Matrix Games Forums

Hello and thank you for the excellant AAR and taking the time to explain various game components. I sold my soul to WiTPAE for a number of years but I'm tempted by this new version of WitE! A couple of questions (and I apologize if you answered these before. First, are the VP set up so that the Soviets are always directed to the Ukraine in 1943 or is there a random element to that. Second, same question on the off map events; are some of these scripted to always happen on the same date. For example, do the Germans always get a manpower bump post Stalingrad? Thanks!

...

ORIGINAL: John B.

Hello and thank you for the excellant AAR and taking the time to explain various game components. I sold my soul to WiTPAE for a number of years but I'm tempted by this new version of WitE! A couple of questions (and I apologize if you answered these before. First, are the VP set up so that the Soviets are always directed to the Ukraine in 1943 or is there a random element to that. Second, same question on the off map events; are some of these scripted to always happen on the same date. For example, do the Germans always get a manpower bump post Stalingrad? Thanks!

At the moment there are not many conditional/variable events, so the VP chart is fixed and some events are fairly hard coded in time and others move around a bit.

The extent that you as a player can ignore the VP schedule is one of those nice trade offs. If you are doing a wee bit better than history, you suddenly gain a lot of freedom. I played a Stalingrad-Berlin test (as the Axis) and my opponent had a good 1943 which gave him the option to pick and choose in 1944 where he went. In this game, I had a fairly disastrous (in VP terms) 1941 and am now paying the price - I need the bonuses so need to focus on the Ukraine where the 1943 targets are. A human opponent could exploit this, knowing where I need to focus, the AI isn't that subtle.

Some events are hard wired, with marginal variability. I think the way to read the Stalingrad event is even if 6 Army escapes its suddenly clear to the Nazi leadership that this war has turned against them and they'd better go to full mobilisation as a result (or that there is a glimmer of a chance for a final victory and its worth hurling everything into the pot).

Others start with an average occurance date and then get shifted back or forward depending on relative progress in the Theatre Boxes. So for eg, the Axis are scheduled to surrender in Tunis come May 43 (give or take a little bit of random variation). If they have done better in N Africa (& on balance they have in this game), that gets put back. In turn the invasion of Sicily goes back, if I recall the Allies don't enter Italy proper till November or December 1943. Now some of this is secondary/out of sight, but some of the later game Axis boosts come off the progress of the Allies so if that is slowed, the boosts come later (but on the other side their running losses are much less so more assets for the war vs the Soviets).

As I mentioned in the post, Finland is one of these. At the moment, we're trading gains and losses in the timescale but I'm building up a lead. Once I trigger the on-map conditions for Finland to start looking for the exit door, then that sequence of events can be sped up due my over-commitment into the Northern Theatre. So best to think that its still the static front between me and the Finns but all my build up is causing heavier losses in the low intensity warfare and undermining their will to carry on. When the main Karelian offensive opens, they collapse quicker.

Thanks! I appreciate the explanations!!

ORIGINAL: Pocman

Hello Developers
will the German Language be supported?

Not at release. Since WitE was localized, it's possible that eventually we will get WitE2 localized given there is a system in place we could update to help us with this. We wouldn't be inventing the wheel. However, it's a huge job.

Hi joel
Thanks for your quick answer. When wite came out it was in English and for me, for example, not playable because it is a monster and my school English was not enough to understand the game.
Well maybe the German manual is enough to understand wite2.
Best regards from Germany
Pocman

19 June 1943

This report takes the game up to T104

Background

23 May saw three Soviet Fronts go over to the offensive. Western Front tore open a 30 mile gap in the German lines [1] and elements of 5 Shock Army pushed 40 miles west.

As an aside, the red box is a paratroop drop, not the best of ideas but I was testing out the new UI functionality.



To the south, Central Front attacked around Bryansk but was hampered by the poor terrain.



In the northern Ukraine, Bryansk Front attacked but failed to break through [2].

As a side note, the interlinking of Voronezh Front (holding the actual front line) and SW Front in the rear is the ideal layout, SW Front builds CPP and Voronezh Front can build trenches and, relatively safely, hold the front line without too much commitment (= lower attrition losses).



By 5 June, German counter-attacks drove back the southern prong of Western Front and stopped Central Front. However, the Soviets were now only 20 miles east of Smolensk and Bryansk Front on the outskirts of Sumy.

