Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It

[sfbaytf]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We've said that we do hope in the future to create an early war game. It's on our list, and yes, it will by necessity involve a larger naval component (but not WitP level).

Absolutely. I have both of the HPS Total War in Europe games and haven't seen anything since.

and no I don't agree with the naval component not being on a WitP level. I want better than WitPAE!

[Grotius]

I'm also hoping for a WITP-style naval system for the 1939-43 installment(s) of WiTW. That said, I recall Gary Grigsby saying that the toughest thing with coding WITP was the AI. AIs struggle with more complex gameplay mechanics, and an intricately-detailed naval model like WITP probably presents greater AI challenges than the land or air models in WITW.

Still, I don't demand a genius AI opponent; I just want a sparring partner. I hope they go for the full WITP-style treatment.

[Erik Rutins]

What will happen in the future remains to be seen, but IMHO the decision to keep the naval model abstract and model the amphibious landing TFs in WITW was the right one for the time period. As we go earlier, we'll need to add more to the naval model. I'm sure that whatever Gary comes up with for any future release will be well thought through and tested as the new air model was for this one.

Regards,

- Erik

[Great_Ajax]

Boo! Roll Tide!

Trey

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

Who cranks up the music for the opening? I do.

You should replace it with this brilliant song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJiR-3vOuZQ

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

There was not a lot of surface action after 1942 because of what had happened in 1939 - 42. The whole point is that as war gamers we try and change that! If the game starts in 1939, that's still an awful lot of naval war To be fought - even if things got leaner in the second half.

But of course had Campioni (or Supermarina) had balls, the struggle could have been continued as more RN units would have been sent to the Med to shore up a pretty dire position. Of course the big limiting factor for the RM from 1942 was the lack of oil but early Italian success may have reduced the oil expenditure by practically (if not actually) forcing the RN out of the Med.

Can't see that the difference between playing the Pacific from 42-45 and playing Europe from 39-42 is that different. Sure the battles are not the same (less carriers in the ETO), but the intensity was no less.

Well the main naval actions did not get started in the West until France fell. So you are really looking from about Aug '40 - '42 to really have an apples to apples comparison to the PTO.

The point I was making is that given X amount of coding time, it seems that time spent in other aspects of the '39-42 period of the ETO would be a better use of resources than trying to recreate an AE experience that would only cover a brief period of time in the ETO. That's all.

While I have NO insight into 2by3, I would suspect that whatever naval system they develop would follow along the same lines of the land and air systems. Where individual ships would be assigned to some type of 'container'. Whether it be a TF or maybe a naval 'region'. So naval individual 'assets' would be represented but not at the level and functionality of AE.

Of course how they would 'fit' any naval system into a weekly turn given that most naval actions are over in hours will be interesting to see how they do it. [:)]

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We've said that we do hope in the future to create an early war game. It's on our list, and yes, it will by necessity involve a larger naval component (but not WitP level).

Absolutely. I have both of the HPS Total War in Europe games and haven't seen anything since.

and no I don't agree with the naval component not being on a WitP level. I want better than WitPAE!

The reason AE works so well is the daily turns. Since, as far as I know, all the main WitW add on periods will have to fit into the weekly turn system. While they could possibly add smaller 'extra' games with a different scale, the main extension will have to maintain a weekly cadence.

[wodin]

I'd buy this as we get little wargaming for this period.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We've said that we do hope in the future to create an early war game. It's on our list, and yes, it will by necessity involve a larger naval component (but not WitP level).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

ORIGINAL: warspite1

There was not a lot of surface action after 1942 because of what had happened in 1939 - 42. The whole point is that as war gamers we try and change that! If the game starts in 1939, that's still an awful lot of naval war To be fought - even if things got leaner in the second half.

But of course had Campioni (or Supermarina) had balls, the struggle could have been continued as more RN units would have been sent to the Med to shore up a pretty dire position. Of course the big limiting factor for the RM from 1942 was the lack of oil but early Italian success may have reduced the oil expenditure by practically (if not actually) forcing the RN out of the Med.

Can't see that the difference between playing the Pacific from 42-45 and playing Europe from 39-42 is that different. Sure the battles are not the same (less carriers in the ETO), but the intensity was no less.

Well the main naval actions did not get started in the West until France fell. So you are really looking from about Aug '40 - '42 to really have an apples to apples comparison to the PTO.

The point I was making is that given X amount of coding time, it seems that time spent in other aspects of the '39-42 period of the ETO would be a better use of resources than trying to recreate an AE experience that would only cover a brief period of time in the ETO. That's all.

While I have NO insight into 2by3, I would suspect that whatever naval system they develop would follow along the same lines of the land and air systems. Where individual ships would be assigned to some type of 'container'. Whether it be a TF or maybe a naval 'region'. So naval individual 'assets' would be represented but not at the level and functionality of AE.

Of course how they would 'fit' any naval system into a weekly turn given that most naval actions are over in hours will be interesting to see how they do it. [:)]

warspite1

Again we will have to disagree [;)]

Firstly, at no point, did I say I necessarily want a WITP-AE game here. I DID say I wanted every warship represented – but, as WIF proved, the two don’t go hand in hand – it’s what system you employ with all those counters that counts. Something less than WITP-AE would work – provided it’s not too abstract like Generic TF counters and the like. That would be a big mistake imo.

Re the comparison between the naval wars in the ETO and PTO, sorry but I think that is wrong too.

The naval actions were very different because of the fleets that each possessed. However, as I say, the naval war in the ETO was no less intense - and just as important for gaming purposes - no less full of possibilities.

Well the main naval actions did not get started in the West until France fell.

