Matrix Games Forums

Fixed airfields on the map?

Best regards


Edit: Grand European map looks ... gigantic. Any plans to contain the resulting clickfeast in an eventual War in Europe?

Expertly put and very compelling. I share these concerns and have a few more.

The screenie from Joel doesn't really rebut Iron Duke's points. In fact, it emphasizes the narrow frontage across which war will rage for the better part of 2 years and when compared to WitE, the Italian campaign isn't going to hold many people's interest for long.

It would be even more enlightening to see a screenie of Normandy, where ID has focused his remarks, or of the Bastogne area to get a sense of how many hexes the Bulge would cover.

No doubt it's too late now, but the better strategy might have been:

1. Develop WitE 2 FIRST, with a full Europe map and whatever other game enhancements are possible, especially the addition of Axis industry and infrastructure along BtR lines.
2. THEN expand WitE 2 to cover the whole European war, including an option to play WitE 2-only plus the strategic bombing campaign up to June '44. (Unit withdrawals would reflect events in other theatres).
3. Finally, add some Scenarios for Normandy, Sicily, Italy and 1940, etc.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

It will feel different. [:)]

Nothing compares to the Eastern Front when it comes to land combat. I understand what you're saying, but we're going with 10 miles hexes. There will be a robust air game that allows for the strategic bombing campaign, and scenarios that start in May 44 and June 43 that allow players to adjust their invasion sites (but have to consider issues of air/naval superiority) and June 44 and July 43 scenarios with historical landings (at least that's the plan).

ALPHA ART ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The screenshot shows the German set up as of May 44 in Italy. This is alpha data and alpha artwork. In the final product, the map will look more like the WitE map art (we are still adjusting the data, map painting won't start for awhile). We have spent most of our time with the 43 campaign to date, but Trey recently started putting together the May 44 scenario so I thought I'd show you this.

Indeed, the European map looks great. Makes me wonder how the CONUSA bases or Capetown etc. will be taken into account for a War in Europe, given it will ever come? Presumably that will require an exention of the map, or simply neglect any Atlantic/Medit. convoy warfare a la WitP:AE. I hope that you will introduce the latter in the 39-42 titles. And I hope that even simplified naval rules will mean level of detail not to far from AE. That would be very important on my list, not sure how others view that. Not sure how to do that exactly with I-Go-U-Go. I'd rather wish for the AE system there (again) -- just seems offer much more realism and possibilities.

Note those little green crosses on the map! Will that mean that players in the future can also build air fields? Would certainly be necessary for a WiTE2, if this be combined with static airfields.

Also, since there will be strategic bombing -- how exactly will that work? By specifying certain groups with mission orders, that are then executed once the turn is ended? Or also right-click...?

What targets will be available? Presumably, since this title will cover the final phase of the war, all of Germany, Austria etc. will have to be modelled completely with (rail) infrastructure and industries? So will there be specific factories at specific locations, not just an abstracted list like in WitE?
Also, how about bombing rail way bridges and rail yards or other "logistic" infrastructure?

I'm salivating waiting for this. Do you have a ballpark release date?
Such as;
a) Less than 12 months
b) 12-18 months or
c) 18 plus months
I know its hard to predict and I can understand a reluctance say
begging toss me a bone please.

Or also right-click...?

No. It will be all the way different.

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Expertly put and very compelling. I share these concerns and have a few more.

The screenie from Joel doesn't really rebut Iron Duke's points. In fact, it emphasizes the narrow frontage across which war will rage for the better part of 2 years and when compared to WitE, the Italian campaign isn't going to hold many people's interest for long.

That would be the gist of my comments. The screenshot looks great, and I am sure it will look even better when finished, but it represents the sum total of the land fighting for perhaps the first fifty turns of the 1943 campaign. Operational options are limited to non existant for both sides and there is little or no replayability. Now, that isn't 2by3's fault, the war in the west is what it was in Italy, but I think you exacerbate that issue with big hexes rather than negate it.