The following week saw Western Front stall but Kalinin Front managed to clear it's northern flank. The pressure mounted on the German defenders as Central Front broke out and Bryansk Front made further gains.



T104

By 19 June, Kalinin Front had made substantial gains north of Smolensk while Western Front had managed to outflank the city to the north, even as its southern formations were hit by sustained counter-attacks.

Central Front took advantage of the Germans falling back but mostly was re-organising around Bryansk for the next major offensive.



To the south, Bryansk Front had stalled due to counter-attacks and being over-extended (that pocket to the north).



In the Donets Basin, the Axis forces were steadily falling back to their new defensive lines.



Losses – as to be expected I am losing the tank-tank exchange at this phase but I did destroy my first Panthers – or more likely they just broke down.



And the OOB – the linked discussion on the air war may explain why I have half my air force in the reserve. Some is lack of command capacity on map but mostly it is coping with the losses and the need to train my new pilots.

Other than that, no big changes – except the Germans have even more tanks than before and they are getting better.

My reserve contains the equivalent of a complete Combined Arms army (my emergency) and formations training up.



[1] This should be the standard tactic with a well rested Soviet offensive, as a result the armour can move through with no ZoC delays. If the attacks win at over 10-1 (hard to achieve but feasible) there is no combat delay (as long as the ZoC rules are met), reflecting a decisive quick victory. Its then party time.

[2] My goal is to create a salient around Sumy and the basis for an encirclement when SW Front strikes, I can't commit everything as I still have truck problems and also gain from successive blows by fresh (or refreshed) Fronts.

You can see the truck situation using the turn summary chart:



My units on average are 10% short of trucks and I have a minimal reserve. I can cope with this but do not want to make it worse, I also need to bring more armoured and artillery formations to the map.

So that is the opening stage, Western and Kalinin Fronts will deliver Smolensk in the next few turns well within the +6 time limit. I can then be opportunistic moving west in that sector, in theory Minsk is a 1944 target so any further gains are a bonus not a necessity.

Less relaxed about the Ukraine, Bryansk Front has stumbled into a hornets nest of counter-attacks (the beaten units shed their CPP and MP), the hope is that the Axis forces are being run down too. No scope to do anything further south but follow up - not least as my supply net there is now under strain. So all depends on the blow that SW Front is in a position to launch ... and if it can be sustained.

The Air War

Decided to split this into a separate post as the original was becoming rather long.

Red Lancer has just discussed the game mechanics so again I'll focus on their applicatoin.

Best I can say for the air war is the VVS is doing what I need it to do. The issue is (as below) my losses are almost unsustainable both in pilots and modern planes. I only train 225 pilots a week so the reality is an air group takes heavy losses, picks up untrained pilots and needs to go to the reserve to train them. If I don't have trained pilots, a unit will replace its losses with untrained pilots.

Fortunately I have a bit of a conveyor belt system in place around this but I am short of almost 1,000 pilots compared to the notional capacity of my air units. So losing 500+ a week is not really helping me turn this corner.



I have a number of Gds air groups (76 at this stage) that have a +5 morale bonus that in turn feeds into better experience levels. The process of gaining Gds air formations is completely different to WiTE1.

Now this shows the new CR and some of its functionality. Those of you with WiTE1/WiTW will recognise the basics but it has been reworked from first principles and is far more flexible now. Here I have selected just Gds air groups that are on the map or in the reserve (I have a few in the Northern Theatre but I can't touch them).

Note how many are in the reserve (SR) as I train up the replacement pilots – most of the formations in the reserve have been given obsolete I-series fighters to train on (my losses of modern stuff outweighs my production at this stage).

Last small item, I have some FB formations trained as ground attack not fighter formations (Bmr not Ftr). Over time these will increasingly use the rather nice Yak-9T but for the moment most are using types that have a rocket load out and I'm using those for interdiction rather than GS (they take more losses than my Il-2s in that role as they are not so well armoured). The interdiction is handy not so much for affecting troop movements (this is not France in June 1944) but as a further niggle on the German supply network.

I am using the heavier bombers of the Long Range Air Command to hit major rail yards behind the German lines. They have to be important depots and by damaging the rail yard I reduce the capacity of the depot. This is probably of more use in 1941 and 1942 when the Germans are moving forward but its a useful mission, and I lack much else to hit with those types of bombers.



In an earlier post, some one asked how do I know if GS pays off. Lets take one battle as it shows a lot of the dynamics. First worth noting I wasn't taking chances so this isn't a marginal instance (later on I have wins where its clear it was the GS that tipped the scales).

