WitE 2

[enricoix]

I first met this game 4-5 months ago and really got quite attached to it (thanks to XTRG's brilliant streams)
During the streams, I fell in love with Jison's map which to be honest was a motivation for me to buy the game in the first place !
This outstanding map is really something ! To enter the small towns with my armies, surround big urban hexes, defend within the forests etc. So beautiful overall...

Then like a month ago, I bought WitW also. Despite the new air missions system, I couldn't really get into that game as much as WitE.

Frankly, I believe that the maps of the vanilla versions really need improvements. (especially WitW)
Here is my humble request : please take more than enough attention to the map ! This is one kind of a (big) detail that makes the difference between a good game and an excellent game.

And my question is : you said that the game would be out in 2020. When should we expect it? Q1 Q2? I know answering these type of questions are not easy but do you have an estimation?

[M60A3TTS]

@enricoix: At first I shared your concern about the map. I loved Jison's mod as well. That said, the map in WiTE2 at this stage is looking very good. They have put a lot of effort into it. Sorry I can't say more than that.

[budd]

ORIGINAL: enricoix

I first met this game 4-5 months ago and really got quite attached to it (thanks to XTRG's brilliant streams)
During the streams, I fell in love with Jison's map which to be honest was a motivation for me to buy the game in the first place !
This outstanding map is really something ! To enter the small towns with my armies, surround big urban hexes, defend within the forests etc. So beautiful overall...

Then like a month ago, I bought WitW also. Despite the new air missions system, I couldn't really get into that game as much as WitE.

Frankly, I believe that the maps of the vanilla versions really need improvements. (especially WitW)
Here is my humble request : please take more than enough attention to the map ! This is one kind of a (big) detail that makes the difference between a good game and an excellent game.

And my question is : you said that the game would be out in 2020. When should we expect it? Q1 Q2? I know answering these type of questions are not easy but do you have an estimation?

I also really appreciate a well done map. Did you try the mapmod for WITW?
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4369252

[enricoix]

Thanks for your response guys.

Yes, I am using that mod for WitW. You are right, it is much better than the vanilla map for sure.
But personally, I don't think that's in Jison's map league.

[Joel Billings]

Part of the map issue is that the WitE1 map was done as a painted map while the WitW and WitE2 maps are done with tiles. Tiles give us tremendous flexibility when dealing with changes in the map (weather, seasons impact on trees, etc.). It also made it much easier to correct errors or update the map to reflect data changes (not insignificant given how much data goes into a game like this). In a static comparison, you can't beat the look of a painted map, but there are these other factors. John has done an amazing job improving the WitE2 map while adding in these variables that make it a much more living map.

[thedoctorking]

I felt as you did about the map and the Jison map mod, but after playing WitE2 for a few months, I think the new map is pretty good.

[enricoix]

Cheers. Can't wait to see it. (and pretty excited about the game itself)

[jimmyPx]

I'm very excited about WitE 2. I know that you have people currently Apha testing but will there be a Beta test down the road ?

[Joel Billings]

I expect that there will be a beta test phase before release. Right now we are working on the interface facelift and that should be done in the next few months (the final artist has just started his work). We're also working on changes to the air game. The ground game has been effectively at beta for several months, but we need to get the air game to that point along with the interface changes to say we're at gameplay beta. The air changes are going to require some rework of the AI, including providing some automated help for players. Until that happens it will be tough for some players to pick up the game. We may add a few more testers between now and the beta phase, but I expect we'll be adding many new testes when we hit the beta phase.

Once we start getting some of our final interface art into the game, we'll try to provide some screenshots.

[fran52]

There is the possibility to have a what if?Barbarossa start in May as originally planned.

[loki100]

on release? I doubt it.

But the game editor is far more useful than in WiTE1, so its a lot easier to construct scenarios, what-if events, conditional events and so on.

But I'm not sure if this allows a shift of the T1 date.

[fran52]

But I'm not sure if this allows a shift of the T1 date.

This was the probelm wite1.

[rob89]

Hi all,

I don't know if the topic has already been discussed (in the case I apologize), but I would like if the future WitE2 :

- will use, if desired, the correct German & Russian nomenclature, and so for ex.Abteilung and not Battalion, or SD/TK/MK and not Rifle Division, Tank Corps, Mech Corps, etc, without system problems (level of unit, calculation errors, etc.)

A so complex and detailed simulation should not have basic issue like the organic unic level (Batl, Rgt, Div, etc.) linked to a pre-defined, not parameterized, suffix or the movement point calculation linked to a particular, hardcoded, description (RAD-Abteilung, RAD-Baubataillone ==> 'R.A.D. Labour Group' ...)

- will use, if desired, the correct German and Russian ordinal number system (ex. 1.Infanterie-Division or 1.SS-Panzer-Division, etc., for WH, 1 SD or 1 TK, 1 Gv.TK, etc., for RKKA) without generating hundreds uf units with the 'horrible' 1st, 25th, etc.

thanks and regards

[loki100]

two very partial responses. In general the OOB is far more accurate than in WiTE1 and generally has more historically accurate nomenclature, even the Soviet civilian airforce has the proper suffix for the one transport formation that was assigned to the VVS. Overall there are a lot of changes to WiTE1 in this regard.

But, some names are embedded all across the code which makes any change tricky (at best) or near impossible.

Also there maybe a bit of a distinction between the titles of historical formations and those used to capture the more flexible design of the Red Army.

