WitE 2

[Great_Ajax]

My suggestion for support unit management was to create templates for German armies and Soviet Fronts based on the mission the player envisioned for those units. So if a player selected a "Priority Mobile Attack" template for a specific Panzer Army, the game would automatically remove and add support units to match the template. These templates would be configured to include the type and number of the various support units. You could even allow player created templates for even more customization.

Trey

[Icier]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I ought to highlight that in the new system moving SUs has in impact on logistics and costs freight (like replacements). There is no magical movement of SUs across the map.

I think that is a great idea & I would like to see the SUs stationed in the Army's H.Q. & its the
HQ that doles out the SUs & on the following turn move back to the originating H.Q. & the costs
taken out first before the logistics.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Pelton

intuitive.

in·tu·i·tive


/inˈt(y)o͞oədiv/


adjective

adjective: intuitive

using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive.

Pelton

I'm sorry but I totally fail to understand the point you are trying to make?

As in WiTW I am sure you can build a detailed spreadsheet that combines depot capacity with typical unit needs and control it all that way. But as in WiTW this is a bit tricky as while the depot-unit relationship is clearly geographical units can pull supply from further away (at a cost in trucks). This is realistic enough as there are reports from July 41 of German formations sending part of their supply trucks back to Poland to grab supplies.

The consequence is I don't think there is a purely mathematical relationship between depot capacity and unit need on most of the map in good weather. Things are more problematic say in the Valdai where the Germans will struggle to get a decent depot system in place and once the weather starts to turn (when truck movement is restricted).

Now I'll be honest, I don't spend my gaming time looking for gamey exploits but since the game is being tested like everyone
I am looking to stretch game systems to see where they break.
So far the WiTE2 logistical model gives broadly sensible results consistently.
If you have discovered an exploit from WiTW don't you think you should share it?

48 hexes from the border in (5 turns WitE) ( 6 WitW ) is more then possible with WitW system as I posted in the WITW dev area.

The funny thing was that was my first run WitW, not my 300+ WitE run as per this SS.
So I can easy get 48 hexes now in 5 turns after 10+ runs WitW.

I am not exploiting a thing as my southern WitE opening is not an exploit - which is why I can
do it nerf after nerf year after year.

I am not exploiting a thing WitE or WitW I simply under stand how the logistic system works by the math like you,
but I am creative and play the system like a good piano player.

Most players simply hit the key board with a hammer, while I play music on the piano.

Just because one can read music does not mean one can "play" music. Loki learn to play the logistic system and stop looking at spread sheets [:-]

WitE and WitW play the very same way believe it or not no exploits needed.

[RedLancer]

Once again I have to highlight that WitW and WitE2 systems, though similar, are not the same.

In WitW a single depot, with sufficient freight, can supply an entire front using 10,000+ trucks. When you consider that the Red Ball Express had about 6000 trucks at its peak then you can see the problem. In WitE2 there are now limits on the amount of trucks a depot can handle.

Whilst agree that the behaviour of trucks is very very similar there are still some fundamental differences such as a WitE truck carring 1T and a WitW truck carrying 2.5T. Many of the anomalies in the WitW system did not become visible until applied to the longer distances of the East Front.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
Many of the anomalies in the WitW system did not become visible until applied to the longer distances of the East Front.

No surprises here, many systems exhibit this behaviour, they work well unless taken into extreme, where some shortages or restrictions start to apply.

[swkuh]

Would be quite nice to have some variability in map, opening positions (both sides,) and reinforcement schedules. Not a lot, but enough to affect "booked" openings, moves, etc.

[Stelteck]

Maybe one turn previous to the current start for the soviet and the german with all units fixed except some few "strategic reserves" that the player may be able to move where he want.

It could be interesting also to have a grand campaign that start at turn 3, with all historical initial movement and encerclement done and panzers low on fuel (but ready to HQBU and resume offensive operation on turn 4).

There is a similar scenario in WITP-AE and it is very interesting to decrease the importance of the "opening move", which seems to be quite an art on WITE but maybe not the core of the game.

The opening is really important in the game. Some people train/experiment to create the "perfect opening". Others copy the opening using AAR. As most experienced people do "perfect opening", the game is balanced around it, and people who fail their opening fail the game.

