Multi-role changes?

[DarkHorse2]

I really do not understand what the new guidelines on rather a unit is intended to be Multi-role or not.

I thought I understood that the new guideline was that:

* Brigrades & Larger - multi-role=no
* Independent Regiments - multi-role=yes
* Independent Battalions - mult-role=maybe

But then when browsing through the game data, it appears that the guy making these changes fell asleep when he got down to the Soviet Brigades, as a bunch are still set to multi-role.

Like:

OB: 2125
41 Anti-Tank Brigade (SU/41)

SU Airborne Brigades

SU Naval Infantry Brigades

etc

[Joel Billings]

There's no hard rule about the designations. Generally things over 5k men are combat units (except for a heavy gun unit that we want to be allowed to be support as well as on map). The naval brigade looks like it's right on the edge. But this is art, not science.

[DarkHorse2]

Even using the 5k as a guide, all of the ones listed here were over 5k.

I believe the AT Brigade was over 7k.

I actually thought the multi-role feature was rather cool. Sorry to see it being discontinued for so many German units.

Thank you.

[SchDerGrosse]

I would also like to know whats the reason behind stripping almost all axis units of their previous multi-role status.

They are useless on their own but hey, at least they are a further burden on the already overstretched German command capacity.

The Soviets on the other hand does not seem to be affected by these changes and almost all of their units below the divisional level are still attachable.

[Joel Billings]

The AT brigade is all guns, the para units are 2-3k. The naval brigades I see are around 5300, so they are on the border.

[Beethoven1]

There's no hard rule about the designations. Generally things over 5k men are combat units (except for a heavy gun unit that we want to be allowed to be support as well as on map). The naval brigade looks like it's right on the edge. But this is art, not science.

Was this change intentionally made with the balance implications in mind at all?

And regarding the change where now mountaineers can have support units attached, was that an intentional change, or an accidental/unintended change? Is it intended for Soviets to have 22k man divisions in 1941 while Axis can no longer stack combat power to dislodge those super-divisions?

These two changes regarding multi-role units is the single most important change in the OOB 2 patch, but it neither of them is even mentioned in the changelog AFAIK.

Will anything at all be done to address the command capacity implications of this? It makes the already very bad command capacity situation for he Axis even worse. Basically you are forced to either send these units to theater boxes or to disband them now, because there is simply not command capacity available for them (even aside from the fact that they are extremely bad in combat when not stacked with divisions). Is the Axis player supposed to just disband RFSS for trucks at this point, or what exactly is it envisioned that they are supposed to do?

[Beethoven1]

And tbh I should add that I don't think that nerfing multi-role units is necessarily a terrible idea (if it were done right with some attention to balance). And it does make sense for, for example, RFSS to at least have lower morale.

The problem to me at least is it at least appears as though this is almost an accidental change, not even thought significant enough to mention in the changelog. So I think it is crying out for more of a rationale/explanation, and at minimum the command capacity implications should really be addressed and it should be tested whether it is still possible for Axis to break difficult hexes in 1941 or not, especially if they are fighting against triple stacked Soviet mountaineers with newly attachable SUs for the Soviets.

[SchDerGrosse]

There's no hard rule about the designations. Generally things over 5k men are combat units (except for a heavy gun unit that we want to be allowed to be support as well as on map). The naval brigade looks like it's right on the edge. But this is art, not science.

Was this change intentionally made with the balance implications in mind at all?

And regarding the change where now mountaineers can have support units attached, was that an intentional change, or an accidental/unintended change? Is it intended for Soviets to have 22k man divisions in 1941 while Axis can no longer stack combat power to dislodge those super-divisions?

These two changes regarding multi-role units is the single most important change in the OOB 2 patch, but it neither of them is even mentioned in the changelog AFAIK.

Will anything at all be done to address the command capacity implications of this? It makes the already very bad command capacity situation for he Axis even worse. Basically you are forced to either send these units to theater boxes or to disband them now, because there is simply not command capacity available for them (even aside from the fact that they are extremely bad in combat when not stacked with divisions). Is the Axis player supposed to just disband RFSS for trucks at this point, or what exactly is it envisioned that they are supposed to do?

Excellent point and I am also intrigued why these changes were necessary and whether the devs have taken into account the gameplay/balance implications of this.

