Living Manual

[malyhin1517]

Yes I'd like the air component of this game to be 10x easier which given the depth of possibilities such as having "mouse over" ,pop ups of airbases BEING useful by allowing transfer to ANY base (airfield). ANYTHING but what exists !

Don't you want too much? They won't make a new game for you. If you don't like this game, then you have two options: try to figure it out or stop playing it!

[Zovs]

The most recent Living Manual can be accessed from this thread. The one released with each update will be correct to the previous patch, here we'll make available one that is updated to include the latest patch.

https://we.tl/t-nDa8Pzirjl

this link gives access to a pdf version - if you would like a word version please contact me

Roger

Yes I'd like a PDF version and

Yes I'd like the air component of this game to be 10x easier which given the depth of possibilities such as having "mouse over" ,pop ups of airbases BEING useful by allowing transfer to ANY base (airfield). ANYTHING but what exists !

I don't think the air war/phase is going to drastically change any tie soon. Nor get any easier then it already is. I personally think that folks need to just get over the fact that the air war system was ported over from WITW and they will either have to just be happy with the Air War AI Assist thing, or just bite the bullet and learn the new Air War system.

In reality its not really that bad. If you have WITW you can learn the essence of the Air War and apply that knowledge to WITE2.

Complaining about it, or asking for it become magical easier or going back to WITE 1 is just not going to happen. So that really just leaves you with three choices:

1. Use the AI assist
2. Learn to use the new Air War System (its not that complicated)
3. Play something else

YMMV

[malyhin1517]

By the way, I also do not like the air war system in this game, but I had to figure it out and now I successfully use it without the help of AI.

[MarkShot]

I like the inclusion of the air war in both games.

In WITW, I have been doing my own air war, but I think in WITE-2, it is less of a big deal. Also, I think the associate AOGs with ground units and some defaults, makes the air war more automatic.

Lastly, when you do you own air war the ground situation does not seem so fluid each turn to consume much work. It is more logistics and ground combat that involves time.

[Matrixsl]

It seems the link in the first message of the thread is no more active.
Can you please share again the latest version of the living manual ?
Thanks.

[Joel Billings]

I've edited the first post to include a zipped up version of the latest living manual that you can download.

[Wiedrock]

I am not sure if that's the right thread to reply but since this is the "living manual" i guess I can report "issues" with the "dead manual" which made their way into the living manual here too.

I am new to the game and therefore I may be wrong or missunderstanding this (additional my native language isn't english) but I feel like there is something wrong with the CPP-bonus numbers in both manuals [see the bold written sections]

23.2.3. Effect of Combat Preparation Points
Attacking units will have their CV for combat calculations
modified by the number of CPPs they possess if they are
attacking. Every 1 CPP adds 1% to the final CV so a unit
with 100% preparation points will have their attacking CV
doubled. In effect, CPPs primarily affect the final combat
odds – and thus the chance of winning or losing a battle.
In addition, CPPs affect the chances of passing
administrative rolls for resupply and to reduce fatigue
when in contact with the enemy. In addition, the chances
of Support Units being committed and the effectiveness of
artillery are also influenced by the number of CPP a unit
possesses.
Units with 100 CPP can store up to 150% of their
ammunition, supply and fuel needs if they are set at supply
priority 4 and do not move.

25.8.3. Effect of Combat Preparation Points
Combat Preparation Points (23.2) also affect the proportion
of supply and ammunition a unit will seek to hold during the
logistics phase. Units with 100% CPP can store up to 180% of
their ammunition, and 130% of their supply and fuel needs
if they are set at supply priority 4 and do not move.
In addition, the number of CPPs affects the chances of
passing administrative rolls for resupply.

There may be some specifics to those paragraphs like, "only counts towards HQs, Assault-Armies or xyz" which I don't get right...

[Joel Billings]

I think that 25.8.3 is more accurate, however, in running some tests, it seems very hard for units to get all the way to the 130% level, and even harder to get to the 180% ammo level. Given the way the system works, I think units end up in the 110 to 130 range for supply and fuel, and even in most cases for ammo. Artillery units can end up a bit higher on ammo. Having all those conditions being true, makes it more likely they will get above 110, but getting a lot higher must be under certain unusual circumstances and not from just sitting around with fully equipped units. I think the 150% number is obsolete, although there may be certain units (like artillery) that are more likely to end up between 130 and 150% ammo. I wish I could be more specific and clear, but I think the code is more complex than the simple numbers listed in the manual.

[Wiedrock]

Concerning the Terrain modifiers in the defense (the +X Defense Modifiers) there are different numbers given. I am pretty sure the 2nd one is old/wrong since it's the same numbers as in the Dead Manual.

23.5.2. Terrain
Urban +6
Heavy Urban +8

38.4.2. Terrain Defnsive Modifiers
Light Urban +12
Heavy Urban +16

[Joel Billings]

Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention. In looking this up, and another item I saw mentioned somewhere about cities not being listed as dense terrain, I discovered several things I didn’t realize or which we missed in the manual. These items explain some of the wide CV swings that can happen between the starting CV value in a battle and the ending CV value in a battle. What I discovered was this:

