Matrix Games Forums

TOAW III system might be a solution but I see two problems with that. The first is that it, probably, requires a so deep reworking of the game engine that it could not be realistically considered, even for WitE 2.0. The second is that, given the sheer scale of the game, it would increase micromanagement too much.

Actually, I will gladly welcome a 1.09 patch featuring this system, but I doubt that it will ever happen. In my opinion just having the two aforementioned WitW features retrofitted to WitE will be a bargain for us players but I'm not sure it will happen either.

Well there is a Directive 21 TOAW III scenario that covers the entire WF campaign. At the regiment level no less [X(]. And the system in TOAW seems to handle the scale pretty well based on my experience playing it [:)] So I see no reason it would not work at a larger divisional scale.

Well, as I said, I'll gladly welcome a 1.09 patch featuring a system à la TOAW.

I didn't want to convey the impression that the level of micromanagement will be "unbearable" in absolute terms, just that it will increase sufficiently to put WitE into another category of complexity (more similar to WitP or some TOAW monstre scenarios).
Something that, if I'm not mistaken, isn't considered viable by Matrix/2by3.

...if the game is IGOUGO approach like WiTE/WiTW and not WEGO, if the combat results/victory, etc. continue to provide realistic results, maybe it doesn't matter. Do WiTE & WiTW provide the correct results?

Well, although the ground combat model is not perfect (but which one is?), I think that it generates realistic results, on the average.
For example: Germany suffered 9503 KIA, 2995 MIA, 30482 WIA in June 1941 on the Eastern front. I ran a computer vs. computer GC game in WitE 1.08 and got, for the same time period, about 9000 KIA, 200 POW 29000 WIA for the Axis. A pretty good match, save for the few hundred POWs that cannot account for the actual 3k MIA.

On the Soviet side, I have no montly casualties reports, but averaging the actual casualties suffered in the third quarter of 1941, one comes up with the following figures: 39k KIA, 153k MIA, 60k WIA in June 1941. The simulation gave the following results: 40k KIA, 256k POW, 147k WIA. With the exception of the KIAs, it seems that Soviet losses might be overestimated but one has also to consider that the refrence figures are averages and that in the first weeks of combat, actual casualties (especially POWs) might also have been greater than average.

Generally speaking, I think that the single "tactical" combats in WitE do provide realistic results (maybe attacker losses should be a little higher) but what risk to produce snowballing effects are game mechanics that make impossible for the Soviet player to play a forward defense and survuve the Barbarossa onslaught. This issue has been debated ad nauseam and, judging from the new features of WitW, I think that the developers identified the most glaring problems and corrected them.

Now, I am sure that WitE is the best Eastern Front game to date and I had many hours of enjoyment playing it. Nonetheless I can't wait to see the new game egnine features implemented in WitE and I hope that something could be ported in the current engine before having to wait for WitE 2.0. I'd like to be able to play against a competent German player and not be compelled to do a Sir Robin just to barely survive 1941.

BTW, does anybody know if someone managed to make an alt GC41 scenario with Soviet replacement levels more in line with historical figures?

No sense in reinventing the wheel.

Just go with what this game was based on -- War in Russia.

It had wego.

From the manual:

COMBAT
After both players have completed their
Orders Phase, all plotted moves and battles
are performed during the Execution Phase.
Combat is divided into five segments or
pulses. All plots and combat occurring in a
pulse are resolved for all units before
proceeding to the next pulse. Readiness and
unit losses for movement and combat are
calculated separately during each pulse.

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

No sense in reinventing the wheel.

Just go with what this game was based on -- War in Russia.

It had wego.

WiR has a totally different ground scale and unit density and it's this factor that made WEGO a viable solution.
Just as one day turns (and the generally broken terrain) made it possible for WitP.

Don't get me wrong, I already stated that WEGO is the most realistic turn resolution system for a wargame and I'd gladly pay $200 for a WEGO WitE.
But I don't think that it is possible to easily implement WEGO with both 10 miles hexes and weekly turns. Just think of what a player has to think when moving a 50MP Panzerdivision during a week long turn.
Will the AI be able to routinely do something comparable, save for the most simple situations? I doubt this.

At this time, think anything beyond fixing what isn't working should be put off for WitE 2.0. Changing the intentions & methods of the combat, supply, mobility, etc. engines are, IMHO, for the future. WitE 2.0 is a long time away as WitW obviously will be serviced first.

Hmmm... if I knew of a great team of programmers that would work for peanuts, I'd hire them and magically fix everything at once. But would anyone buy the game I'd produce?

Thanks to Morvael & others for attention given as needed.

BTW, is there a wish list thread for WitE 2.0?

For peanuts no, but if you'll send me $1M, I can quit my day job, and for the next 30 years churn out wargames for you [:)]

ORIGINAL: morvael

For peanuts no, but if you'll send me $1M, I can quit my day job, and for the next 30 years churn out wargames for you [:)]

Post dated check?

ORIGINAL: morvael

For peanuts no, but if you'll send me $1M, I can quit my day job, and for the next 30 years churn out wargames for you [:)]

No problem.

One million Zimbabwe dollars will be sent.

I will hold you to your word.

Wasn't asking for Z$, but standard $

Too late, the first post constituted a legally binding contract according to internet laws...