So as in WiTE1/W you have the option to expand the summary battle report and we can see the Axis had 1124 ground elements at the start of the battle and my airpower destroyed/damaged/disrupted 125.

Worth noting that WiTE2 also has a rule where having GS bombers present causes some extra disruption over and above any direct hits. This reflects the confusion and loss of command and control caused by having enemy bombers flying over your formations. And, of course, is another reason to stick to GS, even when it appears you are losing really badly (such as the Soviet player in 1941).



Remember the sequence of play here, GS is executed first and none of those elements will now take part in the rest of the battle (and of course do not count for determining who wins/losses).

So 10% sounds good, but I could have been bombing their catering corps? So if you want to know more, lets open the 'ground losses' tab. Those of you with WiTW will recognise this.




Well I did hit their catering corps but also things of much more value. The Germans didn't have many tanks and 7 of their Pzr IV are out of action already. My GS has also hit their artillery hard with 42 AT and artillery pieces out of action.

The artillery is particularly useful as the battle now proceeds in stages with the longer range stuff firing, then the final close assault. So those knocked out guns could have disrupted a lot of my infantry who instead reach the German positions in good order.

If you want to carry on poking around, look at the ground combat tab, this shows what German elements inflicted losses on me and at what range (and vice-versa). But here, lets stick to the air war.

As is clear, my fighters paid a price and they were pretty much the most modern machines in the VVS. But no match for the Fw-190s.



The final screen, if you are interested, breaks that down even more. The key variable is pilot skill – there is just no way at this stage of the war that I can match that.

As my losses start to come down (but not till 1944), I do start to have some very high skill formations as better planes, more wins and less LW interference allow me to build on my successes – at the moment a Soviet fighter pilot who wins an A2A interaction is probably only delaying their demise by a few weeks.

Also note the Soviet fighters are either in a close escort role to the Sturmoviks (escort) or have been called in as a form of CAP to engage directly with the German fighters (patrol). The patrol formations fly to the battle zone at a higher altitude which gives them a small advantage.



So, to go back to the question. That is how I know that GS is worth it, but equally that I am paying a high price. Those Soviet fighter formations will now have low morale and may even fill out with poor quality pilots – if they do that then they need to return to the reserve to train (the AI-assist routines will do this for you automatically). Fortunately I have their replacements already flying into the local airbases for next turn.

Loki,

Thanks for the detailed explanation of the air war. One question, are these resources that the Soviets/Germans could direct elsewhere as in produce more tanks or trucks etc... or is it a matter of the game gives you so many planes/pilots so you might as well use them even if they all get shot down because there is nothing else you can do with them?

yes, all things being equal production is pretty much fixed. The industrial model is, as far as I recall, simpler than WiTE1 in that there is less player agency. The factory evacuation system is historical, so all that part of WiTE1 game lore drops out, you can't place your U2 factories where they will be captured etc.

Equally, in the main arms pts are less of an issue. So for named tanks/planes you have a fairly fixed chassis production and then a (not very) variable per turn production of the actual planes/tanks you use. Most of the rest is done to demand but with production caps (and most often the production caps are lower than likely demand).

So you have a few choices. One of the other testers is very organised and sets budgets for losses/turn and tries to work within that envelope. I tend to see these as assets to use for particular goals (which is also my mindset in WiTW). To be fair, his method works as well, so its different routes to much the same end point.

But yes, my pilots can't become infantry men (or the other way around), if I'm not watching my T34s blow up I don't get more Yak 1Bs in reward.

Even with my mindset, its notable I ended this game with much lower air losses than the VVS suffered historically.

At the moment my logic is that crudely I have modern planes for about 60% of the air groups, I'm losing 500+ pilots a turn and train 220 a turn. So the other 40% of the VVS becomes a huge training programme, take in untrained pilots, give them older planes, let the group hit 50+ experience and bring it to get slaughtered. If I can keep that flow more or less in balance, then that is my budget (so I will stop air operations for a given air army if I realise its losses are running much too bigh).

