Matrix Games Forums

The Furher says SIEG MEOW!!!

Indeed!

More dartboarding....

More FOW behind the lines. The Russians were not 100% positive of Kursk until the last moment.

Fake units to move

A way to set a "level of attrition" when next to a enemy unit but not attacking nor defending. Amount of artillery fire, patrols. etc. Would have big effect when the front settles.

Option to reduce attrition already in game, use "static" mode, available in '42, costs APs.

Can select "static" right on the counter.

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Option to reduce attrition already in game, use "static" mode, available in '42, costs APs.

Can select "static" right on the counter.

I dont think static mode is the same as i was purposing.

Speaking of the problems adding the StuG33B, made me wonder if optional manual equipment swaps would be possible, like air units.

A basic implementation might be either choosing equipment types from a menu but a more detailed option might be possible. If you know the number of a unit type present in a brigade or division TOE, I imagine this would be composed from totalling those of its sub-formations. Why not represent the sub-formations and, within historical limits, allow players to equip them to taste? Having such a representation of large scale unit composition would also facilitate tailor made battle group creation which need not be based on a single regiment. A division might, for example, split into two units, one based on two regiments but the one regiment battle group taking, say, divisional recon AA and AT assets.

The addition of vacant equipment slots would allow the historical use of captured equipment.

A "We go"-system.

"I go u go" is so 90's. Get rid of it.

ORIGINAL: Acidman

A "We go"-system.

"I go u go" is so 90's. Get rid of it.

...could be nice, but there are drawbacks in a system like this. Simultaneous play would work best IMO but is a limiting factor for H2H play due to small community divided over so many time zones. Each player planning their turn then simultaeous execution could be an AI quagmire. A 2 turn per week igougo might be a better option.

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

ORIGINAL: Kharkov

Even though I bought WitE I only dabbled in it; the amount of time required to play and amount of counters put me off. However I always thought that instead of taking on the whole German side or Soviet side in the grand campaign, it would be more my playstyle just to control a subset of units, maybe an army or Army Group and letting the AI play the other units on my side. Maybe some objectives could be given to my command based on the overall ambitions of the sides AI.

I'm sure this facility was present in the GG's Pac War game but maybe my memory is getting confused...

I often think this when i'm playing both WITE and WITW. Sometimes I would love to be able to take control of an army or army group and leave the rest to the AI. I would even like to designate a theatre to the AI, such as Italy in WITW.

In Decisive Campaigns The Blitzkrieg From Warsaw To Paris the player can control just an army in some of the scenarios while the AI controls the rest. I would love to see this feature implemented in WITE 2.0.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to the new game and will be buying it on day one of release.

I agree I would just like to control a few

By the way, you can do this in Warsaw France? You can't do this in dc2

NM should really be based on the situation of the current game - not history - I think important victory locations held or not held and losses - should be the indicator for a monthly NM adjustment - cause it just make no sense to have the historical NM if doing much better or worse...

ORIGINAL: Steelwarrior7

NM should really be based on the situation of the current game - not history - I think important victory locations held or not held and losses - should be the indicator for a monthly NM adjustment - cause it just make no sense to have the historical NM if doing much better or worse...

The problem is bigger. "Morale" is currently a fudge of what everyone understands as morale- willingness to fight, and something else, doctrine or combat technique. The two need to be separated and then, I agree, morale should be fashioned by how you're doing in your war.

Mehring is correct in his first statement. The only problem with morale in game is the name and the inference that people draw from it. If it was renamed to something like 'relative combat capability' then the discussions would be greatly reduced. The problem is that there is neither a snappy other name or easy way to change it throughout the GUI and Code.

WitE2 is IGO-UGO.

Re the NM issue, whilst the calls for it to reflect success levels are entirely valid, and I agree with the idea in principle, I fear that it would make the game worse. The 'snowball/momentum/tipping point' effect is bad enough now. Reflecting that in morale would simply make that worse.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Mehring is correct in his first statement. The only problem with morale in game is the name and the inference that people draw from it. If it was renamed to something like 'relative combat capability' then the discussions would be greatly reduced. The problem is that there is neither a snappy other name or easy way to change it throughout the GUI and Code.

WitE2 is IGO-UGO.

If you allege that game morale in no way represents real world morale, a critical combat element acknowledged at least since Roman times, then where the hell is it? Why has it been left out of the game? It hasn't, it's just been fudged and blurred with doctrine and combat efficiency. It's a design problem, not one of terminology.

