The core problem with WitE+

[jwolf]

SigUp:  CRT stands for combat results table.  In old style paper map and cardboard counter games, to resolve an attack you would check each side's attack/defense factors, possibly with some modifiers, roll a die, and check the result on the "CRT."

[Gabriel B.]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

In the big picture, on the macro level, I think two things are needed:

* A better VP system that encourages the Soviets to defend forward (Points per turn per location for example).

* Nerfing the Lvov pocket.

These two should be done together, they cannot be done separately. If the Lvov pocket is removed with no incentive to fight forward the Soviets will just run with even more troops, and with the Lvov pocket much of the troops for a Soviet forward defense will not be there.

Ideally, the VP system should also encourage the Germans to hold terrain for as long as possible.

The isuee of Lvov is mostly because of scenario design gone wrong, than combat engine .

the red army was not that foward deployed , for instance half of soviet soviet 5th army
was still behind the Stalin line when the german atack begun .

Frankly i had given up trying to undestand the logic behic this artificial foward deployment , it does not really help the soviets, it just gives them 4 days head start into encirclement .

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
So, ironically, the old fashioned CRT can actually be a much more sophisticated combat model than WITE combat engine for all of its pseudorealism. It allows for greater diversity of results.

There's far too much in this thread to talk about but I think that the most important conclusion for me is that the old fashioned base CV x modifiers + dice roll is a much better way of doing it.
For one thing it's transparent so that players can see why their elite panzer corps was stopped dead by a rifle brigade. "Oh I see, I threw a double one. Let's get over it and move on." You can also see exactly what effect combat modifiers are having.
It's a more solid system as well. There are so many quirky results in WITE that just can't be explained and they often repeat which means that it's not just dice rolls that are causing them. If the quirkiness is due to extreme dice rolls as with a CRT system then it's far easier to deal with mentally. I can just imagine some plausible scenario or maybe make a note to sack a general who seems to be suspiciously 'unlucky'.
A CRT system is also relatively easily adjusted if results don't comply with historical parameters.
With computers, the results tables can be made as complex as necessary. I use the word 'necessary' deliberately because simplicity should always be the aim.

The weird thing is, there are really only two combat results in WITE: hold and retreat. That's pretty thin gruel. There needs to be more sorts of results than that, imo.

A hold isn't all that punishing, either. While a retreat of any kind is good (for the attacker), the game doesn't really produce pyrrhic victories until very late in the game (and only for the Axis.) City combat is notoriously cheap and easy, etc.

Folks obsess over the occasional oddball results you get in WITE, but for me, what stands out is how boring the results are, the lack of diversity.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Once against the AI I lost over 90 of 110 tanks in a single retreat. Was so infuriated by it that I reloaded the save and pulled back that panzer division...

But it's not all random and inexplicable. For example, if you stack 3 Panzer divisions in front of two stacks of 3 divisions you will get much higher retreat losses. Also, if you push divisions back over a river the retreat losses are double or triple. If you force a retreat through enemy ZOC the retreat losses are higher as well. Then, how does the fuel situation effect retreat losses. I don't know but I would assume it plays a role. Overall, I find retreat losses way too high in regards to men and material. It should be much more linked to morale.

@Bozo, I also think you are overdramatizing the +1 rule a little, though I agree that some testing is needed. Because right now the Soviet can bank on getting to a raw 2:1 on a regular basis with 1:1 initial odds, provided he can mass enough units.

You are probably right. But why can't we just wait and test the new blizzard before we demand another rule change. And why do I get 20 challenges as soon as I mention something about an "I win button". I'm currently playing a game against A game and afterwards hopefully against Pelton. Everyone else has to wait in line. [:D]

[Flaviusx]

The infuriating thing about these retreats with heavy panzer losses is that it is the only game in town. There's never the real possibility for a nimble fighting retreat with minimal casualties. Down the line this really comes back to haunt the Axis and explains the mass proliferation of forts.

Retreats are so punishing that they must absolutely be avoided. Almost any retreat result is a huge positive for the attacker. It's just way too binary.

Mind you, I think this is being addressed to some extent in WITW. But it's a genuine problem.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The weird thing is, there are really only two combat results in WITE: hold and retreat. That's pretty thin gruel. There needs to be more sorts of results than that, imo.

A hold isn't all that punishing, either. While a retreat of any kind is good (for the attacker), the game doesn't really produce pyrrhic victories until very late in the game (and only for the Axis.) City combat is notoriously cheap and easy, etc.

Folks obsess over the occasional oddball results you get in WITE, but for me, what stands out is how boring the results are, the lack of diversity.

Good points! There is no EX, or AX or those other nuances that even the most basic CRT used to provide.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The weird thing is, there are really only two combat results in WITE: hold and retreat. That's pretty thin gruel. There needs to be more sorts of results than that, imo.

A hold isn't all that punishing, either. While a retreat of any kind is good (for the attacker), the game doesn't really produce pyrrhic victories until very late in the game (and only for the Axis.) City combat is notoriously cheap and easy, etc.

Folks obsess over the occasional oddball results you get in WITE, but for me, what stands out is how boring the results are, the lack of diversity.

This is where one of my favourite elements of the TOAW system comes in: the ability to adjust each unit's 'stance'. Minimal, normal, or aggressive, in both attack and defence. It provides more flavour to combat results, and allows pressing the attack or defence as required/wanted. Maybe add such a toggle at the lowest HQ level. It would make things more unpredictable for the attacker, not knowing how hard the opposing forces will fight. I think it would also allow for more realism to elements like fighting retreats, screening attacks, etc.