Its not till fairly late into 1944 that my front formations settle down as a stable set of air groups

edit - the other constraint comes from the fixed air bases and their relative location. With the exception of the LL P40s/P39s and Soviet Yak-9 D/DD, Soviet fighters are very short ranged. So on some sectors I built up the airbase capacity to bring in more but elsewhere its hard to get them into action in any case. As I push west, this becomes a bit of a larger issue, so for eg Eastern Poland is stuffed with airbases (thank you Hermann, they were for the German build up in 1941), Western Poland is bereft of the damn things

Thanks so much for your detailed AAR's and system explanations, Loki! I have some questions on the Turn Summary screenshot please:

1) In the OB Changes section, for afv's it shows Map -171, TBs 10. Does this mean that for the turn, after all replacements, reinforcements and losses, that your On Map forces lost (net) 171 afv's, while your Theater Box forces gained (net) 10 afv's?

2) For manpower, the Theater Box(es) is -7,607 men. Does this indicate a moderate or high intensity level of combat in the Northern or Finnish Theater Box, or is this just normal attrition up there?

3) The Logistics section of the same Turn Summary shows trucks in units as 260k / (273k). Does this mean your units contain 260k trucks but need 273k to operate at full supply and movement efficiency? If so, wouldn't that be 5% under TOE (260/273 = .95) instead of "My units on average are 10% short of trucks"? I'm not trying to quibble, just want to make sure I understand. [:)]

4) To the right of the trucks it shows Tons Rec 43512 (33539). Does this mean your combat units needed 33,539 tons of supply for the turn but actually received 43,512 tons? Why are there not similar #'s in parentheses for ammunition?

5) Fuel Tons Dif. I assume this means Tons differential received by units. Since it's a positive number, they received 71.8 tons more than required?

Thankyou,

Mark

ORIGINAL: MAS

Thanks so much for your detailed AAR's and system explanations, Loki! I have some questions on the Turn Summary screenshot please:

1) In the OB Changes section, for afv's it shows Map -171, TBs 10. Does this mean that for the turn, after all replacements, reinforcements and losses, that your On Map forces lost (net) 171 afv's, while your Theater Box forces gained (net) 10 afv's?

2) For manpower, the Theater Box(es) is -7,607 men. Does this indicate a moderate or high intensity level of combat in the Northern or Finnish Theater Box, or is this just normal attrition up there?

3) The Logistics section of the same Turn Summary shows trucks in units as 260k / (273k). Does this mean your units contain 260k trucks but need 273k to operate at full supply and movement efficiency? If so, wouldn't that be 5% under TOE (260/273 = .95) instead of "My units on average are 10% short of trucks"? I'm not trying to quibble, just want to make sure I understand. [:)]

4) To the right of the trucks it shows Tons Rec 43512 (33539). Does this mean your combat units needed 33,539 tons of supply for the turn but actually received 43,512 tons? Why are there not similar #'s in parentheses for ammunition?

5) Fuel Tons Dif. I assume this means Tons differential received by units. Since it's a positive number, they received 71.8 tons more than required?

Thankyou,

Mark

Hi Mark

1) yes, exact, I am running down my tank stocks as losses>replacements (& that will get worse)

2) at this stage, the TB losses are just routine attrition, if I recall the combat intensity in Finland is low

3) yep, I'm sometimes a bit sloppy in my figures. You can get your trucks in unit>need and that is a safety net, so my 10% is a mental adjustment to that

4) again yes, not sure why that is not shown for the next 2 lines (you can see it in the full detailed production screen)

5) again yes.

Key is units set to supply priority 4 and with 100 CPP can receive and store > 100% of their notional need for supply/fuel/ammo.

So SW Front is sat there and its not just passive, each turn I stock up a bit more in the key formations. So when they are committed I have maybe another turn of in-unit resources than otherwise so just that bit less reliant on the depot system - so its an insurance against being cut off. Thats one reason why in the first turns, while its always a good idea to cut off the Pzrs, it makes little difference till they have expended their pre-war stocks.

Roger

The process of gaining Gds air formations is completely different to WiTE1.

Oh come on now you can't just say things like that without elaborating [:-]
Also are there any new aircraft in WITE2? I see a few new ground elements and the new patrol and torpedo bomber categories for aircraft.

the Soviets have an enduring lack of heavy artillery up to early 1944

I'm not getting how exactly Armaments work in WITE2 I guess. Is there some hard coded limit on heavy artillery production like cav squads in WITE1 or is there another cause for this?

ORIGINAL: keitherson

The process of gaining Gds air formations is completely different to WiTE1.

