Matrix Games Forums

If you have some examples, I will check but I didn't build the unit schedule this way in the campaigns.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Mehring

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.

National morale has always been problematic as it lumps together army/navy and air force. Many smaller nations actually considered the air force and/or navy as elite thus they should have higher morale levels.
The disband feature of WitE 1.08 (not in WitW yet and I see no intention to get this in) is only used for units that were merged into larger formations in-theater or for those destroyed in battles and reformed to be used out-of-theater. In the latter case, Stalingrad and Bagration as prime examples, these units are left in-theater until they became active out-of-theater. It's also used for some air units, especially german bomber units in 1944 that were retrained to become fighter units.

EDIT: many of these 42 support units became part of Panzer/Motorized divisions.

Try 1941 campaign.

5 highly representative consecutive weeks-

T158 disband 98th Inf div
T159 disband 275th mot FlaK battalion
T162 disband II/140th Howitzer Battalion
T163 disband 3 x nebelwerfer battalions {some of these seem to return as brigades, so prolly legit)
T164 disband 183rd and 340th Inf divs

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Try 1941 campaign.

5 highly representative consecutive weeks-

T158 disband 98th Inf div
T159 disband 275th mot FlaK battalion
T162 disband II/140th Howitzer Battalion
T163 disband 3 x nebelwerfer battalions {some of these seem to return as brigades, so prolly legit)
T164 disband 183rd and 340th Inf divs

98th Infantry Division - destroyed summer 44, rebuilt and used in Balkans/Italy
275th motorized Flak Bn - was independent and became organic part of 10th PzG div
II/140th Howitzer Battalion - was stricken/disbanded
183rd Infantry Division - destroyed in Bagration, rebuilt by renaming existing Volksgrenadier Division and used in West
340th Infantry Division - nearly destroyed in the East, rebuilt autumn 44 as Volksgrenadier Division and used in the West

That's what I thought. The II/140th Artillery was withdrawn because it lost its independent status and became organic to the 22nd Panzer Division when it was built. These examples are all working as intended. Thanks Dennis.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Denniss

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Try 1941 campaign.

5 highly representative consecutive weeks-

T158 disband 98th Inf div
T159 disband 275th mot FlaK battalion
T162 disband II/140th Howitzer Battalion
T163 disband 3 x nebelwerfer battalions {some of these seem to return as brigades, so prolly legit)
T164 disband 183rd and 340th Inf divs

98th Infantry Division - destroyed summer 44, rebuilt and used in Balkans/Italy
275th motorized Flak Bn - was independent and became organic part of 10th PzG div
II/140th Howitzer Battalion - was stricken/disbanded
183rd Infantry Division - destroyed in Bagration, rebuilt by renaming existing Volksgrenadier Division and used in West
340th Infantry Division - nearly destroyed in the East, rebuilt autumn 44 as Volksgrenadier Division and used in the West

Trouble is, most of these units were disbanded due to historical losses which may never occur in our games. Why disband a full strength division when it's the one next door that's a mess? This is, I think, where the game tries to conform with the letter, not the spirit of history, and it doesn't work.

I do not disagree and this was largely fixed by using the EF Box in WitW. I know we are looking at having similar theaters boxes in WitE 2.0 and if the player opts to use the theatre boxes, these units won't withdraw like that.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Trouble is, most of these units were disbanded due to historical losses which may never occur in our games. Why disband a full strength division when it's the one next door that's a mess? This is, I think, where the game tries to conform with the letter, not the spirit of history, and it doesn't work.

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Trouble is, most of these units were disbanded due to historical losses which may never occur in our games. Why disband a full strength division when it's the one next door that's a mess? This is, I think, where the game tries to conform with the letter, not the spirit of history, and it doesn't work.

Remember that until recent patch the units in question were withdrawn and lost with all equipment. Now at least you get to reuse the equipment. A compromise. I hope west front box in wite2 will solve most of those problems.

Sounds good, thanks.

Not only does one become familiar with the game but one can imagine the more formula/need to win to bolster depleted ego/sense of self worth, driven players playing the opening axis turn with a print out of the Russian dispositions in one hand as they conduct attacks with the other.

How about a pre-turn in which each side can change vanilla start positions by, say five hexes?