IMHO, what Wite 2.0 needs is less detail to be gamed (practically/reasonably or maliciously) in a mathematical sense, but rather more operational and strategic combat elements than can be felt out and intuited by players. To me, that's what combat at these levels is about. I don't care how or why individual weapons, vehicles, or squads act in the combat engine, as long as the results are reasonably historically plausible (there's some room for improvement in Wite here). And if I did care, I'd be playing tactical level wargames. This isn't a tactical game.

[Erik Rutins]

Hi Michael,

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Like I said. Excuses. Your all talk and no substance.

BTW, the feeling is mutual. But that wouldn't stop me from rubbing your nose in it.

Personal attacks and insults, calling out other forum members and swearing are against forum rules. We want to keep this forum as a friendly place for wargamers. You can disagree completely with another poster's opinion, but still treat that poster with civility and respect.

Regards,

- Erik

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

This is where one of my favourite elements of the TOAW system comes in: the ability to adjust each unit's 'stance'. Minimal, normal, or aggressive, in both attack and defence. It provides more flavour to combat results, and allows pressing the attack or defence as required/wanted. Maybe add such a toggle at the lowest HQ level. It would make things more unpredictable for the attacker, not knowing how hard the opposing forces will fight. I think it would also allow for more realism to elements like fighting retreats, screening attacks, etc.

Nice idea, and in certain periods the dictator in chief could get some stupid notion that you are only allowed to select stand at all costs, or maybe disregard at risk of being cashiered - that would be a nice touch, but possibly fiddly. Just setting the stance for all the units in WITE would be a chore.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

With computers, the results tables can be made as complex as necessary. I use the word 'necessary' deliberately because simplicity should always be the aim.

Board games can also have quite complicated CRTs. Here's one that generates over 40 000 different results (The Lord of the CRT). I still think it's easier to tweak something like that, than WitE combat model, to get desired results...

[Flaviusx]

LOL @ that CRT. But you know, if you coded that sucker, maybe it would work out nicely.

[Michael T]

However, I will not accept anyone calling another person's opinion "bullshit."

I did not us term bullshit, rather BS.

But, dear Mr Bozo, if your opinion was indeed a pile of BS, not saying it is of course. But if it was, how would you like it described?

[Michael T]

Hi Michael,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Like I said. Excuses. Your all talk and no substance.

BTW, the feeling is mutual. But that wouldn't stop me from rubbing your nose in it.


Personal attacks and insults, calling out other forum members and swearing are against forum rules. We want to keep this forum as a friendly place for wargamers. You can disagree completely with another poster's opinion, but still treat that poster with civility and respect.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik, why is what I wrote any worse than this?

Your macho attitude is very annoying.

I wouldn't play with you if we were the only two people stuck on an island, with two computers, two copies of WitE and an unlimited power supply. But thanks, mate!

I apparently have an attitude that is macho and very annoying. If feel that to be a personal insult and an attack on my sexuality.

[Flaviusx]

Hey, where I come from being called macho is a compliment.

[Michael T]

Personal attacks and insults, calling out other forum members and swearing are against forum rules. We want to keep this forum as a friendly place for wargamers. You can disagree completely with another poster's opinion, but still treat that poster with civility and respect.

Where did I swear?

When did I make a personal attack that was not preceded by one on me or otherwise provoked?

I won't stand for misinformation being spread about this forum. Dear Mr Bozo has a propensity for it. As born out by the comments about his *I win button* for mild winter and the 2:1 nerf. Others would seem to agree that this is non sense.

I appologise to dear mr Bozo for any offence. But really he needs to improve his knowledge of the game before making such remarks.

[Michael T]

Hey, where I come from being called macho is a compliment.

You devil [:D]

[Michael T]

Anyway getting back to the other posters remarks about CRT and the like. Its all good stuff. Especially stances and the like. But it's all been rasied before. How do we get this stuff included in future games? Time for some poll questions perhaps?

[Flaviusx]

We can yack it up here, but the best way to influence matters is to get on board the testing team and test things to destruction. This is the most direct line to the developer. As for polling...very much doubt that will amount to a hill of beans. It's unlikely to ever reach the developer, and even if it did, why should a mere poll persuade a designer? It wouldn't persuade me, I would want an actual argument with examples and numbers. Democracy is for politics, not game design.

For whatever it is worth I do believe the combat model will change up some in WITW. (The air model is changing dramatically, too.) It will continue to evolve going into future games.

[Michael T]

Well with utmost respect, bowing, grovelling etc etc, I beg to differ sir.

Polls have had direct influence previously. Ala SD, alt victory. So if a ton of players say we want combat stances taken in to account perhaps people might listen.

But I also accept testing is anothjer avenue. However a unified multitude of customers on a poll must and does have influence.

[&o][&o][&o][&o]

If any remark was found to be insulting or offensive in any way I beg your forgivness kind sir, it was not intended [&o][&o][&o]

Seriously tho, lets not get in to a debate about how to influence the devs. If people want it enough it will find a way. I do rather enjoy all this reminiscing about other old games, whether PC or Board. Many had some really superb features that could serve us well in future titles of this series.

[Flaviusx]

All that stuff is on the margins, MT. The combat model...that's getting at the hearts and guts of the game, and if you really want to change the design you want to be as close to the throne as possible, as it were.

But it is fun reminiscing about about the olden days. And the analog era of wargaming still has things to teach the digital era. I'd like to think so, anyways, being an old fart myself.