So you are really looking from about Aug '40 - '42

No – June.

Sorry, but again we are not going to see eye to eye on this. If by "Main" you mean capital ship actions, then yes, given Bismarck and Tirpitz were late to the party and the Regia Marina came in in June 1940, such actions were limited until then. But capital ship action is not the be all and end all of the naval war.

Allied and Axis naval personnel were fighting and dying right from the start. The Royal Navy time and again saved the Army – Norway, France, Greece and Crete. Losses were hideous – and could have been worse. Imagine if German torpedoes had worked in Norway. Assets available to the RN to defend the convoys and the Med suddenly start to look incredibly thin….

Aside from the smaller ship actions, even in the nine months to June 40 there were plenty of larger ship encounters (Graf Spee and the Ugly Sisters) and plenty of (war gaming) potential for more (Deutschland) and, with a little more luck (weather) and less meddling (by the Admiralty) there could have been a major encounters during the Norwegian Campaign (as opposed to “just” the Renown vs the Ugly Sisters then Glorious vs the Ugly Sisters). All this does not include the air vs naval battles and the sub vs capital ships (Royal Oak and Courageous).

Then, once the Italians were in the war the naval war really intensified – and the extent to which it could have intensified further (had Supermarina grown a set) makes for incredibly interesting war gaming possibilities. Then there is the French Fleet and what happens to this.

So in summary, is the ETO worth a detailed naval game? Damn right it is.

Do we need WITP-AE type detail? No, not necessarily.

This is a big decision for an early war expansion imo.

[Numdydar]

Coming from AE where everything revolves around naval actions, I of course did not consider the actions you listed as being included in naval actions. Which as you point out clearly should be.

So you are correct in that there a lot of naval actions outside of what is typically not seen in AE that would be of critical importance in the ETO.

And through our discussion, we have come to an agreement [:)] in that we both want a naval system that works well for the ETO but not at the AE level. I guess that means I lost since I agreed with you first [:(] ?

[Gilmer]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Boo! Roll Tide!

Trey

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

Who cranks up the music for the opening? I do.

You should replace it with this brilliant song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJiR-3vOuZQ

Excellent!!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Coming from AE where everything revolves around naval actions, I of course did not consider the actions you listed as being included in naval actions. Which as you point out clearly should be.

So you are correct in that there a lot of naval actions outside of what is typically not seen in AE that would be of critical importance in the ETO.

And through our discussion, we have come to an agreement [:)] in that we both want a naval system that works well for the ETO but not at the AE level. I guess that means I lost since I agreed with you first [:(] ?

warspite1

Lost? No its a useful discussion - and one I hope helps to persuade potential developers of an early war expansion [:)]

[RedLancer]

If it were not for the Ugly Sisters I'd not be here - my grandmother's first fiancé was lost on the Glorious. His replacement (my grandfather) was RN in TF 'O' on D-Day.

It's really interesting to watch the discussions on WitW as it brings the fanbase of WitP and WitE closer - both games I love. But remember one is a land centric 7 day IGOUGO and the other a naval centric daily WEGO. They are still very different games.

Obviously for WitE/WitW we have yet to tackle the naval bit and I truly have not a clue on the future naval construct. Were I an objective observer I would comment that a game with individual pilots and not named capital ships would seem odd. GG, JB and PZ are genii and what they create will be fantastic so I'm with them all the way no matter what they choose.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

If it were not for the Ugly Sisters I'd not be here - my grandmother's first fiancé was lost on the Glorious. His replacement (my grandfather) was RN in TF 'O' on D-Day.

It's really interesting to watch the discussions on WitW as it brings the fanbase of WitP and WitE closer - both games I love. But remember one is a land centric 7 day IGOUGO and the other a naval centric daily WEGO. They are still very different games.

Obviously for WitE/WitW we have yet to tackle the naval bit and I truly have not a clue on the future naval construct. Were I an objective observer I would comment that a game with individual pilots and not named capital ships would seem odd. GG, JB and PZ are genii and what they create will be fantastic so I'm with them all the way no matter what they choose.

warspite1

Loss of the Glorious was one weird (and ultimately) tragic episode [:(] At least it worked for you [;)]

I would hope that no one would seriously want WITP-AE type detail in Europe [X(]

But - and my last word on the subject - please give serious consideration when the time comes, to doing the naval war justice. There is so much extra depth that the naval aspect can bring to the game.

[Numdydar]

+1

90% of all naval systems in the ETO seems to just be more of an afterthought versus anything that could model the diversity of operations from the Med to the Artic Circle. It is more like "Oh. There were ships in the war in the ETO. We should include some, through some code together too. We don't need to spend much time on this since other than subs not much was going on for most of the war." [:'(]

So if the team can come up with anything close to the war the air war is represented in the game, then I will be very happy [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

+1

90% of all naval systems in the ETO seems to just be more of an afterthought versus anything that could model the diversity of operations from the Med to the Artic Circle. It is more like "Oh. There were ships in the war in the ETO. We should include some, through some code together too. We don't need to spend much time on this since other than subs not much was going on for most of the war." [:'(]

So if the team can come up with anything close to the war the air war is represented in the game, then I will be very happy [:)]

warspite1

I think having an Air War type system for the naval war would work - and you could still have every ship represented. The player could then have the choice of letting the computer decide the "details" or the player could.

E.g. At start the British have a box for Home Fleet and an historical set up of units within. There could be boxes for Arctic Convoy, North Atlantic Convoy, Mediterranean Fleet (East (Alex) and West (Gibraltar)) etc etc

Thereafter the player could decide the make up of each box or let the computer decide (depending on % preferences chosen).