War in the East Q&A

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

Are there bonus for flank and rear attacks? and for combined arms attacks?

[Lützow]

When can we expect another official update?

Particulary with regard to screenshots from info-windows, unit deployment, numbers, OOB's, TOE's and so on - altogether about the level of detail, 2by3 is going to implement into WiTE. A little AAR wouldn't hurt either.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Are there bonus for flank and rear attacks? and for combined arms attacks?

The answer to your first question is no; the game is not that tactical. Strategically it does pay however to surround units before attacking them since surrendered soldiers are permanently eliminated as opposed to retreated troops that live to fight another day.

As for combined arms since the combat units are generally brigades or larger, they are inherently combined arms formations at least in respect to having infantry, engineers and artillery. Having armor obviously enhances the firepower of any unit but the having armor is not in and of itself a combat modifier.

I have found that it is a good idea whenever possible to combine infantry units with armor units when attacking. The reason is that armor units (panzer divisions, tank corps, etc.) are usually weak in infantry and need the infantry heavy non-armored units to help absorb infantry casualties. Therefore it's a good tactic to attack with mixed stacks of armor and non-armor units but not an actual combat bonus.

[Pford]

I have found that it is a good idea whenever possible to combine infantry units with armor units when attacking. The reason is that armor units (panzer divisions, tank corps, etc.) are usually weak in infantry and need the infantry heavy non-armored units to help absorb infantry casualties. Therefore it's a good tactic to attack with mixed stacks of armor and non-armor units but not an actual combat bonus.

So one would expect similar results, given equivalent combat factors, assaulting- or defending- a major urban area, like Stalingrad, with panzer heavy forces as with infantry? This seems to fly in the face of conventional doctrine.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Pford

I have found that it is a good idea whenever possible to combine infantry units with armor units when attacking. The reason is that armor units (panzer divisions, tank corps, etc.) are usually weak in infantry and need the infantry heavy non-armored units to help absorb infantry casualties. Therefore it's a good tactic to attack with mixed stacks of armor and non-armor units but not an actual combat bonus.

So one would expect similar results, given equivalent combat factors, assaulting- or defending- a major urban area, like Stalingrad, with panzer heavy forces as with infantry? This seems to fly in the face of conventional doctrine.

Oh no. Combat is resolved at the weapon to weapon level (squads, vehicles, guns), and the terrain being fought over has a huge impact on how the weapons fight against each other. Combat resolution is literally calculated shot by shot, although you don't want to watch all those shots, or the war would play out in realtime. [:)] Armor is at a big disadvantage in urban fighting.


As for updates and screenshots, I'm guessing we'll be in a position to start showing things in 1-2 months (maybe a small sample sooner than that). AARs will follow.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings



...Combat is resolved at the weapon to weapon level (squads, vehicles, guns), and the terrain being fought over has a huge impact on how the weapons fight against each other. Combat resolution is literally calculated shot by shot, although you don't want to watch all those shots, or the war would play out in realtime. [:)] Armor is at a big disadvantage in urban fighting.

To elaborate a bit on Joel's comment, terrain determines the maximum range combat will begin at. The more dense the terrain the shorter the initial combat range will be so in urban combat armor looses its advantage of longer ranged guns versus short ranged infantry weapons. Remember that the real advantage of armored units over non-armored units was survivability. The greater the range that armor could engage a target, the more survivable the armor was. In game terms, the higher the defensive benefit of the terrain the more dangerous it will be for armor to attack into.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: jaw




The answer to your first question is no; the game is not that tactical.

Too bad. IMO even a Division level game should implement flanks and rears. A rear attack could destroy soft targets, like supply, transport and communication assets, as well as overrun artillery positions. A flank attack also had better chances of success as divisions usually deployed on a single axis. Is it too late for such an addition to the game engine?

[jaw]

As you can see by the posts from Joel, the decision makers review this thread so any design suggestions are sure to be noted but the purpose of this particular thread is to answer questions about features that are in the game, not debate ones that aren't.

[thackaray]

I've just looked at the 2 screenshots, its looking good the map and the organisation of information.

I have a question based on when you have 3 units are stacked as in those screen shots.  Can you assign which of those 3 units in the stack will attack in a sequence of your choosing or do all 3 units attack in one go, but the internal mechanism of the game determines which units attack in which order?

What does the reactivate button do, as shown against the 17th Panzer Div ?

[Hard Sarge]

you can set up one unit, two units or all three units to attack out of one stack

you can also, set different stacks to attack, and you can pick and chose from this kind of attack also

[Hard Sarge]

that is for putting the unit into static mode, meaning it gives most of it movement/vehicles

[thackaray]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

that is for putting the unit into static mode, meaning it gives most of it movement/vehicles

Thank you for the quick reply.

So it's best to think of it when a unit is static, it gives it's movement (points)/vehicles as though it's given up some of it's supply to the other units ?

When a unit is in static mode and is part of a stack. What happens to that unit after those other units have attacked? Does the unit in static mode stay in the same hex or is it moved with those units which attacked and moved ?

[Hard Sarge]

depending on how much/many MP it has, it may not be able to attack

it is for quiet areas of the battle field

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: thackaray

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

that is for putting the unit into static mode, meaning it gives most of it movement/vehicles

Thank you for the quick reply.