[jwolf]

Is there, or will there be, the possibility of allowing minor or small random variation in the initial deployments? The goal would be to try to minimize efforts at perfect plan opening moves which are based on unrealistically perfect intelligence of the defenders' position and strength.

[Naughteous Maximus]

ORIGINAL: rob89

Hi all,

I don't know if the topic has already been discussed (in the case I apologize), but I would like if the future WitE2 :

- will use, if desired, the correct German & Russian nomenclature, and so for ex.Abteilung and not Battalion, or SD/TK/MK and not Rifle Division, Tank Corps, Mech Corps, etc, without system problems (level of unit, calculation errors, etc.)

A so complex and detailed simulation should not have basic issue like the organic unic level (Batl, Rgt, Div, etc.) linked to a pre-defined, not parameterized, suffix or the movement point calculation linked to a particular, hardcoded, description (RAD-Abteilung, RAD-Baubataillone ==> 'R.A.D. Labour Group' ...)

- will use, if desired, the correct German and Russian ordinal number system (ex. 1.Infanterie-Division or 1.SS-Panzer-Division, etc., for WH, 1 SD or 1 TK, 1 Gv.TK, etc., for RKKA) without generating hundreds uf units with the 'horrible' 1st, 25th, etc.

thanks and regards

I've already done this to the Germans in my own mod. I looks really good. Its a lot better than having both English and German used to describe formations.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Is there, or will there be, the possibility of allowing minor or small random variation in the initial deployments? The goal would be to try to minimize efforts at perfect plan opening moves which are based on unrealistically perfect intelligence of the defenders' position and strength.

I agree this would be very nice. As things are now, It makes T 1 almost redundant. Simply a few small changes in the initial deplyment of both axis and SU would make things more unpredictable and interesting.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: No idea

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Is there, or will there be, the possibility of allowing minor or small random variation in the initial deployments? The goal would be to try to minimize efforts at perfect plan opening moves which are based on unrealistically perfect intelligence of the defenders' position and strength.

I agree this would be very nice. As things are now, It makes T 1 almost redundant. Simply a few small changes in the initial deplyment of both axis and SU would make things more unpredictable and interesting.

What might be interesting, is to have a larger random of TOE for the SU initial set up, by 1 June c75-85% of TOE was achieved for front line formations, while c50% for the second echelon arising from the 950k call up in the last 2 months of reservists, and the time spent in transit to bring up existing strengths, and create new units etc. So by havinga larger random number for SU initial strength you can find the SU either at historical levels, (May 179 Rifle Divs and 21 more added in June) given above, or higher/lower mobilisations levels for both increasing first echelon strength and the number of formations raised, ie a quicker mobilisation level according to the MP41 plan.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: Hanny

ORIGINAL: No idea

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Is there, or will there be, the possibility of allowing minor or small random variation in the initial deployments? The goal would be to try to minimize efforts at perfect plan opening moves which are based on unrealistically perfect intelligence of the defenders' position and strength.

I agree this would be very nice. As things are now, It makes T 1 almost redundant. Simply a few small changes in the initial deplyment of both axis and SU would make things more unpredictable and interesting.

What might be interesting, is to have a larger random of TOE for the SU initial set up, by 1 June c75-85% of TOE was achieved for front line formations, while c50% for the second echelon arising from the 950k call up in the last 2 months of reservists, and the time spent in transit to bring up existing strengths, and create new units etc. So by havinga larger random number for SU initial strength you can find the SU either at historical levels, (May 179 Rifle Divs and 21 more added in June) given above, or higher/lower mobilisations levels for both increasing first echelon strength and the number of formations raised, ie a quicker mobilisation level according to the MP41 plan.

I think that would simply give the germans more men to bag in some games. In T 1 there is nothing the soviet player can do about it. The first turn is all about bagging, so I think changing where some units are placed, especially if they are strong units, could be a nasty surprise.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: No idea

ORIGINAL: Hanny

ORIGINAL: No idea




I agree this would be very nice. As things are now, It makes T 1 almost redundant. Simply a few small changes in the initial deplyment of both axis and SU would make things more unpredictable and interesting.

What might be interesting, is to have a larger random of TOE for the SU initial set up, by 1 June c75-85% of TOE was achieved for front line formations, while c50% for the second echelon arising from the 950k call up in the last 2 months of reservists, and the time spent in transit to bring up existing strengths, and create new units etc. So by havinga larger random number for SU initial strength you can find the SU either at historical levels, (May 179 Rifle Divs and 21 more added in June) given above, or higher/lower mobilisations levels for both increasing first echelon strength and the number of formations raised, ie a quicker mobilisation level according to the MP41 plan.

I think that would simply give the germans more men to bag in some games. In T 1 there is nothing the soviet player can do about it. The first turn is all about bagging, so I think changing where some units are placed, especially if they are strong units, could be a nasty surprise.

In some instances thats correct, in others, the opposite. T1 is out of the SU players hands, but having a larger random mobilisation level means the SU formations will be at a larger range of TOE, some games more than the historic level and other games less than that level, had more arrived quicker during mobilisation, or the 39 TOE remained in use, then more can be bagged easier, however if more are at 41 TOE and slower arriving at formations, then the T1 formations could be vastly under TOE and instead of being bagged, remain in being to be used by the SU, increasing instead the next number of formations, in the next echelon of raised formations from these unused assets. Ie a faster mobilisation of the millions of trained reservist acording to the 41 MP.