I think the opening is too important and is a huge issue for beginner trying to play in multi. A campaign that start "after" the opening will avoid this problem.

After that, the opening is only one turn.

[RedLancer]

Changing the started setup has been mentioned more than once and we have discussed its feasibility in game. If the AI is playing Axis then it is a total non-starter. To get the Axis AI off to a good start we have to script it and that doesn't work with location changes. We have changed the rules for reserve activations on T1 to make the first turn more variable for players.

We have two-ish scenario designers - el hefe and me with rjs28023. With all the other scenarios required adding one a turn or two later is too much of an ask to either write or test for balance. Of course the Editor is available to allow anyone to make any changes that they might wish and it is no different from that which we use to write the scenarios that ship with the game.

[Stelteck]

Yes i understand each scenario is a huge work. Maybe an add on [:D]

[rmonical]

Well, I do not want to mention T*ll*r in this context, but it is possible to take one of their save files and import it into the editor. [:D].
I would so much love to do that. I am so tired of doing turn 1.

[cardolan]

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Would be quite nice to have some variability in map, opening positions (both sides,) and reinforcement schedules. Not a lot, but enough to affect "booked" openings, moves, etc.

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

Maybe one turn previous to the current start for the soviet and the german with all units fixed except some few "strategic reserves" that the player may be able to move where he want.

It could be interesting also to have a grand campaign that start at turn 3, with all historical initial movement and encerclement done and panzers low on fuel (but ready to HQBU and resume offensive operation on turn 4).

There is a similar scenario in WITP-AE and it is very interesting to decrease the importance of the "opening move", which seems to be quite an art on WITE but maybe not the core of the game.

The opening is really important in the game. Some people train/experiment to create the "perfect opening". Others copy the opening using AAR. As most experienced people do "perfect opening", the game is balanced around it, and people who fail their opening fail the game.

I think the opening is too important and is a huge issue for beginner trying to play in multi. A campaign that start "after" the opening will avoid this problem.

After that, the opening is only one turn.

Thats exactly the reason I got burned playing WitE and eventualy quit playing it.

In WitE, as the Germans, you make a perfect first turn or you are toast for the rest of the campaign. Diving through the forums looking for the perfect movements and repeating them again and again... that was not fun.

Please, add some variability in the campaign. Also, variable victory conditions unknown to the players before they start the game would be great (maybe make this optional) For example:

One game could be:
+100 VP for GHC if Smolensk taken before turn 6, +300 VP for the SHC if smolensk taken in turn 6 or later for the SHC
+200 VP for GHC if Smolensk taken before turn 5, +200 VP for the SHC if Smolensk taken in turn 5 or later
+300 VP for GHC if Smolensk taken before turn 4, +100 VP for the SHC if Smolensk taken in turn 4 or later
+300 VP for GHC if crosses the Daugava with a tank division before turn 2
+300 VP for SHC if 100.000 or more German KIA in soviet counterattacks before turn 10

This way, no game will be the same.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
Blizzard: We have only just (this week!) added the first elements of this code. I don't want to get into specifics as things will no doubt change. Current rules include additional costs for truck movement, a reduction in Axis rail capability and frostbite rules to damage Axis ground elements and aircraft (reduced by terrain and fort levels). My view is that with increased losses the need to impose draconian blizzard rules is less to achieve historical parity.

Very good ideas. I would also add in a scaling element from unit supply. High unit supply stock reduces attrition, low supply sharply increases it. Idea would be that in forts/high supply/static situation a unit doesn't notice much, but suffers greatly from a sustained fight in the open. This also incentives the Soviet player to make that kind of fight happen i.e. attack over wide fronts during Blizzard to drive up attrition.


Regarding SU's. The Brigading addition is welcome, the rest I'd keep as it is. The problem is really GUI and management. My suggestion would be to create something like the CR overview for air units in WITW. All squadrons belonging to the different HQ units are visible and sorted according to HQ hierarchy.

This would provide a nice overview of what HQ has how many/which SU's. It would be very nice if the SU's command could be changed here as well, without having to go into the SU window.


Also support randomizing the Soviets if German player is human. I don't think it matters much vice versa. Would it be possible to have 3-5 different setups of which one is chosen randomly.

[timmyab]

It would be nice if Soviet divisions could directly attach a single support unit of certain types (maybe only up to battalion strength).