[Joel Billings]

Balance implications are minimal as far as I can tell. How many new units are being forced to be combat unit that you want to be multi-role? For how long are these units around? My experience is this game is a like trying to turn a battleship, it takes major changes to have much of an impact on balance. A few units here or there doesn't impact much. What am I missing?

[GoodbyeBluesky]

Balance implications are minimal as far as I can tell. How many new units are being forced to be combat unit that you want to be multi-role? For how long are these units around? My experience is this game is a like trying to turn a battleship, it takes major changes to have much of an impact on balance. A few units here or there doesn't impact much. What am I missing?

This is honestly just plainly wrong. Many of those Units actually do stick around for the entire game such as the Motorized Brigades, the motorized infantry Regiments for the germans.

As people before said this is a pretty harsh nerf especially when you look at the fact that Rifle Divisions and Corps can double the size of the offmap counter by leisurely attached 15k men in the form of several Rifle Brigades/Tank Brigades.

The Command Point mayhem it will do is even worse. These units will thus be delegated to TB Boxes and thats it.

[Wild]

Not sure if it will affect balance or not. But I don't like the change just from a gameplay perspective. I will probably never use those units now as brigades on map are not very useful. I'll probably just disband them for the trucks.
Kind of a shame.

Also I agree command capacity should be higher. But I guess that's a separate conversation.

[Zebtucker12]

Not sure if it will affect balance or not. But I don't like the change just from a gameplay perspective. I will probably never use those units now as brigades on map are not very useful. I'll probably just disband them for the trucks.
Kind of a shame.

Also I agree command capacity should be higher. But I guess that's a separate conversation.

Its an easy thing to revert in the editor if you play singleplayer.
Otherwise you have to wait for my PVP MOD that will be launched somewhere around 2026.

[Wild]

I've never used the editor. I'm waiting for all the patching to be done before I delve in and make my own custom scenario.

I would hate to have to redo it after every patch. I may have to try your scenario when finished and give PvP a try.

[DarkHorse2]

I've never used the editor. I'm waiting for all the patching to be done before I delve in and make my own custom scenario.

I would hate to have to redo it after every patch. I may have to try your scenario when finished and give PvP a try.

100% agree

The user communities' ability to mod or customize WiTE2 was never a major consideration of this title.

There is no concept of iterative or transactional modifications to the underlying data-set. Or even the concept of obtaining and archiving deltas (differences), that could be reapplied after an official patch.

Outside of maybe some of the counter mods (which I am not 100% sure of), every patch completely overwrites all WiTE2 data, forcing data-modders to have to re-implement their changes from scratch. Even superficial, cosmetic modifications, such as renaming units, cannot be perserved from one patch to the next.

I had added the (mot) moniker to a number of artillery and pioneer units some 2 years ago, but quickly discovered they were impossible to maintain locally after every update. (this took Matrix 3 years (from release) to finally incorporate in an official patch something that was proposed a long time ago...)

So, the WiTE2-data elements that could be fixed by the community are not maintainable.

This is a real shame as a lot of the ongoing issues could have been addressed by the community if Matrix would have facilitated it.

---

I stand corrected, the following were dated May 2022, after locally implemented the modification and thoroughly testing. Also provided an example of how to efficiently mod the data.

---

WiTE2_SU_Rename_Mod.JPG (414.19 KiB) Viewed 921 times

WiTE2_Pioneer_Units_OBs.jpg (217.69 KiB) Viewed 921 times

[Beethoven1]

Outside of maybe some of the counter mods (which I am not 100% sure of), every patch completely overwrites all WiTE2 data, forcing data-modders to have to re-implement their changes from scratch.

This is a big problem. However, I think at least for some data changes it may be possible to preserve them from patch to patch, if instead of using the editor to modify stuff, you mod things using the CSV files directly, and either set up a script or spreadsheet formulas to apply the changes systematically rather than by direct manual edits.

However, this would only work for some data changes since I am pretty sure not EVERYTHING is in the CSVs, and it is (especially for players who lack technical skills) more difficult.

But it could be feasible in some cases like for the example of adding "(mot)" to the names of motorized units, or for things like changing the names of German corps from Roman numerals to more user-friendly standard Arabic numerals, or for things like increasing the morale of Romanian units etc.

[DarkHorse2]

I am familiar with trying to do the CSV thing, which is a pain-in-the-a** itself.