Re-entering the discussion ;-D
I think the game should leave everything open, that was based on historical events - that may just occur otherwise in a players game ;-D
Lets see NM as the peoples will to fight - it could influence production by higher or lower effeciency.
As the will to support the war - could give more ressorces as the populations supports the army and saves critical ressources, where it can...and more volunteers enter the army and enter with better training as the population is preparing volunterarly in war preparing organisations...
Lets see it as the morale of the armed forces - higher morale - more CV - as morale always won victories - even XP would be higher as people would be motivated to train for victory whenever possible...
All these should be performace bassed (key location held or lost/ battles won or lost/ losses taken and losses caused...
I think snowball effects are not always a bad thing - as they give success according to performance. Right now it feels kinda frustrating playing the Axis - as not matter how well one performs - a good SU player will always cause the situation that one needs to defend for survival from 1942 on...also due to the scripted NM (that is historically based on Stalingrad - which caused a huge shift in NM and maybe the bad management of winter 41 by the AXIS - both things a player does not need to repeat )...
I think that makes many Axis players give up right now - as soon as the tide turns (because no matter how well they do, they cannot win against a good/equal or even a worse SU player, if he does not help by totally messing up - so the SU player gets to decide each time to repeat history - even if the AXIS player performance is at its best at all limits of the game) - now with more performance based results - it could also happen to a SU player - that he has to fight for survival...but it would still reward performance more than - well if you do not mess up as SU until 42 - you will be able to overrun the AXIS guaranteed later on - so actually there is a one sided snowball/script effect...really winning for the AXIS is only possible against the AI...that makes PBEM one sided and predictable...even the best AXIS player will only be able to defend from end of 42 on...that the SU is reagining NM and a lot of troops is ok IMO - but why the AXIS must losse NM independent of performance?
I would prefer a more open performance based system - that could wield for the SU player a fight for survival (just as for the AXIS player each campaign now), if the SU player is good - but the AXIS player just so much better...so the better player for any side can win ;-D
Snowball effects are unavoidable - I just hope they work for both sides - rewarding the better player with decisive victories...
Also more admin points and the possibility to build units for te AXIS could even in WitE 1 give more freedom to form the campaign - more admin for both sides ;-D
Is it possible to switch back a PBEM game to the AI - so if the opponent stops playing it can at least be played until the end?

And a dream - let us play both sides for really game changing effects West and East front - or let the NM based on performance have an additional strong effect - more than troop management - on the boxed theater...
Also some role playing would be nice - what if I do decide against the Nazi goons - I may have less security units and elite units at start - but more manpower and production due to for example Ukranian population being more cooperative with the AXIS and even volunteering more for the army...therefore at start we need normal units to garrison cities - up until enough volunteers from newly conquered places show up - as security and volunteer army dividions and elite units would not be the SS units - but units with good performance that show later up...
Of course optional or as an alternative scenario...so weaker start but stronger long term effects...
I appreciate historical background and correctness (starting conditions, correct unit descriptions and performance - for example tank types - correct leaders with strengths and weaknesses) - but also the ability to rewrite history ;-D The AXIS will always be in a harder situation as the war goes on - so grows the manpower, ressources and production of the Allies - so the only chance for a decisive victory is better management of ressources and units - quality vs. quantity...usually the weaker side needs more creative freedom - so how about allowing the AXIS at least to manage and build units after the initial setup...
I like the Hitler is dead - scenario in WitW a lot ;-D

Do you have any plans for a game covering the whole war? I know that would even change end results more ;-D

By the way - there are different kind of players - I am motivated in a game by reaching dynamic goals - for example if I would mess up the early stage of the game as either side (SU or AXIS) I´d be motivated to not get overrun the rest of the game and try to keep the last victory locations and delay my opponent - if doing well the first phase I´d want to take everything and ASAP until late game ;-D

And the more felxibility a game allows, the safer one is against players memorizing the script - I had this in SC games - people who knew exactly where and when units spawn and where to attack to game the script - I like open dynamic and creative games with suprises - not a memory contest ;-D

No offense meant to the designers, who put a lot of effort into the VP system to make for a good balance and reward even though there is a scripted dynamic ;-D
I like it already a lot how it is now - I own Pacific War, WitE and WitW - love your work guys - but these are my requests less script - more open performance based results and more creative freedom - especially in PBEMS ;-D

I hope I made my points clear ;-D

Surely a % of fuel and supplies from displaced ground HQs should pass to the displacing side like with air bases?

ORIGINAL: Mehring

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.

Up to a point, but there is another apt proverb: the cure can be worse than the problem. In isolation, a change to help the winner can only do that. The solution must be a balance elsewhere but I for one can't immediately think of the solution. Penalising the attacker's supply chain won't do it - it may well be it's the attacker who is doing badly.

Hopefully, someone else can come up with a solution because I agree that it would make for a better game if morale/combat effiency/doctrine/whatever can be tied to the game rather than anything else. In fairness, it is a bit already because an individual unit's morale and experience (ie combat efficiency?) are both affected by that unit's track record in combat.

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

ORIGINAL: Mehring

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.

Up to a point, but there is another apt proverb: the cure can be worse than the problem. In isolation, a change to help the winner can only do that. The solution must be a balance elsewhere but I for one can't immediately think of the solution. Penalising the attacker's supply chain won't do it - it may well be it's the attacker who is doing badly.