I fully appreciate that there are important financial and business aspects to these sorts of decisions, but I don't see that there are three full priced games to be had in the western theatre at these scales.

I purchased, but have never played unfortunately, Schwerpunkt's take on this, but they played 7.5 mile hexes and weekly turns, and carried the entire war in the west from 1939-45.

Regards,
ID

There will be scearios, long and short, big and small. I'm not going to be able to convince you through writing that what we are doing will turn into a good game, or series of games (I'd rather be working on the game than debating it anyway). We will just have to prove it. [:)] I won't be going into more detail for awhile as there are just too many things in flux to make it worthwhile and we'll have time to answer the questions in the future. I just thought some of you would enjoy seeing a sneek peek. Thanks to those wishing us luck (as well as those purchasing Don to the Danube as a sign of support for WitE and our future games).

And yes, airfields are part of the map, not units like in WitE.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

There will be scearios, long and short, big and small. I'm not going to be able to convince you through writing that what we are doing will turn into a good game, or series of games (I'd rather be working on the game than debating it anyway). We will just have to prove it. [:)]

Joel,
I genuinely wish you every success and don't doubt I'll regret these observations in X months when it comes out. I'm not attempting to undermine, upset, hack off or otherwise troll here.

These are simply observations backed by illustrative examples, examples which can be refuted or challenged. I wouldn't post critique without examples that people could analyse themselves and give me grief over if they felt I deserved it.

Additionally, I don't get any particularly pleasure from any of this since in addition to setting myself up for a fall in X months when you deliver a wargame of the year, I'm also likely ruining whatever miniscule chance I had of beta testing work if you ever made the call.

However, in the period when there are "many things in flux", I think it worth raising these concerns simply because even the "right" decisions should be challenged and examined in order to confirm their validity.

On the basis that the 1943 campaign is the biggest scenario, in that it covers the entire scope of the game within one scenario, then your screenshot (as enticing and promising as it is) represents the entire scope of the land fighting for around 50 turns. It is a frontline 9 hexes long and is served by a German OOB of around 20 Divisions.

When the weather is bad in this "Italy alone" stage of the scenario, land activity in those turns will (as Rundstedt is famously alleged to have once said) consist of choosing when to change the Guard on the HQ gate. I don't doubt there will be an air campaign to manage (although nothing of any consequence re naval at this stage in the war) but what you've posted is where all the Ground Combat will take place until approximately turn 53.

However, I thank you for politely and patiently entertaining my nonsense, I wish you all the very best in your endeavours, I look forward to seeing the best possible product in the shortest possible time and I thank you for the several hours of fun I will have tomorrow driving hard for Leningrad, Kiev and Smolensk in the new WitE GC 41 I just started.

All the very best,
IronDuke




[/quote]

Can you make to able merge with war in the east Joel ?

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: dassie

Can you make to able merge with war in the east Joel ?

One day, hopefully, as Joel wrote here several time, there will be one all encompassing "War in the Europe"! [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"

Imagine the map size and the hex count in a "War in the World", that would be an all encompassing game

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
And yes, airfields are part of the map, not units like in WitE.

I know I sound like an ignorant fool, but I would love WitE with airfields as part of the map instead of units. Sometimes when I play the Axis I think there are thrice the number of counters in HQ, airbases and RR units - than in real combat units. From other games (including board games) I'm used to reverse proportions

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
No doubt it's too late now, but the better strategy might have been:

1. Develop WitE 2 FIRST, with a full Europe map and whatever other game enhancements are possible, especially the addition of Axis industry and infrastructure along BtR lines.
2. THEN expand WitE 2 to cover the whole European war, including an option to play WitE 2-only plus the strategic bombing campaign up to June '44. (Unit withdrawals would reflect events in other theatres).
3. Finally, add some Scenarios for Normandy, Sicily, Italy and 1940, etc.

