WitE 2

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: Kronolog

Is there any possibility that you will extend the map all the way to Murmansk in WitE 2, and include the units fighting there?

I too would like to know that. Opens some interesting what-ifs, and does justice to Finland's effort.

[LiquidSky]

Yup...here is Murmansk

[morvael]

It's on the map, yes. But is there action planned (units etc)?

[LiquidSky]

I can't imagine them having this map and not using the area provided. Although in the interest of full disclosure, I know nothing about what is or isn't going to be in WitE2. This map is from the editor in WitW.

You should buy it, it really is a fun game.

The map is so large, I can only fit a small amount of it on the highest zoom out.



EDIT: It obviously looks like a work in progress. Since they started last week I wouldn't read too much into this.

[morvael]

Yeah, it would be a waste not to use this area, but there is a precedent: both WitE and WitW shows part or all of the Balkans, yet you can't invade there and fight.

[Great_Ajax]

Airfields have been added and I am adding the new units to the OOB now.

Trey

ORIGINAL: morvael

Yeah, it would be a waste not to use this area, but there is a precedent: both WitE and WitW shows part or all of the Balkans, yet you can't invade there and fight.

[morvael]

Lovely!

[chaos45]

The issue with the far north is it will need some pretty good supply/force stacking restrictions otherwise whats to stop a side from overcommitting there where in real life it was a really low troop density due to terrain/weather/supply issues.

[LiquidSky]

WitW uses depot supply. HQ's don't supply their subordinates.

So logistics will place a brake on Axis aggression as Murmansk is supplied by rail (and perhaps sea) whilst the Finn/germans up their won't. The amount of supply/ammo your unit has will be how strong the unit is. So theoretically the weaker Russian units will be stronger and more numerous because they can supply more.

I suppose that a supreme effort using air transports might cause a problem. But even so there are a lot of hexes between Leningrad and Murmansk and I bet not enough Axis to cover it all.

[loki100]

I'd agree with LS.

That sort of sector is where the WiTW logistic model will shine. No need for special rules, just the frustration that you have to deploy slightly less troops than you can supply or you will never, ever, be able to go over to the offensive. And spend an age slowly watching the supply in small relatively isolated depots build up to the point that you can risk an attack.

Add in a good weather/terrain effects model and you'll capture why the front was mostly static despite the huge prize of Murmansk

[TitaniumTrout]

Murmansk sounds interesting, but I'd hate to see feature bloat on an area that might not add that much fun. Just because it's on the map, Murmansk, or the Balkans, doesn't mean it adds meaningful gameplay.

At a certain point it's a slow front that just adds more clicking and micromanaging without much chance of materially impacting the game much.

[chaos45]

Also was static because politically the Finns didnt want to push on. So will need a factor for finn stop line like current South finn stop line in WiTE 1

The reasons the Soviets didnt crush the finns in LW and accepted terms is because the Finns didnt push the murmansk rail line and didnt push south on leningrad when they could have early in the war. It was finnish politics that had them fight a restricited war because they knew in the event the Germans lost they would have no negotiating tools if they caused the Soviets to much damage- revenge an all. Some comment about Stalin remembering the favor the finns did early in the war. The finns werent fighting a total against the Soviets like the Soviets/Germans were against each other.

The Political/national will of the axis-allied nations is something often forgotten about in these types of games.

Another thing you could bring up in WiTE 2 is the possibility of Germany bringing Turkey into the war. Would give more motivation for a far south drive by the Germans to reach the turkish border- which was another reason I think the Germans pushed so hard into southern russia- wasnt just oil but political gain with neutral parties. Also taking all of the south and murmansk could result in alot of lendlease being lost for the soviets as most of it arrived via those 2 routes.

