Basic info on War in the West 43-45

[Joel Billings]

We're making decent progress. We've got several PBEM games going now in testing, and I recently got a chance to play the game against the Axis AI after a 4 months hiatus and made it from D-Day to late March 45 (when I was 8 hexes from Berlin). I enjoyed it, and Gary has been able to improve the AI quite a bit over the past month. We're still working on the artwork for the map so I probably won't have any screenshots to show for another few months. I'm feeling much better about the game coming out this year, but I'm not ready to put a date on it. I will say that I'm really starting to get into the new air game system of creating air directives for your air forces. Pavel's done a lot to improve the interface, making it much easier and more fun to play with. I liked how the weather system worked. I found myself hoping for a weather front from Africa to dry out the Italian mud.

[GARY L]

Sounds Great

Thanks

[SigUp]

The info sounds great. Especially the one with the air and weather has me going. Keep up the good work. [:)]

[Khanti]

ORIGINAL: Priapus1

Agree with everyone here. Lack of economic flexibility for the Germans means I won't be purchasing WITW.

Like I said: no economy, no fun.
If I can't even change production from Stug IV into Pz IV, then it's not going to run well.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We're making decent progress. (...) Gary has been able to improve the AI quite a bit over the past month. (...) Pavel's done a lot to improve the interface, making it much easier and more fun to play with.

That's sound well. Progress is nice, especially when speaking about AI and interface. Hope you find some time to discuss some player influence over strategic level aspect, not only managing battles.

[OxfordGuy3]

Much more interested in this than the East Front, though mainly for the North Africa theatre, as there's a dearth of operational-level North Africa games, apart from the desert war scenarios in TOAWIII and John Tiller's Tobruk '41 and El Alamein '42 games, but these all have short-comings and are showing their age.

Have I over-looked any other good operational-level games which have North Africa scenarios? The only other thing I'm aware of is the North Africa scenarios in Schwerpunkt's Allied-German War, which I've been tempted by, but have been put off by reports of a awkward user interface, though the improved sequel World War 2 Europe looks much better, from some of the screenshots I've seen, and I might pick that up when it eventually comes out, if the 1940 and 1941-42 add-ons for WITW aren't going to come out for ages.

[carlkay58]

War in the West will start with Sicily and go through the end of the war. I believe (but am not sure) that North Africa will be next along with War in the East 2. I am not, however, a spokesperson for 2by3 so take everything I just said with a large grain of salt. These are just my understanding from previous published statements.

[Dili]

Starting in Sicily will be the less interesting period.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

War in the West will start with Sicily and go through the end of the war. I believe (but am not sure) that North Africa will be next along with War in the East 2. I am not, however, a spokesperson for 2by3 so take everything I just said with a large grain of salt. These are just my understanding from previous published statements.

Thanks, think I'll probably wait until the earlier add-ons are out, I'm more interested in the early war period

[wodin]

Strange how us wargamers like different things. I'd rather be given or have available what was available at that particular time and have all production automated along historical lines. Let me concentrate on the actual fighting aspect.


Saying all that I just want Mr Grigsby to finish messing with all this operational\strategic stuff and get going with a monster Steel Panthers update!!. I'll get my coat:))

ORIGINAL: Hanti

ORIGINAL: Priapus1

Agree with everyone here. Lack of economic flexibility for the Germans means I won't be purchasing WITW.

Like I said: no economy, no fun.
If I can't even change production from Stug IV into Pz IV, then it's not going to run well.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We're making decent progress. (...) Gary has been able to improve the AI quite a bit over the past month. (...) Pavel's done a lot to improve the interface, making it much easier and more fun to play with.

That's sound well. Progress is nice, especially when speaking about AI and interface. Hope you find some time to discuss some player influence over strategic level aspect, not only managing battles.

[RedLancer]

The recent thread on WitE game balance drifted into a discussion about some of the unrealistic aspects of the WitE logistics model. As WitE 2.0 will develop from WitW I thought an explanation of WitW's model would be useful information for those suggesting improvements. IMO - the logistics model together with the new air model are the biggest changes between WitE and WitW.

Firstly some comments on the WitE system to set a baseline. In WitE supply (i.e. supplies, fuel, and replacements) can be drawn from any hex containing a working rail connected to the wider rail network (i.e. a green rail hex) and in effect supply movement within the rail network is unconstrained. From a functioning rail hex (in most cases) supply then travels by truck first to a HQ and then from the HQ to a Unit in a two phase process.

The Big Differences in WitW
- Supply moves around the map during the log phase as 'Freight' and it is tracked. When Freight gets to a unit it is converted into one of the four types of supply - Supplies, Fuel, Ammo or Replacements - but only if they exist in the production pools. (I think of it as cashing a cheque)
- Freight is created, stored and transferred between a network of Depots. Units will try to get their Freight from the nearest Depot. Unlike WitE supply does not move through HQs and you cannot get supply from any working rail - only a Depot. Depots also have Trucks which move Freight to Units. The Truck situation is similar to WitE - the fewer trucks and further you have to travel the less freight you will receive.
- Depots automatically move freight to each other by rail or sea (not truck).
- The ability to move Freight between Depots is constrained by two factors. Firstly Depots can only exist in a hex with a Port or a Railyard. The capacity of the Depot to handle freight is dependent on the size of the co-located Port or Railyard. A big port like Antwerp can handle much more Freight than a small port like Granville. Secondly there is a limit on the ability of the network to move Freight between Depots by ship or rail.
- Rail Capacity is governed by two factors - firstly Railyard Points which are produced by Railyards. Railyard Points represent rolling stock. The less you have the more difficult it is to move. Secondly the usage of a rail in each hex is recorded. As you move more by rail the track changes colour and the cost to move increases - representing congestion.
- Sea Capacity is limited by Port Points and Shipping. A unit can now have enough SMPs to unload but will be unable to do so as the port has maxed out which then impacts on the freight capacity in the log phase.
- The movement of Freight and the movement of Units by rail/sea are in direct competition so you need to balance moving units strategically with the logistic need of your units.
- As a player you can create Depots in hexes on the rail network with towns (inc Ports). You can specify the Priority of resupply for Corps/Army/Army Gp via their HQ and also for each Depot.