I agree that it's probably too late now to implement such a strategy.
On the other hand I do think that it's not too late to release WitW as a "War in Europe 1943-1945" game.
As I said in another thread: the map is already done, the OoB work for eastern armies is already done. No further engine changes are needed other than the ones currently worked on for WitW (simply because a detailed naval model is not indispensable for such a game).

I think the scale concerns would be more valid if we were aiming to create a different kind of game that focused on exploring some of these battles on a more operational level. You could have made the same argument for any operation in War in the East as well. Joel and Gary have already worked at this scale and at higher scales for the Western Front and the result was a great game. I honestly think that if you need a proof of concept, you can find it in their past published work. War in the West will give you a scope that goes far beyond a single battle or operation or region and the freedom to decide how to win the War in the West.

Regards,

- Erik

Battle for the Atlantic/U-Boats ?
 
 

Introduction of a WEGO system and a true replay sequence will add definitely a plus to WITW.

Just to clear things up, WitW will still be IGOUGO, however, there are significant changes with a unique air phase for resolution of most types of air missions, as well as special sequencing for amphibious invasions that are ordered in one player turn and resolved during the next player's player turn.

As for the Battle of the Atlantic, not in WitW 43-45 (other than abstract attrition on sea movement, but it will be coming in WitW 40, as well a more involved naval game (although there are some new sea control aspects to WitW 43-45 that are more advanced than in WitE).

BoA in 1940. I look forward to that [:)]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I think the scale concerns would be more valid if we were aiming to create a different kind of game that focused on exploring some of these battles on a more operational level. You could have made the same argument for any operation in War in the East as well. Joel and Gary have already worked at this scale and at higher scales for the Western Front and the result was a great game. I honestly think that if you need a proof of concept, you can find it in their past published work. War in the West will give you a scope that goes far beyond a single battle or operation or region and the freedom to decide how to win the War in the West.

Regards,

- Erik

From the scale chosen the actual “game” will be reliant on working mechanics for logistics, comand and control and politics to carry it. (in those three WITE fell on its face which incidently was a surprise given Garys civil war game). From the sceenshot there is nothing to suggest WITW will be any different.

ORIGINAL: Smirfy
From the scale chosen the actual “game” will be reliant on working mechanics for logistics, comand and control and politics to carry it. (in those three WITE fell on its face which incidently was a surprise given Garys civil war game). From the sceenshot there is nothing to suggest WITW will be any different.

[8|]

Each to his own I suppose

As a contrary opinion, 1) WitE logistics are comparable to similar games but certainly need improvement even for WitE, 2) C&C is by far the best model I have seen (but can still be improved of course), and 3) I don't see where politics is even applicable to WitE (although inter-Allied friction will certainly be a factor in WitW).

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I think the scale concerns would be more valid if we were aiming to create a different kind of game that focused on exploring some of these battles on a more operational level.

Well, as a serial offender when it comes to holding invalid concerns [;)], my first reaction to this was that given that the individual units will (presumably) be modelled down to individual squads, tanks and artillery pieces, and the screenshot above saw the deployment of some Regimental sized units, how can the game avoid exploring these battles at the operational level?

My second reaction was that are we now saying that the game is not intended to be a detailed operational simulation of the land fighting in the western theatre? Is that how we should interpret the fact the game is not "focused on exploring some of these battles on a more operational level".

With respect, whilst a new air model and naval model will be nice, it was boots on the ground and operational art that liberated France and Italy. A naval model for anything bar a few months in the mediterranearn version of the game, and 2-3 turns in the 1940 game, will be largely pointless given the Kriegsmarine lacked the fuel, tonnage or numbers to trouble the RN, particularly in the period 43-45 covered by this first title.

Likewise in the air, this first game is set in a period of Allied Air supremacy. Whatever the Allied player chooses to bomb in the air portion of the game, waves of P-51s and P-47s will attrit the Luftwaffe to nothing by turn 50 of the 1943 campaign, whatever the AXIS player attempts to do (unless he puts everything into national reserve).