[hugh04]

Going back to the idea of morale and how it is modeled. As earlier suggested tactical doctrine and morale really should be separated. For the soviets, you could base improvements in tactical doctrine to losses incurred. These losses could be total, on attack or on defense. At the beginning of the game soviet troops would perform poorly and suffer very high casualties when attacking and defending. After X amount of losses they would graduate to a better combat efficiency score. You could even give bonus's in increasing combat efficiency by saying more losses suffered in a defined time frame get you even more of an increase combat efficiency. This is separate from better weapons. At there best weapons are married to a tactical doctrine and the combination of both is what made units perform better.

[Joel Billings]

At the moment we are planning on including the entire Finnish front, but it's very early in development. There are some real issues with including all that land in the north. We may have to allow on map battalion sized units (like we do in African scenarios in Torch) in the far north as the AI won't do well if it is not able to build some kind of a line. In fact the political rules/restrictions and the limitations on the AI will probably be pushing us hard in this area. Bottom line is we'd like to include it, but we also have to build a game the AI can play.

[sven6345789]

I would recommend using Murmansk in an extra scenario that might last from June 1941 till December 1941

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Silver_Fox

Otherwise you would probably need to many extra rules on this level the game has.

So include an extra "Silver Fox " Scenario if there is time for it.

Another possibility would be something like a Murmansk Box, with players allocating units to it. Problem will be that it will be exploited.

[Manstein63]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

At the moment we are planning on including the entire Finnish front, but it's very early in development. There are some real issues with including all that land in the north. We may have to allow on map battalion sized units (like we do in African scenarios in Torch) in the far north as the AI won't do well if it is not able to build some kind of a line. In fact the political rules/restrictions and the limitations on the AI will probably be pushing us hard in this area. Bottom line is we'd like to include it, but we also have to build a game the AI can play.

This would be really cool if it can be done for WitE 2.0
Another couple of suggestions

Instead of having just a west front box could it be split into France, Italy & Africa, & perhaps the Balkans if that isn't included on the main
WitE 2.0 map

I'm surprised no one has asked for this but could it be possible that you can swap Tank SPG & AG from the units & into & out of the pools as you can do for aircraft, as It seems a bit odd for you to have an elite formation like the SS & GD panzer genadier / motorised divisions running around with 38ts & Panzer III's in their units when a non elite panzer division has a compliment of Panthers & Panzer IV's.Also the StuG battalions being able to swap out the StuG IIIB for the Stug IIIG. The same should apply for soviet tank & mech corps why have T34/76's in an elite formation when you could have T34/85's

Another thing if possible give us the option to use the computer controlled rail repair units manually if desired.

Manstein63

[tiger111]

Please don`t spend too much time utilising the far North of Findland. You`ve got enough to be getting on with I`m sure.

Have Finnish Front as an expansion later.

Best to keep initial map similar to WITE.

Also expanding the Western Front box to France,Italy,(Afrika)is good idea.

Just my puppence.

[sillyflower]

Here's my penny's worth in no particular order whilst I await the .05 hotfix

1 Map scope fine for campaign game. Any more and you are up against the law of diminishing returns both in game terms and also impact on limited design time better spent on more key areas.

2 I like the idea of increased MPs for going over hexes fought over in player's turn. Worked well in Next War. It meant that it took my Soviets 3 or 4 turns to crush NATO rather than 2 or 3. Does not have to be the same for both sides all the time. For eg, it could dis-applied to Germans' for T1 and ?T2, and the impact on Russians diminish later on as they got more skilled.

3 Combat system needs revamp. Massive complexity under the hood which doesn't really affect the end result - or that's what it seems to me anyway.

4 Losses. I understand the arguments for but we need a game that works. As has been written, losses are low vs history, but there were many in uniform not in game so their losses are invisible in game. Also, I imagine that many RL casualties have short term injuries ie less serious than WiTE's disabled category. I have just got, but not yet read, 'The Rzhev Slaughterhouse' by Svetlana Gerasimova. In it she says that over 15 months the Red Army lost 2 million casualties -just over 30K per turn in WiTE terms, which would be unworkable.

5 An end to super ants. This was a very irritating problem in GG's excellent predecessor game and surprisingly/sadly also WiTE itself. Suggest some sort of overrun rule where MP cost for divs/corps attacking ants is removed/diminished and whereby ants take the big losses instead of the attacking bigger unit(s). David v Goliath only happened once, and then only because there was just 1 Goliath.