So what?
- The practical upshot of all this is that supply is more constrained. You are unlikely to get all the freight that you need no matter how you position your troops.
- As rail movement consumes Railyard Points not all rail lines are equal especially when unloading a unit - resulting in an increased SMP Cost.
- Similarly as depot capacity depends on the size of ports and railyards some lines of communication have much more capacity. It is no longer only a question of repairing the closest rail to the front line.
- As replacements also consume freight based on their size - putting a unit on refit in a Depot hex can suck up all the freight and leave others with almost nothing.
- Railing a unit to the rear for refit is possible but it will reduce the freight moving forward.
- There is no HQ Build Up function - you now have to create a Depot and allow freight to accumulate before launching an offensive.

I hope this gives you a flavour of the system - I have simplified some parts but hope it all makes sense. Feel free to ask any follow up questions.

[swkuh]

Well, you're moving the "logistics" ball forward, and your explication of the approach is understandable. Wouldn't want to be the writer of the game manual, though!

HQ build-ups going away is one thing that I applaud. Seems very unrealistic in WitE, but I seldom invoke that feature as I play vs. AI.

[GARY L]

Joel

Any update on War in the West?

Gary

[jwolf]

The new logistics system sounds good and a big improvement over WITE.

Q:  Is it possible to capture supplies from an opponent's depot if you overrun it?

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Q:  Is it possible to capture supplies from an opponent's depot if you overrun it?

Yes - you can capture Freight when you overrun a Depot although in WitW this isn't really a key factor as captured Axis Depots are usually almost empty.

[821Bobo]

And it will be all the freight in the depot or just portion of it?. As the freight is representing Supplies, Fuel, Ammo and Replacements, I really doubt that in real life replacements would stay there to be captured.

[RedLancer]

To be honest I don't know exactly how much you get without running a test  - in WitW capturing Depots is not very important.  In WitE2.0 I'm sure it will be much more important. 
 
Freight is just Freight until it arrives at a Unit - when Freight is received it is 'cashed in' to give what the Unit needs. 
 
In my original explanation I have simplified things a little.  The WitW resupply system is pretty complicated and has a number of phases and subphases that occur.  During the resupply phase Units seek to draw freight in a number of steps from the depot based upon their need and the resupply priority you have assigned.  This is done to try and allow everyone to get something - especially those in the greatest need.  This process shares out the freight that is available.  If units are needy and freight is scarce you may run out in one of the early sub phases.  If freight is plentiful and units well stocked they can get everything they need.  In each of the sub phases you ask for the freight to meet your need for supplies, fuel, ammo etc.  When the freight arrives it is cashed in.  For replacements there is a priority system - you try to cash in the freight for AFVs first but of course there needs to be some in the pool.  Artillery Units are able to try to get more Ammo and Motorized Units are able to try to get more Fuel.  (There are special rules for units on Refit in a depot hex who will try and get 100%.)

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: GARY L

Joel

Any update on War in the West?

Gary

We'll unfortunately miss the 70th anniversary of D-day, but unofficially we expect the game to release sometime between the 70th Anniversary of Arnhem (covered in our Westwall scenario) and the 70th Anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge (covered in our Bulge to the Rhine scenario). If things go especially well, we might be out as soon as the 70th anniversary of Mortain (covered in our Breakout & Pursuit 44 scenario), but I wouldn't count on it. [:)]

[GARY L]

Battle of the Bulge

Will War in the West get their own Forum Soon?

[Joel Billings]

Not sure what Matrix has planned for the forum. I'll ask Erik next time I speak to him.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

There are some changes with production, but we are not increasing player control in the WitW 43-45 game. We're starting to get more final artwork into the game so hopefully over the next few months we'll be able to start showing some screens.

Just because we often see the 'total control' side of the debate: please hold this line. I hate (with a passion) games that get obsessed with the difference between the Mk14 mod 2** air-launched tank, and the Mk14 mod 2*** version in combat terms, and then (often in response to user 'demands') allow all production of synthetic fuel to be changed to King Tiger in 1941 (because I have enough fuel then, so why shouldn't I make the KT earier... it could have been done!).

There are 2 problems with putting an economic (production) system on a detailed game such as this. The lesser (surmountable with enough research and effort) is you need a very good model of the factory system (size, workforce, skill level, equipment - down to crainage etc but also ownership, design capabilty etc), and the characteristics of what is to be made(materials, weight, man hour and skill content, presence of difficult, scarce or unique items such as turret ring bearings, optics, nickel alloys etc). Secondly, and far more intractable, you need to counter player hindsight. We could all do 'better' than reality because we know what worked. So, 1939, Germany skips all Pzkw IV production versions between E and say G, starts work on Panther, and Me262. Allies design the Sherman Firefly as basic version as soon as 17pdr is available, and while they are at it ditch the 6pdr completely (comes along too late - use a US 76mm or something).

It is easy to have a solution in a fantasy world ('invent' devices and the game secretly modifies their effectiveness once in combat, so the player never truly knows what will work until tested in combat). However this would never wash in a WITE game - T34 is a dud and the German 37mm is the wonder weapon of the war anyone?

Sorry for the rant, but we never seem to get the counter arguments against increased player control of production. The same goes for ToE BTW - unless you model all aspects of combats and living/supplying the war, you have to limit to history for realism sake.