1. Lets say you take a CSV snapshot of their data.
2. You implement your local mod (in the game data).
3. Take another CSV shapshot (after you have modded the data)
4. If you do a diff, you still cannot get the increases/decreases to the values in CSV format. You only get a current CSV snapshot of the existing data. But even if you could get it, what would you do with it then? It cannot be subsequently applied, because the structure of the WiET2 data could have been changed / altered with new elements, units, etc....
5. And those are assigned specific table locations with hard-coded reference numbers.
(good luck with this...)

Part of the problem comes from the flat table format they provide for interfacing with their data.

Another problem is that they never "fully" integrated a modding feature into their product like their competitors. You can tell this from not establishing a directory structure for user mods.

In practice, (1) it would involve WiTE2 loading the baseline data and (2) WiTE2 subsequently loading user defined changes (or modifications) to that data.

These two data-sets would be kept separate & independent of each other - which would greatly improve the chances a mod would survive a patch update.

[RedLancer]

100% agree

The user communities' ability to mod or customize WiTE2 was never a major consideration of this title.

There is no concept of iterative or transactional modifications to the underlying data-set. Or even the concept of obtaining and archiving deltas (differences), that could be reapplied after an official patch.

Outside of maybe some of the counter mods (which I am not 100% sure of), every patch completely overwrites all WiTE2 data, forcing data-modders to have to re-implement their changes from scratch. Even superficial, cosmetic modifications, such as renaming units, cannot be perserved from one patch to the next.

I had added the (mot) moniker to a number of artillery and pioneer units some 2 years ago, but quickly discovered they were impossible to maintain locally after every update. (this took Matrix 3 years (from release) to finally incorporate in an official patch something that was proposed a long time ago...)

So, the WiTE2-data elements that could be fixed by the community are not maintainable.

This is a real shame as a lot of the ongoing issues could have been addressed by the community if Matrix would have facilitated it.

This is such complete and utter rubbish that a rare post is required.

1. WitE2 is more open to modding and customisation than any of the antecedent games. There is so much less hard coding than ever before.
2. It is absolutely possible to maintain one's own data sets between patches either by the locking of generic data, and/or preserving and post patch overwriting individual dat files and/or having renamed scenario files. I do. If you choose to mod a scenario then the very least courtesy is to rename it so any any update won't overwrite it and if the generic data is locked then it will be preserved.
3. Of course if you maintain your own data then any official data changes won't be included but the updates list those changes if you want to add them - normally they are not as broad as recently.

WitE2, WitW and WitE has the very same editor in game, which is open to all, that the official scenario designers use. The only element locked AFAIK is the ability to edit some of the map detail. However there has never been very many shared datasets or scenarios when compared to say WitP. Perhaps it is the complexity of the editor or the ability to play the AI thanks to Gary's efforts. Who knows?

[Beethoven1]

Balance implications are minimal as far as I can tell. How many new units are being forced to be combat unit that you want to be multi-role? For how long are these units around? My experience is this game is a like trying to turn a battleship, it takes major changes to have much of an impact on balance. A few units here or there doesn't impact much. What am I missing?

Here's the part that you are missing about why multi-role support units make such a big difference beyond what their limited size and number would suggest.

First of all, they are essentially fire brigade units, which can be teleported back and forth between OKH and the map every other turn. This means that unlike regular units which have to move normally, they can and will always be in wherever the most important part of the front is, and especially in whatever the most important particular hexes are. When they are sent back to OKH, they also will receive 130% supply and 130% ammo, and can be refitted and receive replacements without using freight (yes, this is obviously unrealistic, but Soviets can and do do the same thing, so if you take away the ability for Axis to do it but not for Soviets to do the same thing, that greatly affects balance).

Secondly, they are the only way you can stack more CV onto a single hex than what is normally allowed by just having 3 counters. Winning or losing a battle is binary, so this can make a binary difference between a hold or retreat in any given battle. So multi-role units are good for the same reason why, say, rifle corps are better than rifle divisions for Soviets.