5 Supply. I don't have any original ideas but I've always thought HQBUs were a ludicrous, if necessary, fudge. WiTW seems to be much better, tho' that's only from what I have read about it.

6 To make russians attack in early stages - why not make it a requirement? In the old (SPI?) board game 'Objective Moscow' I think Warsaw Pact had to make X attacks in each of the 1st 3 turns at a minimum of some odds ratio.Failure to do so meant instant loss of game. I also used to have a large East front board game, ? name but made in about 1990, of '41 Southern front where there was also a requirement for soviets to make X attacks in first y turns. Failure meant a morale penalty or something, or it might have meant russians got some reward for achieving the target number. The point is that it can be very simple to impose such a requirement or make it something the Russian will want to do.

7 You could do the same to replicate Hitler's 1st winter 'stand fast' order.

NB These last 2 might be better as options (or more sensibly combined a single 'historical' option) as not everyone will like them.

8 I like the idea of VPs per objective per turn held. Easy enough for a computer to do as it will encourage the holding of ground for real strategic/political reasons that players do not currently have to consider.

9 Get Jison to do the map

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

At the moment we are planning on including the entire Finnish front, but it's very early in development. There are some real issues with including all that land in the north. We may have to allow on map battalion sized units (like we do in African scenarios in Torch) in the far north as the AI won't do well if it is not able to build some kind of a line. In fact the political rules/restrictions and the limitations on the AI will probably be pushing us hard in this area. Bottom line is we'd like to include it, but we also have to build a game the AI can play.

The book The Winter War would be a good place to start.

Light reading here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Silver_Fox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala

Reading the historical records Finland is clearly under rated in WitE.

I don't see a few Finnish Regiments wiping out Russian Corps or Finland Bleedding Russia in 44 to the point they(Russia) had to agree to terms with Finland.

Finland was the only Axis Country to survive without the USA or Russia running the show.

Northern Finland sucked as far as logistics went then ADD in weather and terrain.

WitE 2.0 will have to have special weather and terrain or it simply will not beable to reflex the historical facts of operations in the area.

I know people will throw in there politic responces, but the facts remain the facts.

Finland surived WWII unlike the rest of the Axis, because Stalin did not want to be embarrasses again by a country with 3.6 million vs 200 million.

Lol when you can't even get it done in summer of 44

Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive

[HMSWarspite]

I am glad we have got back to a more focused discussion. There are now some good points being made.

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Here's my penny's worth in no particular order whilst I await the .05 hotfix

1 Map scope fine for campaign game. Any more and you are up against the law of diminishing returns both in game terms and also impact on limited design time better spent on more key areas.

+1. Not going to reject it if supplied, but do not do it if there is a significant cost in time and effort,and especially if the AI struggles. An off map 'box' (a la WitW EF box) if you must, but it wasn't important and could never be at a EF 1941-45 level. Even given the carrot of cutting a major lend lease port, the Germans/Finns didn't prosecute seriously. Tell you anything?

2 I like the idea of increased MPs for going over hexes fought over in player's turn. Worked well in Next War. It meant that it took my Soviets 3 or 4 turns to crush NATO rather than 2 or 3. Does not have to be the same for both sides all the time. For eg, it could dis-applied to Germans' for T1 and ?T2, and the impact on Russians diminish later on as they got more skilled.

+1. The only objections so far seem to be based on concerns as to what it would do in WITE1, which is irrelevevant. Also, rolling over a typical 1-1 takes very little MPs, so you really are not going to have much effect on T1 of WitE2.

3 Combat system needs revamp. Massive complexity under the hood which doesn't really affect the end result - or that's what it seems to me anyway.