Oh come on now you can't just say things like that without elaborating [:-]
Also are there any new aircraft in WITE2? I see a few new ground elements and the new patrol and torpedo bomber categories for aircraft.

the Soviets have an enduring lack of heavy artillery up to early 1944

I'm not getting how exactly Armaments work in WITE2 I guess. Is there some hard coded limit on heavy artillery production like cav squads in WITE1 or is there another cause for this?

ahem ...

what happens is that the AOG commands flip to Gds status on their historical dates (similar to the process for creating Gds armies), when that happens 3 air groups convert. If the AOG is in use then first choice is 3 air groups under its command (each can control 1-5 air groups), otherwise there is a bit of a random element as to which are chosen

quite a few new plane types, I think. Given I haven't had WiTE1 on my PC for at least 4 years this might be a bit wrong but you get Soviet naval patrol and torpedo formations and a new group of short/mid-range recon assets (one a variant of the Yak-7b, the other based on the Il-2 and originally used mainly as an artillery observer). I don't think there is much change to the main combat list, I think the late war LL stuff like a few P-47s and P-63s were in WiTE1? The Germans get some patrol planes and there maybe a few more exotic bits and pieces in their allied airforces.

In theory the production model is much the same but most of the artillery is produced up to a capped limit that reflects historical production allocations. The Soviets pretty much stopped heavy gun production in late 41 and only started again in 1943. In practice those hard wired limits are of far more importance than how much HI you have or how many arms pts you are producing.

The other cap is the production of new units. You can only have 14 cavalry corps and unless you manage near catastrophic loss of cavalry divisions, you won't be able to build any more than your start OOB + scripted reinforcements - combat lost. So, I think, cavalry squads are produced to need, but you can't generate that much demand for them.

From a play point of view, you can pretty much ignore the entire production system, it does its thing out of sight and produces equipment for the army. So I guess its a step back from some of the odder aspects of WiTE1 where you had more agency than really fitted your role? There are a lot of useful in-game screens and map modes and, to be honest, I rarely look at them.

Thanks! This is all very helpful and I may take the plunge and buy the game when it's released. I fear a very long newbie learning curve. Lol, I should apply to be a newbie beta tester to see how hard it is to learn the game to at least play against the AI!

we've put a fair bit of effort in the documentation to trying to ease getting into the game. There are sections where the 'why' and intent rather than the how are the focus and there is a section that simplifies the rules to the key issues. Add on a fair bit of AI-assistance, Red Lancer's next post will cover this but you hand over most of the air war and the logistics systems to the AI (& it does a decent enough job).

Given (I think) a much better UI, that a lot of systems are tucked out of sight (like the production model) its a bit easier to navigate.

The big challenge will be not to play it as if its WiTE1 with a new map and few bells and whistles. The temptation exists as clearly some the game architecture is immediately recognisable to previous GG games.

ORIGINAL: MAS

4) To the right of the trucks it shows Tons Rec 43512 (33539). Does this mean your combat units needed 33,539 tons of supply for the turn but actually received 43,512 tons? Why are there not similar #'s in parentheses for ammunition?

No, this means you received 33539 tons and needed 43512. Any insertion of a comma into supply numbers, logistic pools and or OB changes is strictly verboten!

Also altitude, no commas allowed there either.

Our developer who art in Matrix
Hallowed be thy name
give us today, date and month this title be released
and lead us not into temptation ...

Loki indicated the opposite (43512 received, 33539 needed). He went on to say that his HQ was building up excess supply so it had insurance against being temporarily cut off from supply. Final Arbitration please?

Look mom, no commas in my numbers! But couldn't we at least have some commas in the 6 and 7 figures?

well I have access to a secret document (aka the manual) and for the main production screen, the explanation is below. Now I can map those numbers between the production screen and the turn summary screen so I stand by my interpretation.



No idea if the comma issue can be solved, it may be trivial depending on where the data is stored and how to convert it for display or it maybe a significant programming effort to achieve.

I sit corrected. My intent was to again point out the need/desire to present data in a more friendly/readable format. (136900 versus 136,900)

No idea if the comma issue can be solved, it may be trivial depending on where the data is stored and how to convert it for display or it maybe a significant programming effort to achieve.

Thank you and it would perhaps be wise for someone to definitively ascertain the triviality or significant effort involved to present number data in a more familiar format. I would certainly vote "Hell No" if the effort is significant to the extent it would add to the timeline. "Hell Yes" on the other hand, if trivial more accurately delineates the effort. I greatly appreciate the team's work and empathize with the astounding complexity of the task, thank you again.