Firstly, it is found in both leaders and combat units. Leader "morale," particularly in the case of higher command, is easier to understand in terms of combat doctrine, though how something imparted through training might change instantly with the appointment of new officers is less clear. Its property, for example, of rallying broken units also crosses into traditionally understood morale.

In passing, I did make a case a while back for the application of leader attributes to be reversed, which I think still holds. So, High Command provides the base leadership attributes for all units, and the ability to apply or perhaps over ride them to lower echelons is determined by qualities of leaders down to corps level. Makes infinitely more sense to me, particularly in an army like that of Stalinist Russia in which subordinate initiative was a crime usually punished by death.

Secondly, "morale" is a quality of combat units. Here I see no clear distinction between our two "morales." Combat competence is seen in unit morale affecting retreat survival, doctrine, in "morale" creating a ceiling for experience growth, yet actual morale is seen in both interdiction and poor supply potentially reducing unit morale. Both "morales" are found in morale being a major determinant of CV. Clearly, combat efficiency and doctrine play an important part in this, so too, does actual morale. This is also represented in game by the fact that failure of a CV ratio check causes retreat, ie the units are no longer willing to fight, their morale has broken.

In this last example- there are others- it can be seen how similarities of some functions of combat efficiency, doctrine and morale, might lead them all to be lumped together under one name. Unfortunately, there are other important functions that do not sit so well together. I think they need independent representation in the game.

I think it would be great if it was possible to track NCO and Officer levels in the units. My thinking would be that NCO and officers should take a higher percentage of casualties especially in offensive operations, and that this should impact the readiness/org level of the unit quite dramatically.

Another change that would be welcome would a western front mechanic similar to the east front mechanic in WITW. Instead of withdrawing specific units, then it should be a minimum CV and unit size ( i.e. 3 divisions with a 65 CV minimum to be sent to the WITW instead of the Gross Deutchland, 63th Infantry div, 4th motorised div and 202 artillery regiment )

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Re the NM issue, whilst the calls for it to reflect success levels are entirely valid, and I agree with the idea in principle, I fear that it would make the game worse. The 'snowball/momentum/tipping point' effect is bad enough now. Reflecting that in morale would simply make that worse.

If it's good in principle, the pain is in implementation and fear of the unknown, not the practice.

ORIGINAL: kch

Another change that would be welcome would a western front mechanic similar to the east front mechanic in WITW. Instead of withdrawing specific units, then it should be a minimum CV and unit size ( i.e. 3 divisions with a 65 CV minimum to be sent to the WITW instead of the Gross Deutchland, 63th Infantry div, 4th motorised div and 202 artillery regiment )

Agreed, though not substitute foot for motorised.

Equally, there are numerous disbands in the withdrawal list. If any of these are due to historical depletion, I suggest they be removed and let the Axis player disband their own depleted units if they want, not full strength units that are doing just fine.

Mehring

What I am saying is that morale is more than just morale but people fixate on the name - exactly as just happened here.

I define Morale in Game as an amalgam of a Country's conceptual approach to fighting, morale and their ethos which is used as a factor within the code to differentiate performance on the battlefield in a number of areas. The Germans have the highest morale as they had the most developed (and successful) doctrine, C2 system and effectiveness. Varying the NM by year provides the baseline capability for a country's fighting power (together with the TOEs).

What units are on the withdrawal list that were disbanded? My intent was not to have disbanded units on the list, just units that transferred or were majorly reconfigured.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Mehring

ORIGINAL: kch

Another change that would be welcome would a western front mechanic similar to the east front mechanic in WITW. Instead of withdrawing specific units, then it should be a minimum CV and unit size ( i.e. 3 divisions with a 65 CV minimum to be sent to the WITW instead of the Gross Deutchland, 63th Infantry div, 4th motorised div and 202 artillery regiment )

Agreed, though not substitute foot for motorised.

Equally, there are numerous disbands in the withdrawal list. If any of these are due to historical depletion, I suggest they be removed and let the Axis player disband their own depleted units if they want, not full strength units that are doing just fine.

I never realised until a few days ago, but from spring 1942 there are loads of them, really too many to mention. Mostly support battalions of various types to start, then by the end of year and onwards, numerous divisions.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Mehring

What I am saying is that morale is more than just morale but people fixate on the name - exactly as just happened here.

I define Morale in Game as an amalgam of a Country's conceptual approach to fighting, morale and their ethos which is used as a factor within the code to differentiate performance on the battlefield in a number of areas. The Germans have the highest morale as they had the most developed (and successful) doctrine, C2 system and effectiveness. Varying the NM by year provides the baseline capability for a country's fighting power (together with the TOEs).

Ok, thanks, that's clearer.