Hopefully, someone else can come up with a solution because I agree that it would make for a better game if morale/combat effiency/doctrine/whatever can be tied to the game rather than anything else. In fairness, it is a bit already because an individual unit's morale and experience (ie combat efficiency?) are both affected by that unit's track record in combat.

Hmmm depending if you mean early success or long term nerf - the long term nerf for the AXIS side will always be the growing ressources and units of the Allies (already implemented) - short term there could be a lack of and growing requirement of garrisons - so the attacker will wether run out of front line units - if moving too fast too early or run into huge partisan and supply problems...that could be easily fine tuned by giving cities deeper in the SU and AXIS territory growing garrison requirements...and higher partisan/uprising probability - which should be even fairly historical...uprisings additionally to partisans could spawn weak combat militia units - that get more each turn the uprising does not get crushed...
So no deathblow of the SU in the first years possible - but a better or worse results for the AXIS - a ruthless advancing AXIS player would destroy himself due to more and more uprisings, supply problems and fragile front lines...from 43 on enough garrison and front line units for the AXIS player could be provided (not for all the way to the Urals but for further gains - and he has to face a stronger SU each turn to counter balance that).
To have a real achievement for the AXIS player - the more key locations he holds the more pop should get radical wether by volunteering for the AXIS army and side(more manpower, better use of conquered HI and factories, ressources) and at the same time higher patriotism - more garrisons needed higher prob of partisans and uprisings - so the AXIS player would need to find a balance between gain and what he can really hold on to (risk) - without causing massive negative issues - a scetch of that already described above ;-D
Gives real gains to a good AXIS player - but also gives a chance for a comeback for the SU any time...up until real late war - at least the SU can always put up a fight for survival...even if early campaign went real bad - because they have time to retreat and recover...an early bad campaign for the AXIS player would still mean a sudden death...

Can we get an update on WitE2 development status? Pointing some new features will be a nice xmas present [;)]

ORIGINAL: cardolan

Can we get an update on WitE2 development status? Pointing some new features will be a nice xmas present [;)]

This is going to sound really boring. We've been mainly focused on data construct issues over the last few weeks. Previously map data was scenario specific so that even changing the route of a rail line would require every scenario to be amended individually. Now we can do it all in the generic data which means we can start scenario creation whilst still making map improvements.

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Trouble is, most of these units were disbanded due to historical losses which may never occur in our games. Why disband a full strength division when it's the one next door that's a mess? This is, I think, where the game tries to conform with the letter, not the spirit of history, and it doesn't work.

While suboptimal you have to see it both ways, the German side likewise gets units as reinforcements that were only sent east in order to replace the losses suffered. You can't cancel these withdrawals/disbandments without also tracking and cancelling the respective replacement units. It's a give and take.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer


This is going to sound really boring. We've been mainly focused on data construct issues over the last few weeks. Previously map data was scenario specific so that even changing the route of a rail line would require every scenario to be amended individually. Now we can do it all in the generic data which means we can start scenario creation whilst still making map improvements.

Not boring at all. Really looking forward to play WitE2. Thanks Redlancer.

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Trouble is, most of these units were disbanded due to historical losses which may never occur in our games. Why disband a full strength division when it's the one next door that's a mess? This is, I think, where the game tries to conform with the letter, not the spirit of history, and it doesn't work.

While suboptimal you have to see it both ways, the German side likewise gets units as reinforcements that were only sent east in order to replace the losses suffered. You can't cancel these withdrawals/disbandments without also tracking and cancelling the respective replacement units. It's a give and take.

Given that the West was Germany's "main show" it's more a case that units were diverted from East to West. Without Africa and the "Second Front" Germany would have thrown everything they had into Russia so while your argument is plausible in the abstract, concretely it doesn't really make sense.

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Given that the West was Germany's "main show" it's more a case that units were diverted from East to West. Without Africa and the "Second Front" Germany would have thrown everything they had into Russia so while your argument is plausible in the abstract, concretely it doesn't really make sense.

No, you are not thinking this through. Let's make an example:

In the game the 297th Infantry Division is disbanded in June 1943. Reason is, that division was destroyed in Stalingrad and then recreated in France and then sent to the Balkans. So, now assume that division is not disbanded in the game since the player doesn't have the division destroyed in Stalingrad and it remains in the East. Does the German high command still send over let's say the 355th Infantry Division east in May/June 1943 or do they send this division to the Balkans instead?

Or, the 29th Motorized Division. Gets disbanded in May 1943 again because it was destroyed in Stalingrad, then recreated in France before getting sent to fight in Italy. If the division isn't disbanded because the player doesn't have it destroyed in Stalingrad, who is to say that the Germans wouldn't have pulled out another motorized/panzergrenadier division from the East instead once things got hot in Italy?

You can't just simply stop the withdrawals / disbandments without reconsidering the possible effects this would've had. The only way around is to use a West Front box. And if you don't use / there is no such box, you must do these kind of withdrawals or disbandments.