The core problem with WitE+

[RedLancer]

[:(][:(][:(]  All this wonderful insight and opinion - none of which will move the combat engine or the game series forward an iota.  It makes me very sad.
 
I've been the Test Co-ord for WitW since late summer.  I stepped into the gap because I wanted to contribute more to WitW, no-one else would and I hope I've made a difference.  As I have tried to highlight in this thread any substantive changes to the Combat Engine will develop from where the WitW engine is now and not where the WitE engine is.
 
I don't substantially disagree with any of the comments made but for those of you posting (some of whom are already involved with WitW) if you really want to see a difference you need to put your efforts behind your wishes.  The game is an evolution so any changes will be based through play testing, gathering data and producing saves that show ahistorical results and then arguing cogently why things should change.  I take no pleasure in saying talk is cheap but why would the fulltime Devs (and I'm not one) rush to make changes based on a single forum post? I've seen this myself with standalone bugs - a simple post saying it's not working correctly can result in hours of effort to reproduce the error.  A detailed post with clear instructions, screenshots and saves reduces the burden on the Devs and allow a quicker fix.  Their time is finite.  Now scale that up against a game of this complexity. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[RBednar]

WITE has had extensive development and re-development time, and just the posted AARs show a tremendous amount of game play.
Many of these strategic problems have been published as pictures in these AARs.
As various patches have been installed, the flow of WITE has changed dramatically.

I recommend Matrix establish baseline historical scenarios with the moral set to typical values indicated
by the current rules. This could be done via computer output.
Then the following critical campaigns can be played concurrently by the testers:

June 22, 1941 to Dec 5, 1941
Dec 5, 1941 to May 1942
June 1942 to October 1942
November 1942 to June 1943
July 1943 to end of 1944
1945


This would allow the new fixes to be more quickly looked at covering the entire campaign (1941-1945).
It simply takes too long for several teams to each cover the entire campaign one or more times before the patch
is officially released.

In regards to helping you with WITW, I am finished with going back to college and now have free time after work again.
My signed agreement for WITE play testing was already turned in. I volunteer to be a WITW play tester!.
The combat system may not work very well when just one division attacks another,
like typically happened in North Africa and Italy.

Also, the 50 MP maximum may result in Rommel surrounding the entire British Army in a single turn!
In practice, one division attacks just part of another, and achieves local 3:1 superiority.
When did 3 divisions attack 1 division in North Africa or Italy?
The only convincing example I can give is during the Battle of the Bulge.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Maybe we should go back to the original topic of this post, the combat engine.

I don't find the combat engine to be such a failure as is suggested in this thread. It needs some minor adjustments regarding retreat losses especially in regards to AFVs. My suggestion is to make retreat losses much more dependent on morale. This would automatically reduce retreat losses for the Axis in 41 as it should be. Later in the war this would be reversed.

When you turn the Combat Resolution Level up a couple of notches (4 or 5) you can see some interesting details. For example the losses ratio is not so unrealistic at first. I mostly get ratios of 3:1 or higher despite huge numerical superiority. The retreat losses screw everything up once the winner is calculated.

Another surprising aspect of the combat system is the effectiveness of artillery regarding AFVs. In a recent combat 40 out of 130 destroyed AFVs were caused by Russian artillery. The remaining 90 were caused by retreat. I'm not a military historian but this seems very high. The chances of a Howitzer destroying a Panzer III or IV seem pretty slim. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course, you can also adjust your tactics to avoid certain retreats mentioned in the manual that will cause additional and sometimes catastrophic retreat losses.

Just some ideas.

[hfarrish]

Does artillery include AT Artillery? Then that might make more sense...

[Bozo_the_Clown]

In this case it was really just 152 mm Howitzers that did most of the AFV damage.

[chuckfourth]

Hi John
Thanks for your reply.
No Offence but I did supply an example of how the Combat engine could be improved which did required a bit of thinking as well as typing.
tm.asp?m=3428981
I don't think that anyone disagrees that the combat engine could be improved.

I have no Idea wether the relevant authorities have any interest in my contributions or not.
I have no Idea wether my contributions are or would be relevant to the WITW combat engine.
For instance using the example Panzer grenadiers and their taxis in my previous post.
Does or Will the combat engine in WitW treat panzer grenadiers the same as infantry or not?
Do the relevant authorities care if panzer grenadiers are treated as infantry or not?
If they were Id be happy to write the use cases for this or any other agreed changes to the combat engine (obviously I have a lot of other changes in mind as well)
So yes I am willing to help in this regard.

Best regards Chuck.

