lines.
We also have the underlying road system too. One of the new systems is that not all captured rail hexes need repair.
This element of uncertainty prevents too much templating of opening moves. This is one area we are actively looking at
currently as at the moment we feel auto repair is too generous but that is testing for you.

The WitW system would work with a few tweaks.

Doing some research,

Niemen river to Leningrad (double track)

•Bug river to Orsha to Moscow (double track)

•Bug river to Kremenchug to the Donets basin (double track)

•San river to Odessa (double track)

The four above named trunk-lines were intersected by only six major north-south running trunk lines:


•Koeningsberg to Kremenchug (double track)

•Riga to Orsha to Kharkov to the Donets basin (double track)

•Odessa to Orsha to Leningrad (double track)

•Sevastopol to Kharkov to Moscow to Archanglesk (double track)

•Leningrad to Moscow to the Donets to the Caucasus (double track)

•Leningrad to Moscow to the Caucasus (double track)

Converting DT was not any slower then single track as Germans per war plans put extra importance on this lines.

Looking up historical track rates, but they range from 10 to 12 miles per day which were much faster in Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania area as most of the track was standard which is why supplys from Germany were at the front in just 27 days 400 miles from start line.
+ the Europian port/road systems.

Seeing logistics is everything with WitW I like to see WitE 2.0 be as historical as possible logisticly.

AGC:Looks like the only area that was bad logisticly in Russia was the center as there were few good rail lines (not built on sand)
causing bottle necks.

AGN: The north was never an issue as per good port/road system and not much rail conversion required/ rolling stock/engines and personal.

AGS: short distance from Romanian / good roads in Donets / ports.

Still tring to find article I had sent to MT a few months back, thought I sent it to 2by3 also. Was very good gave all the +/- and historical conversion rates.

[morvael]

I think AGS has hard time logistically, very poor rail system through Romania, so you need to follow the line from Lvov.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think AGS has hard time logistically, very poor rail system through Romania,
so you need to follow the line from Lvov.

I am still digging in this area, but I see nothing that says the Romanian system was "poor" compaired to Russian
system. It was better over all then Russia's

Russian system was still WW 1 ish other then near Leningrad, Moscow and Baltic States ( paved roads also ) and Donets area. Roads in the south were better then north/center basicly because they were earyer to maintain because of weather.

Still digging on Romanian system and supply issues, hard to see why there were any as front lines were close to border for months because of hard Russian fighting. Logistics was not a big deal until after Kiev pocket fell and the dash for Rostov started.

[821Bobo]

The RR system in Romania could have been overall better than in Soviet union but did they have any west-east double track? Also I really doubt that they had any double track crossing Carpathian mountains and every transport from Germany have to cross Carpaths. Going via Lvov is more logical.

[morvael]

Guess Lvov was easily connected to Germany via multiple lines built in occupied Poland (it turned out the Germans built too much). I guess routing via allied but independent countries was much less efficient, especially that Hungary and Romania were hostile to each other. Remember, those goods had to come from Germany proper, and shortest and highest capacity route was straight east.