Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Indeed, imagine my surprise when I saw someone got killed by an aircraft drop tank ...

War is dangerous...[:D]

ORIGINAL: chuckles

This is not a fighting vehicle its just a taxi.

Based on this i suggest u read chapter 7 in the this link/book. Starts at page 243.

http://books.google.dk/books?id=jKdHKmO ... at&f=false

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Thanks, Walloc, for the link. Very interesting read.

Regarding the combat engine I would also recommend reading the posts from Paul McNeely in the following thread: tm.asp?m=3428981. He is someone who has taken the time to study combats at a high resolution and I find his insights very interesting. I'm only now beginning to understand what's happening under the hood of this game and I'm getting more and more impressed.

that description fits what I've seen using the slowest speed - it is quite instructive and its clear that most battles start with artillery and work their way down the scale.

I suspect that before Morveal did such sterling work on cleaning up the databases there were a few weapon systems mis-allocated (as well as the problem of the secondary weapon systems not being used - esp as this was purely a database construct).

It certainly isn't line everything up and then a free for all breaks out.

ORIGINAL: 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.

I have not played WITE as much as the rest of you gentlemen, but I can confirm that this part is true.

Combats are separated into Long-range, Medium-range and Short-range phases. All weapons with enough reach to participate in the Long-range phase (mostly artillery) all take turns firing at each other (hence artillery killing artillery) and at non-participating targets (hence artillery killing tanks). And then the weapons with medium range get to shoot during their phase. And then I believe it's 2 phases of short-ranged weapons.

The morale and experience of a device determines how often it shoots within its own fire phase - oftentimes early-war Soviet devices will only shoot once if at all. The difference between foot infantry and mechanized infantry as far as the combat engine is concerned is that Landsers riding on Half-tracks will "close-in" to the short range phase much faster.

Otherwise, yes, a visualization of how WITE models combat would be something like ordering all of the involved devices into two columns, six rows apart and blazing away at each other, with differences in how many rows across some devices can fire, and how quickly some devices can cross to the third (short-range) row.

Even if unrealistic and resembling Napoleonic Wars, it's still more realistic than adding CV on counters and rolling on a CRT, right? Every method is good if properly calibrated and giving plausible results. WitE is ok with the exception of when to apply retreat losses and in their relation to normal combat losses.

I'd like to echo Red Lancer's and Flavius' comments. It's good to see agreement and interest in this area, but if you really want to make a difference, we could use that passionate interest on the WITW test team and the future WITE 2.0 will be based on what we've done in WITW. The systems in WITW are already in many ways different and better than what's in WITE 1.0, but more informed testing is always very, very helpful in making sure that the balance and details are where they should be.

You can sign up here: http://www.matrixgames.com/beta/cnda.asp?gid=507

Regards,

- Erik

I also fail to see the big problem here. German units have an advantage within the scheme based on morale and equipment. One can quibble with whether this accurately portrays their advantages, but its not as if the game isn't trying.

Personally I think the game is in by far the best state its ever been and is eminently playable (even with the despised 1:1 rule). Perhaps for the very very best players some of these issues become game breakers, but for the vast majority of the community they wouldn't really matter all that much. I think as more AARs get to 42 this will be borne out as well.

I say this not to discredit some of the gripes (in many cases I share them and have othrrs of my own) but rather just to put them in what I think is the appropriate context.

Well, I'd like to help, but I doubt my free time is enough for the requirements.

Even if unrealistic and resembling Napoleonic Wars, it's still more realistic than adding CV on counters and rolling on a CRT, right? Every method is good if properly calibrated and giving plausible results. WitE is ok with the exception of when to apply retreat losses and in their relation to normal combat losses.

A+

Combat engine is superb and only needs some minor calibrations.

Retreat losses need some more work but could probably still be fixed? I'm not a programmer so I don't know how much work this would cause. I fully understand that nothing will be redesigned for this version of the game.

ORIGINAL: morvael
Even if unrealistic and resembling Napoleonic Wars, it's still more realistic than adding CV on counters and rolling on a CRT, right? Every method is good if properly calibrated and giving plausible results. WitE is ok with the exception of when to apply retreat losses and in their relation to normal combat losses.

Realistic in method or realistic in results?

It's an important distinction to make because if we "forgive" the particular way WITE simulates its combat as long as the outcomes are "correct", how is that any different from forgiving a CRT-lookup-and-dice-roll level of abstraction as long as the outcomes are similarly correct?

Realistic in method or realistic in results?

It's an important distinction to make because if we "forgive" the particular way WITE simulates its combat as long as the outcomes are "correct", how is that any different from forgiving a CRT-lookup-and-dice-roll level of abstraction as long as the outcomes are similarly correct?

It provides the player lots of opportunities to influence the results. Assign different SUs, change TOE settings etc. etc. Infinite replay-ability.