Thirdly, they are particularly important to Axis for making and especially HOLDING pockets. What will typically happen in, say, 1941 is (assuming the Axis player bothers to go for pockets at all rather than just grind), after you form a pocket, you will see that there is a weak hex somewhere holding the pocket. You anticipate that the Soviet player will want to attack that hex to try to break the pocket. So after you have moved your units to try to hold the pocket, you attach whatever multi-role support units you can. Since the multi-role units teleport into position, then unlike the Panzer divisions and motorized division, they do not take fatigue from ZOC-ZOC movement, whereas the Panzer/motorized division holding the pocket while be fatigued, low on fuel/supply, and weak from having moved and probably attacked during the turn. As such, if you attach 1 or 2 of the RFSS brigades, or if you attach Lehr or Grossdeutschland or even various other units like the Oslo infantry regiment or whatever, that can easily double the CV or number of men who are holding a pocket closed. Simply put, if the Axis player has the ability to attach these SUs, the pocket (maybe) holds. If not, the pocket is broken.

Whether the Soviet player can win or lose a battle attacking that particular hex is absolutely vital to whether the pocket will hold or whether the pocket will be broken, because the battle result is binary (it will either be a hold or a retreat) and the isolation status of he pocketed units is also binary (either they will remain isolated or they will become unisolated).

As such, anything that nerfs multi-role units is a direct nerf to pockets, and shifts the meta further towards World War 1 grinding and away from pockets. If you cannot attach multi-role units to hold pockets, then pockets will be even easier for the Soviets to break than is already the case (and it is already too easy for them to break pockets). As such, no sane Axis player will try to form pockets, even more so than is already the case, and everyone will just do herding and deliberate attacks instead.



Here is a specific example that shows the difference multi-role units can make:

Here I was playing Axis against Stamb in Stalingrad to Berlin. I wanted to try to pocket his units along the coast of the Black Sea, isolate his units with naval interdiction, and subsequently eliminate the pocket in following turns:



So I sneakily moved Wiking and a Panzer division, as well as a few other units, to the critical point the turn prior. That is what that 29=x stack is. Multi-role units were vital to this plan, because I wanted to make absolutely sure that my attack would succeed (not necessarily a given with a level 3 fort on rough terrain) and also that I would subsequently be ale to hold the pocket (not necessarily a given either since hypothetically Soviets could attack with up to 9 rifle corps, each of which could have 3 attached rifle brigades. That could mean, in theory, a Soviet attack to break the pocket with as many as 400k+ men (each rifle corps can have up to ~45k men with the rifle brigades). Plus artillery etc.

Anyway, in this case I actually got lucky because Stamb randomly happened to have weakened his defense of the critical hex on exactly the turn just before which I was about to attack, he replaced it so that only a single rifle brigade (albeit a guards rifle brigade) was defending the key hex.

In this case, I probably could have attacked with less force (and was aware of that) due to the hex having been weakened, but I still wanted to make ABSOLUTELY sure that I won. Because I would only have 1 single shot at this. If it failed, Stamb would reinforce the hex next turn and my plans for a pocket here would be irrecoverable. So I attached plenty of support units to make absolutely sure, first of all, that I would win:



I then moved Wiking and a Romanian cavalry division onto the hex to hold the hex. Combined they had about 40k men.



Nearly half of those 40k men holding the crucial hex to make sure the pocket held were from support units:

Wiking SUs:



Romanian cav SUs:



In this case, the pocket was relatively safe because he did not actually have much nearby to attack with (that is one of the main reasons I thought it was a worthwhile operation), but you could imagine a similar situation where Axis is trying to do a pocket near Vyazma in '41 or '42, and Soviets have plenty to counterattack with. Can the pocket be held in that case?





Here is another example, a few turns later in the same game a few turns later.



Stamb and I were fighting over this one hex for about 5 turns in a row. It is important because it is a swamp hex, also behind a river along this rail line to Valdai. It is particularly important for 2 reasons. Either it is a great defensive hex for Axis (much better than defending the clear terrain behind it at Staraya Russa), or alternatively it is the key hex along the rail line Axis needs to have to be able to push into Valdai/Demyansk, and from there to at least potentially threaten to cut off the Soviet Toropets salient.

First I attacked it and occupied it with 1 division.

Stamb kicked me off and took it back.

Then I attacked it again and occupied it with 1 division and a few regiments.

Stamb kicked me off and took it back.

Then I attacked again and occupied it with 2 divisions.

Stamb kicked me off and took it back.

Then I attacked again and occupied it with 3 divisions.