Which essentially brings us to the one section of the game where the Allies didn't have it all their own way, being unable to prevent a well organised fighting withdrawl from sicily, having to crawl a bloody crawl up Italy, and having to slug it out in the Bocage for three months before gaining space to manouvre.

Arguably, the only part of the WitW which gives the Germans any options (although these are all still slim) is the ground fighting, and it is precisely this part which is to be played out at a scale that will largely remove meaningful manouvre and decision making.

You could have made the same argument for any operation in War in the East as well.

Some might have argued that the WITE scale should have been smaller, TOAW Fire in the East used smaller scales for example, but to be fair, what we got was still an operational tour de force whatever your preference. It is not an easy argument to sustain (I certainly wouldn't care to advocate it) with relation to WitE, but it surely has more mileage here given the scale of the front lines when measured in 10 mile hexes.

Joel and Gary have already worked at this scale and at higher scales for the Western Front and the result was a great game. I honestly think that if you need a proof of concept, you can find it in their past published work.

This is not in dispute, although surely part of their success is sustaining design decisions in the face of challenge, articulating why they are right. They also presumably wouldn't claim to be infallible, since these sorts of decisions may not be made purely on game design grounds. Would it be fair to say that much of WitW will look like it does because of the design decisions taken when WitE was being designed?

Finally, I'd (with the very greatest of respect and a gentle tone) point out that the man who gave us the cinematic magnificence that is Star Wars, also gave the world Howard the Duck. Past performance is not a guarantee of future....etc etc etc.

War in the West will give you a scope that goes far beyond a single battle or operation or region and the freedom to decide how to win the War in the West.

Well, firstly, the game is surely fundamentally broken if the Germans can beat the western Allies from an historical starting position in either 43 or 44. If this is a turn of phrase (one to note down for the publicity blurb, it was a nice soundbite [;)]), and what you mean is "lose less bad" a la the victory models for WITP and WitE, then I would continue to argue that it is absolutely essential that the ground combat is modelled meaningfully because only here can the Germans affect the outcome.

It might be possible to delay the Allies further in Italy, or snuff out the Anzio landing. It might be possible to hang on an extra week in the Overlord lodgement area, or give up the Bulge assault as the hopeless task that it was and use the armoured forces thus preserved to blunt the assault on the Rhine for a few days, or even make the Allied player more cautious.

However, A german player won't win by using a more detailed naval model to sortie the Kriegmarine's assorted E-boats and Canoes into the channel, and you won't delay anything using the more detailed air model, since even if your opponent was an early Hominid and couldn't win the air battle over Germany with the resources the Allies deployed, then that wouldn't prevent the Allies landing in France and sweeping all before them when they were ready. It's a numbers game and the Germans can't win it.

Therefore, since the Allies can't win without ground combat liberating territory, and the Germans can only hope to trip the Allies up within the ground combat segments using ground combat elements, it is absolutely essential that this is modelled at a scale that gives the German player some scope to make meaningful choices. I don't see many choices are 10 miles per hex.

A good tactician might be able to outfight me at a small scale and hold me up. At a big scale, it becomes much more difficult since you are facing off across far fewer hexes.

Now, my suspicion is that the Gustav line is 9 hexes long because you didn't want the distance between Riga and Daugapils to be 25 hexes long. If we are playing 10 mile hexes because there is no commercial case for the effort required to convert the current game engine to a smaller scale, then fine. I'm a grown up, an Analyst by profession and I can understand that. I'll stop labouring the point and move on.

However, I need to understand this, not least because these four projected games are likely to relieve me of 200-300 USD over the next few years. Budget is not an issue, I've brought from Matrix and never played simply to support an engine onto the next in series which was more interesting to me, but it is much harder with these sorts of reservations and answers which don't feel particularly transparent.

As with everything I've said in this thread, this is all meant in the best possible and most constructive sense. No one will be happier than me if someone can deconstruct my reasoning, I want these games, I want to play these titles, and if you choose, just ignore my questions and I'll go away, I'm not trolling.

All the very best,
ID