[Aurelian]

The howitzers could be used in either indirect or direct fire.

By 1943 they had HEAT rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_how ... 938_(M-30)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_how ... 37_(ML-20)

[chuckfourth]

Hi Aurelien
The problem is that the 152mm howitzers are divisional or better artillery.
That means that they are far -behind- an entire Russian (for arguments sake) infantry division.
That means for them to fire -directly- at the German tanks The German tanks must have rolled over at least one third
of a Russian Division.
The Current combat engine assumes they fire directly at the German armour from the start. wrong they cant see it
In fact they will often fire directly before the smaller calibre infantry weapons because of there longer range. Wrong.
The Current combat engine assumes that all weapons in a line facing the enemy. wrong they are deployed in depth.
When the tanks do arrive they are much more likely to bug out then fire Heat at the tanks.
Please see tm.asp?m=3428981
The Combat engine does not model indirect fire weapons at all, all weapons are assumed to fire directly. wrong
needs to be fixed in witw and wite2

Best Regards Chuck.

[Michael T]

The Current combat engine assumes that all weapons in a line facing the enemy. wrong they are deployed in depth.

If this is true its completely idiotic and no better than an arcade game. Please tell me it ain't so...

[chuckfourth]

Hi Michael
Its true alright
All you have to do is watch the details of the battle.
Besides the already mentioned complete absence of indirect fire weapons firing indirect, there is also
AT guns popping off at the first infantry they see and getting nailed, instead of -waiting- for the tanks.
They have I believe made AA fire less often at ground targets to preserve them for AA use.
same needs to be done for AT.
Basically there is a huge need to write the tactics into the combat engine. There currently pretty much missing, amazing.

Best Regards Chuck.

[Michael T]

That is astonishing. The nitty gritty of the tactical combat model is something I have not really looked at. If what you are saying is factual I am dismayed as I really thought this was something the devs must have put a lot of time and effort in to getting right.

From your description it sounds like there are two lines of enemy units facing each other and simply blazing away at each other in some random fashion with only range being changed round by round. Thats more like Napoleonics or Civil War, not WWII. I really struggle to believe this chuckles. Are you absolutely sure?

Is superior mobility at the tactical level taken in to account? This was a key advantage a professional army had over an untrained peasant mob. That is the 'Schwerpunkt' at the tactical level. A pretty important principle.

[chuckfourth]

Hi
To be really sure we need someone who actually knows to comment. I live in hope!
But the 'direct fire only' line exists, longest range weapons fire first. So your heavy artillery can get chewed up whereas in reality they are safe deep in the rear.
As for swherpunkt I doubt if even panzergrenadiers get any advantage from having halftracks.
When you consider the amount of tactical modelling missing, including it would probably fix a lot of the problems that choke up this forum.
Not having the tactics is a big advantage to the Soviets because they have more of everything.

Best Regards Chuck.

[Michael T]

The tactical advantage the Germans had over the Soviets must be taken in to account. Otherwise what is the point at trying to model it?

[Tarhunnas]

This explains the comparatively rather high casualties for artillery. I always wondered about that, I assumed some kind of counterbattery was factored in or something. Gun losses of the losing side is one thing, they may have been abandoned in retreat, but the winning side would seldom lose much artillery one would think.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The tactical advantage the Germans had over the Soviets must be taken in to account. Otherwise what is the point at trying to model it?

I got the impression that this was covered via the morale factor, that better morale units gets to use a higher proportion of their firepower.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I got the impression that this was covered via the morale factor, that better morale units gets to use a higher proportion of their firepower.

Which is in my opinion a poor model due to the fluctuation of the morale depending on combat results. This should be dependent on experience and C&C.

[chuckfourth]

That is correct it must be, but it isn't (to a large extent)
That is why Pelton started this thread.
Hopefully it will be taken into account for WITW.
Best Regards Chuck.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: chuckles

That is correct it must be, but it isn't (to a large extent)
That is why Pelton started this thread.
Hopefully it will be taken into account for WITW.
Best Regards Chuck.

Why don't you apply for the WITW beta test, considering the knowledge you have? [:)]

[chuckfourth]

Thank for the compliment.
All you need to do is watch the detailed battle reports it is blindingly obvious
Best Regards Chuck

[Denniss]

ORIGINAL: chuckles
All you need to do is watch the detailed battle reports it is blindingly obvious

Indeed, imagine my surprise when I saw someone got killed by an aircraft drop tank ...... or watching special Ju 87D units with 12 underwing machine guns per a/c hitting almost nothing in ground attacks.