Stamb kicked me off and took it back.

Then I attacked again and occupied it with 3 divisions AND ALSO attached multi-role units. I don't want to get too specific because it is an ongoing game, but let's just say that at least part of what I did to at least 1 division was this:



Notice one of those is the Netherlands SS regiment, the same one that a few turns earlier had helped Wiking to seal the pocket along the coast. But afterwards I sent it back to OKH, refit it and got it supplied, and then teleported it here to this important hex in Demyansk.

Without the multi-role units, that one division is much weaker, about 15k men:



But with the multi-roles attached, it was transformed into 25k men, which helped make sure I could hold the hex and have some time to build up forts against Stamb's rifle corps.



And what do you know, after that at least up until now I held the hex. And now I am building up the fort levels, so that with the forts subsequently it will become harder for Stamb to take it back. And either it can then anchor my defense in the area (much better than defending the clear hex behind it), or alternatively maybe I can push on and threaten to cut off his salient at some point.




And here is yet another example, also from the same game, a few turns earlier. Stamb was snaking forward with a Guards rifle corps without protecting his flanks, and I happened to have a bunch of high CPP mobile units around, and so I pocketed it. For this key attack to form the pocket, notice I used the Netherlands SS regiment. I could have maybe won without it, but it would have been a lot more questionable (or else I would have had to attack with a mobile unit, but then the pocket would have been less strong with perhaps 2 divisions holding it rather than 3)



I also attached as many SUs as I could to the panzer and motorized divisions which were holding the pocket (there were only so many available since it was only turn 3).

Despite the pocket looking fairly strong, Stamb managed to break it. That just goes to show you to what extreme lengths you have to go to to hold pockets, which is why multi-role units are absolutely vital for Axis:





Also note that in all of Stamb's attacks, he is using attached rifle brigades (which goes to show you how important multi-role units also are for Soviets).

I re-sealed the pocket, again using as many multi-role support units as I could (still limited numbers available on turn 4) to seal it as well as possible. Also notice that I have weird triple stacks including an air HQ and a FBD. This is intentional in order to make my units retreat the right way:



If Stamb were able to beat Grossdeutschland again, this time it would not retreat onto the hex along the blue arrow, but would retreat on the red line to the hex where I had a new full TOE 9=84 infantry division. And then he would be unlikely to beat that AND Grossdeutschland stacked together. Or alternatively, if he somehow managed to beat the 9=84 infantry division, it would retreat to the right onto Grossdeutschland, and then it would be hard for him to beat both of those together.



Anyway, so just within the first 8 turns of this game, that one Netherlands SS regiment was playing an important role in forming a pocket in Velikie Luki, forming and holding a large pocket in the Caucasus, and also in making sure I finally held a hotly contested hex in Demyansk. And it takes some time to get multi-role units set up (especially since many start in theater boxes), so if this were a Grand Campaign rather than StB, multi-role units would if anything be playing a larger role by this point in the game.

They are really the key enabler for Axis to hope to be able to do any sort of pockets. Without them, you may as well buy a world war 1 game instead. How about Gary Grigsby's 1916: The Great War in the East, anyone?






One last thing to think about. This is from M60s AAR from his game against jubjub:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2&t=398345



Jubjub is pushing north to try to cut off Leningrad at Lake Ladoga. To do this, he has to advance on a narrow 1 or 2 hex wide front. Frontal assaults in rough terrain are very difficult, especially if you can only attack from 1 direction (3 division max). I would bet strongly that jubjub has at least one RFSS brigade attached to Totenkopf here in order to be able to do this push (pretty sure they started this game before the OOB 2.0 changes).

Now ask yourself the question, what if they were playing with this change? Could jubjub still push? What if M60 brough up 3 of his best mountaineers, and attached 3 7000 man AT brigades to each of them and put 3 of them on the crucial hex each turn to the north-east towards Lake Ladoga, so that M60 could have up to ~66k men defending the key hex for the turn in swamp/heavy forest. Could jubjub still push towards Lake Ladoga, or would he run into a brick wall where he could no longer attack and M60 started being able to build up his fort levels?

[Wild]

Hey Joel,

Is there any plan to revert this change?

I ask because I'm starting a new game and if it will be changed I'll wait for the update. But if not, then I can start.

[Joel Billings]

No plans to change it.