ORIGINAL: chuckles

Hi Aurelien
The problem is that the 152mm howitzers are divisional or better artillery.

And yet, they were used when needed as an anti tank weapons, being that they could be and were used in a direct fire role.

Not much point in providing them with HEAT rounds if not.

Even if unrealistic and resembling Napoleonic Wars, it's still more realistic than adding CV on counters and rolling on a CRT, right?

No, not right. The method that gives the most accurate end result is best. ATM I think a simple CRT would give a better result. Complexity does not equal better. Only if it works properly. I could write a better algorithm in my sleep than the one described here. Please someone do something better for WITE 2.0. I think it too late for WITW.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I'd like to echo Red Lancer's and Flavius' comments. It's good to see agreement and interest in this area, but if you really want to make a difference, we could use that passionate interest on the WITW test team and the future WITE 2.0 will be based on what we've done in WITW. The systems in WITW are already in many ways different and better than what's in WITE 1.0, but more informed testing is always very, very helpful in making sure that the balance and details are where they should be.

You can sign up here: http://www.matrixgames.com/beta/cnda.asp?gid=507

Regards,

- Erik

The problem for me is that I would very much like to help to test out WITE2, it is unfortunate from my perspective that the only way to do so appears to be to participate in WITW testing. The subject fails to catch my interest.

ORIGINAL: morvael

Even if unrealistic and resembling Napoleonic Wars, it's still more realistic than adding CV on counters and rolling on a CRT, right? Every method is good if properly calibrated and giving plausible results. WitE is ok with the exception of when to apply retreat losses and in their relation to normal combat losses.

Garbage in = Garbage out.

If you can't get the small scale cause and effect relationships right all the extra detail just serves as a distraction and obfuscates.

Arguably the only combats where the 1 on 1 factors are relevant is with armour combat, where some form of simulation for range, target aspect and penetration is important to the overall result.

To get the small scale relationships right you'd need to break down the basic combats scenarios (attack, defend, delay) into phases (which Attacker and Defender assets are doing what when) and build the model from there. Also what's important is to handle indirect fire differently from direct fire in terms of Pk and ammo use.

WITE tries to do this but the model is so crude that a greater amount of abstraction at a lower level would probably reduce complexity without any loss of fidelity.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I mean what is the point of a perfect logistical model that supports a game where the whole army of one side gets to move and attack in any desired order before the other side can do anything at all?

A key point, and why I think that for all it's many failings, including the combat engine, TOAW does a better job depicting period operational combat. All goes back to enforcing a certain amount of synchronizing and introducing the concept of time during the player turn.

This makes delaying actions feasible and a proper breakthrough operation actually requires planning and several turns of staging.

Things are being worked on.

So lets all take a deep breath (I will go first) and give this issue time.

Morveal is as far as I know going to get the 1v1=2v1 option done and with .14

WitE as we all know and love it is as Flaviusx has said done until WitE 2, which will be better then WitE.

I like to thank everyone for the input on this thread.

All ideas be they good or bad lead to better ideas and products.

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown
Combat engine is superb and only needs some minor calibrations.

I haven't played this game in ages, in large part because I thought the results generated by combat engine are way off base.

I don't understand how anyone can say that the combat engine works when as long as the 1:1->2:1 rule is in the game? A properly-designed combat engine should have no need for such wheezes. Then consider the retreat losses, and yes, Pelton's precious ratios, the combat results didn't feel right to me at all. Just because the combat engine takes into account the firing of individual weapons systems doesn't mean it is "realistic" or works right, in fact it is just complexity for the sake of complexity, and I don't think it is necessarily any more realistic than a CRT.

Then add in the disfunctional logistics system and the time/space scale with the IGO/UGO system, encirclement mechanics, etc., I just don't believe that this game comes very close to representing how combat worked on the Eastern Front.

I certainly won't buy WitW because I'm not interested in the theater, but would love to buy WitE 2.0 if they totally revamp the game, but I'm not particularly hopeful.

Hi gradenko_2000

You said

All weapons with enough reach to participate in the Long-range phase (mostly artillery) all take turns firing at each other (hence artillery killing artillery) and at non-participating targets (hence artillery killing tanks).

The Artillery don't fire at each other the attacking artillery lays a barrage on the defending infantries positions. The attacking Artillery lays a barrage on the advancing infantry. They are to busy doing this (there jobs) to fire at each other.
Also it is unlikely that the opposing batteries are within range of each other.
Because the artillery is wrongly modelled as a direct fire weapon It participates in tank killing from the engagements beginning when in reality it cant see any tanks. It shouldn't be killing any tanks until the attacker has rolled right over the defending division and can actually see the defending artillery.
The chance of indirect fire hitting a moving tank is about .00something.

best Regards Chuck.