Has any thought been given to introducing NKVD blocking units as support units? A rule for this could be that you would need 3:1 for a retreat against a unit with a blocking unit attached, but casualties would be higher for the defending unit.

I would also like anti tank support units to kill a few more tanks than they do in WITE. The same applies to on map AT brigades.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

It would be nice if Soviet divisions could directly attach a single support unit of certain types (maybe only up to battalion strength).

....

you'll be able to do this. Add on with tank brigades purely as off-map and rifle brigades either on or off map, it will make sense to use the late 41/mid-42 typical Soviet shock army OOB - ie 5-6 divisions, a number of brigades plus extra SUs.

With prep pts and an attached brigade, you should be able to get a stack with around 20-25 attack cv (say 10-12 on the defense or after you have attacked once), add on the possibility of extra brigades being added from the HQ and you have a one-off (you'll lose the prep pts post attack) force capable of taking out most defensive positions.

edit: Also with the AT brigades possibly off map, I think they become more useful. Easier to assign to a sector where you think the Pzrs will be and they won't be that obvious to the axis player till they attack. I tend to find the current WiTE AT brigades essentially useless in that they take up a stacking slot far better used for another division.

[timmyab]

That all sounds sensible to me.
Actually the on map AT and tank brigades are pretty useful but not in a realistic way. More in an asymmetric warfare kind of way

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: morvael

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
Many of the anomalies in the WitW system did not become visible until applied to the longer distances of the East Front.

Once again I have to highlight that WitW and WitE2 systems, though similar, are not the same.

In WitW a single depot, with sufficient freight, can supply an entire front using 10,000+ trucks. When you consider that the Red Ball Express had about 6000 trucks at its peak then you can see the problem. In WitE2 there are now limits on the amount of trucks a depot can handle.

Whilst agree that the behaviour of trucks is very very similar there are still some fundamental differences such as a WitE truck carring 1T and a WitW truck carrying 2.5T. Many of the anomalies in the WitW system did not become visible until applied to the longer distances of the East Front.

No surprises here, many systems exhibit this behaviour, they work well unless taken into extreme, where some shortages or
restrictions start to apply.

The anomalies in the WitW system were VERY easy to see as I pointed out in the DEV area before alpha even started for
WitE 2.0. Nice to see you "found" some of them over a year later.

The basic logistical theory behind WitW/WitE/2.0 are all the same. The mechanics are different but they all play the same
music if you know how.

Just guessing with 2.0 of course [;)]

[Grubwurm]

I am going to get WitW with typhoon next month prob waiting for changes to my budget to work out to get a good idea of spending money.

If it is better then WitE as it is now - I really like the Sicily campaign and Africa - not so much the west front (just mass over quality ad infinitum). I read somewhere that for every front line combat soldier there was 72men in support.

Really Germany didn't stand a chance in the ground war with total air superiority. Hitler would have been better off just getting a good defensive line in depth and keep the superior units in the east. It would have delayed the end a little bit longer IMO. He had to go for the hail mary play tho.

WitE 2.0 is still at least 5yrs away correct?

[Icier]

Please, add some variability in the campaign. Also, variable victory conditions unknown to the players before they start the game would be great (maybe make this optional) For example:

One game could be:
+100 VP for GHC if Smolensk taken before turn 6, +300 VP for the SHC if smolensk taken in turn 6 or later for the SHC
+200 VP for GHC if Smolensk taken before turn 5, +200 VP for the SHC if Smolensk taken in turn 5 or later
+300 VP for GHC if Smolensk taken before turn 4, +100 VP for the SHC if Smolensk taken in turn 4 or later
+300 VP for GHC if crosses the Daugava with a tank division before turn 2
+300 VP for SHC if 100.000 or more German KIA in soviet counterattacks before turn 10

This way, no game will be the same.

[/quote]


Also doing something like this could alter Soviet tactics, so instead of seeing how quick the
Red army can retreat, maybe it would force them to stand & counter attack.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Grubwurm

WitE 2.0 is still at least 5yrs away correct?

I sure hope not. The original WitE and WitW each took about 4 years of development time. We're almost 2 years in already on WitE2.

[Grubwurm]

AWESOME I am glad to be corrected.