Not so certain here. I think the biggest issues with the losses may not be the pure combat system, but I am prepared to debate it. But first we need data. And not just losses by army by year. I do not understand how the engine reflects the intensity of combat. If the defender doesn't want to fight (RL), it is hard to inflict heavy losses in the 'combat', but of course the withdrawal (lets call it that to differentiate voluntary and involuntary retrograde movement) must be properly executed or it will become a retreat. I haven't seen a detailed discussion of how the engine actually works (although there are lots on the effects!)

4 Losses. I understand the arguments for but we need a game that works. As has been written, losses are low vs history, but there were many in uniform not in game so their losses are invisible in game. Also, I imagine that many RL casualties have short term injuries ie less serious than WiTE's disabled category. I have just got, but not yet read, 'The Rzhev Slaughterhouse' by Svetlana Gerasimova. In it she says that over 15 months the Red Army lost 2 million casualties -just over 30K per turn in WiTE terms, which would be unworkable.

5 An end to super ants. This was a very irritating problem in GG's excellent predecessor game and surprisingly/sadly also WiTE itself. Suggest some sort of overrun rule where MP cost for divs/corps attacking ants is removed/diminished and whereby ants take the big losses instead of the attacking bigger unit(s). David v Goliath only happened once, and then only because there was just 1 Goliath.

I am very against 'special rules'. The key to the combat system must be that the basic mechanics are robust and produce a plausible range of results across as wide a range of situations as possible. Any special rules tend to produce a discontinuity in the results curve, which gives opportunities for anomalous results or player exploits.

5 Supply. I don't have any original ideas but I've always thought HQBUs were a ludicrous, if necessary, fudge. WiTW seems to be much better, tho' that's only from what I have read about it.

6 To make russians attack in early stages - why not make it a requirement? In the old (SPI?) board game 'Objective Moscow' I think Warsaw Pact had to make X attacks in each of the 1st 3 turns at a minimum of some odds ratio.Failure to do so meant instant loss of game. I also used to have a large East front board game, ? name but made in about 1990, of '41 Southern front where there was also a requirement for soviets to make X attacks in first y turns. Failure meant a morale penalty or something, or it might have meant russians got some reward for achieving the target number. The point is that it can be very simple to impose such a requirement or make it something the Russian will want to do.

Again, I hate special rules and they should only be used for one off unique situations (like Pearl Harbour for example, where the preparedness of the port was way outside of any realistic war footing). The key is to work out WHY the Russians attacked, and address that. That is, provide similar stimuli and choices for the Russian player...

7 You could do the same to replicate Hitler's 1st winter 'stand fast' order.

Again, special rules disease. You need to consider what you want the game to reflect. Who is the Axis player? Is (s)he Hitler? Or the Army high commands with Hitler above? Players generally seem not to like being forced to do things. On the other hand, in front of Moscow in 1941 I think the stand fast order is not a bad thing to do , so the game needs to reflects that as a valid choice. Later on it is less so. Players also seem to dislike VP driven bahaviours, but the Germans could have a parameter (morale, or something) that rewards a forward defense.

I dont like cutting down the damaging effect of the first winter on GE. But I can see why a GE player would like to be able to prepare (with training/winter clothes). However unless the effect of that is reflected (less other supply, delayed reinforcements), the game is in danger of having a very detailed historical micro level and a fantasy macro one... I am rambling a little.

NB These last 2 might be better as options (or more sensibly combined a single 'historical' option) as not everyone will like them.

8 I like the idea of VPs per objective per turn held. Easy enough for a computer to do as it will encourage the holding of ground for real strategic/political reasons that players do not currently have to consider.

9 Get Jison to do the map

I like the idea of VP per turn. This addresses so many odd tactics, (first winter mass withdrawal, lack of aggressive defence) rather neatly, as well as reflecting issues outside of the game (political/diplomatic aspects etc).

Final point. The game should avoid where ever possible 'scripted' events like national morale changes. They should be driven by on map results - cities changing hands (preferably by number not name - dont want to force axes of attack), losses, number of units in play etc. If National Morale is kept at an amalgam of doctrine and true morale, it could rise with number of combats (maybe wins counting more than losses) and fall by casualties and cities lost etc)