So it's best to think of it when a unit is static, it gives it's movement (points)/vehicles as though it's given up some of it's supply to the other units ?

When a unit is in static mode and is part of a stack. What happens to that unit after those other units have attacked? Does the unit in static mode stay in the same hex or is it moved with those units which attacked and moved ?

Units in static mode have zero movement points and can't attack at all. A player must expend admin points to activate (give it movement points) a static unit. The purpose of static mode is to simulate quite sectors of the front where nothing approaching the scale of an attack in WitE was going on. It also conserves supply and transport for the sectors where major combat is occurring.

[jaw]

Let me correct my last comment, Joel reminded me that as implemented static units have 1 movement point so they can always move at least 1 hex.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings



...Combat is resolved at the weapon to weapon level (squads, vehicles, guns), and the terrain being fought over has a huge impact on how the weapons fight against each other. Combat resolution is literally calculated shot by shot, although you don't want to watch all those shots, or the war would play out in realtime. [:)] Armor is at a big disadvantage in urban fighting.

To elaborate a bit on Joel's comment, terrain determines the maximum range combat will begin at. The more dense the terrain the shorter the initial combat range will be so in urban combat armor looses its advantage of longer ranged guns versus short ranged infantry weapons. Remember that the real advantage of armored units over non-armored units was survivability. The greater the range that armor could engage a target, the more survivable the armor was. In game terms, the higher the defensive benefit of the terrain the more dangerous it will be for armor to attack into.

I imagine that besides range, armor has the advantage of mobility and, of course, armor. I mean, I imagine squads have an anti armor value independent of their anti infantry value, right? and armor units will have different armor levels.
I also imagine that, besides range, terrain will provide some defense bonus, depending on terrain.
Let´s imagine the combat between an infantry division and an armor division. At long range only artillery would play, but it would be largely ineffective over armor units. At medium range infantry could use their antitank guns against armor, but they are handicapped because they are not armored (so can be destroyed by artillery and medium range mortar fire) and because theyt are largely inmobile, against mobile armor. Finally, at close range, infantry could use many other antitank weapons, but again tanks, as well as their armor, have the defense of their mobility. Am I right in these assumptions for the game?

[PyleDriver]

Gary did Steel Panthers, I love that game, so yes you don't need to imagine. Unlike the old DOS WIR game, he's got a high preformance engine to work with...Really just wait, this is one bad ass game...

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


I imagine that besides range, armor has the advantage of mobility and, of course, armor. I mean, I imagine squads have an anti armor value independent of their anti infantry value, right? and armor units will have different armor levels.
I also imagine that, besides range, terrain will provide some defense bonus, depending on terrain.
Let´s imagine the combat between an infantry division and an armor division. At long range only artillery would play, but it would be largely ineffective over armor units. At medium range infantry could use their antitank guns against armor, but they are handicapped because they are not armored (so can be destroyed by artillery and medium range mortar fire) and because theyt are largely inmobile, against mobile armor. Finally, at close range, infantry could use many other antitank weapons, but again tanks, as well as their armor, have the defense of their mobility. Am I right in these assumptions for the game?

In general yes but here is how it actually works using your example of an armored division versus an infantry division. Each of these divisions is composed of a variety of combat arms (or what I like to call combat elements). The armored division has AFVs in addition to infantry, engineers, and a variety of crew served weapons. The infantry division is similar except for having little or no armor. All of these combat elements are equipped with actual weapons. For example, a typical tank has a main gun and one or more machine guns. These weapons are individually rated for range and effectiveness against armored and non-armored targets. A typical infantry squad would have 8 or more men and a corresponding number of small arms including rifles, sub-machine guns, probably a light machine gun, and grenades (actual composition depending on nationality and period of War).

Now assume the armored division attacks the infantry division. The first round of combat begins at a randomly determined range between 20,000 and 30,000 yards. Only indirect fire artillery capable of that range would fire in this first round. (I'm not certain but I believe combat is simultaneous.)

The second round of combat would occur at 1/4 the range of the first round. For matematically simplicity let's say the first round was at 20,000 yards so the second round would be at 5,000 yards. This range is still greater than any direct fire weapon in the game so again only indirect fire weapons would participate but now more weapons like heavy mortars would also get to fire.

The third round of combat would occur at 1/4 the range of the second round or 1,250 yards. At this range, depending on the terrain, some direct fire weapons would now also participate plus all indirect fire artillery in range. Terrain permitting, tanks with long enough range guns could engage both armored and non-armored targets.

The fourth round of combat would occur at 1/4 the range of the third round or 300 to 350 yards (range is measured in 50 yard increments). Terrain permitting, machine guns, rifles, anti-tank rifles, light mortars would join the fray.

The fifth round of combat would occur at 1/4 the range of the fourth round or 50 to 100 yards. If the range is 50 yards this is the final round of combat; if the range of the fifth round is greater than 50 yards there would be a sixth round. The 50 yard range is close combat were weapons like grenades and sub-machine guns come into play.

After all these rounds of combat effect of damage is accessed and the defending unit will either hold its ground or be forced to retreat or worse.

[PyleDriver]

But the great thing is it auto does this all...Hum, one bad ass game...

[Shupov]

Can we assume the defending unit would fire first in each phase and then the surviving attacking units would fire?