1) City terrain is dense terrain (I’m pretty sure I knew this one, so it was just an oversight that we never got it in the manual).
2) The CV defending terrain bonus of light urban used at the end of combat is actually +12 and for heavy urban is +16 (if not isolated). One chart shows this in the WitE2 manual, and one chart shows the +6/+8 values that exist in WitW. However, there is an oddity in WitE2 (don’t know if it exists in WitW). That oddity (you could call it a bug, but it was likely intended at some point and just never documented) is that when viewing CVs of defending units on the map, in the rollover, in their unit detail screen, and in the starting CV values shown in combat there are some maximums in this formula:
CV multiplied by ((1+terrain Def Mod)+Fort) -> where the maximum of the (1+terrain Def Mod) is 5 in heavy urban and 4 in light urban.
The actual values used at the end of the battle are not subject to the maximums, so you can get a net multiplier that is as high as x22 at the end of a battle in heavy urban with fort 5 but never see a multiplier higher than x10 at the start (and at fort level 0, you will get x17 in the end, but see only x5 so you get a huge increase). This explains some of the big increases you can see from start to end of a battle for the defender in urban terrain even if all leader rolls and other variables come out at baseline and no losses are taken.
3) The attacker terrain density modifier is not being accounted for in the rollover CV predictor when you rollover a possible battle, nor is it in the starting CV value in the battle display. In WitW it was shown in the predictor rollover, but when you actually go into the battle, it wasn’t shown in the starting CV value. So when attacking dense terrain there’s a x2 or x1/2 modifier based on ground element type that isn’t shown anywhere but is in the end of battle modifier (heavy urban being double dense is x4 or x1/4). So you can see that the attacker value can be off by quite a lot due to density of the defender hex terrain. Ideally the predictor should have it built in like WitW, and possibly even in the start of battle values.

You can see that these things combine to make for several reasons that the CV values can blow up or be deflated in ways not easily understandable even though they are clearly predictable. We’re going to work towards getting 2 and 3 so the info provided in the displays matches the actual numbers used at the end of combat. We’ll also update the living manual to correct the errors. The good news is that the game has always been using the correct intended modifiers and densities when resolving the battles. This should help to explain some of the oddities players have reported in the past but we were never able to pin down. There’s still plenty of variability in combat, as well as the impact of the casualties/disruption on forces, that can reduce or enhance CV numbers, but those are intended. Thanks again for pointing this out.

[Wiedrock]

Many thanks for your response.

Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention. In looking this up, and another item I saw mentioned somewhere about cities not being listed as dense terrain, I discovered several things I didn’t realize or which we missed in the manual.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 6&t=389366
I guess you saw it in this post, in case you want to look it up again.

It's completely normal that a game/game series of such scale and complexity has some blind spots here and there. That's why players need to keep an eye for strange stuff happening. I rly appreciate you and the whole dev team to be in close contact with the community and not only having some "robot mod" in the forums having no clue about anything.

---

Further notes:
1)
One day you must have changed the "definition" and light urban became urban in some parts of the manual(s), this may have caused some irritation (e.g. I initially thought when reading "light urban" was referring to Urban&City).

2)

The CV defending terrain bonus of light urban used at the end of combat is actually +12 and for heavy urban is +16 (if not isolated).

Units defending in Heavy or Light Urban terrain receive
a doubling of their Combat Value when determining the
winner and loser of the battle. This doubling is in addition
to all other modifiers.

The Manual states *2 for the End as a multiplier, if it's rly +12 & +16 it's kinda big of a difference.

3) (in case you missed it ...dont feel "pushed" )

23.8.2.
Note that the displayed CV’s in the combat resolution predictor
window will reflect disruption caused by any cross river
attack (23.8.9).

There’s still plenty of variability in combat, as well as the impact of the casualties/disruption on forces, that can reduce or enhance CV numbers, but those are intended.

It's good to have some randomness included, war is filled with randomness.

[MarkShot]

Actually, besides weather. Urban terrain is one of the few types than should transform over time.

* Bombing or combat blocks roads for use by tanks and other vehicles.

* Buildings turning into rubble produces a wonderland of defensive positions.

* Buildings turning into rubble completely alters the map such that defenders know the terrain far better than attackers.

Just an observation ...

[Wiedrock]

* Bombing or combat blocks roads for use by tanks and other vehicles.

Bombing blocks roads = (Air)-/Interdiction
Combat blocks roads = Combat Delay
...and Interdiction also "blocks" hexes without (visible streets) to represent craters, rubble and mines even on the dirtyest dirt road.

* Buildings turning into rubble produces a wonderland of defensive positions.

* Buildings turning into rubble completely alters the map such that defenders know the terrain far better than attackers.

Both the same I'd say?!
...I understand the idea, since there are German statements about it beeing bad to bomb Stalingrad in the weeks before assaulting it due to "the russians can hide everywhere". But if that'd realy be the case, no army would have ever bombed a city before assaulting. The German statements back then were already negating themselves by complaining about Panzer not being able to aim and higher building floors at closer distances.

[MarkShot]

Yes, I am still unsure how CPP functions as feature beyond the properties already added like fatigue and faster recovery in not parking in a hex due to switch ownership.

[Wiedrock]

28.4. AIRCRAFT, AFV AND COMBAT VEHICLE PRODUCTION

The chassis for aircraft, AFV and combat vehicles are built at individual factories by using Armament Points, with one item being built for each factory point. In WiTE2, aircraft and AFVs are built as airframes or chassis which are subsequently converted to actual combat planes and vehicles.
For example, assuming sufficient resources are available, the He 111 factory in Rostock, with a capacity of 23 factory points, will build 23 He 111 airframes every turn.

[...]

The cost of building a chassis is taken as supply points. Each supply point is the equivalent of a quarter ton of supplies and each build cost (for the chassis) demands 1/16 ton of supply. So a chassis with a build cost of 40 will use 2.5 supply points.

The actual building of the combat element requires armament points. For example a Bf 109F-4 has a build cost of 388 so requires 388 armament points to produce one such aircraft.

Contradicting material usage in the Airframe/Chassis section.
Thre different materials are being named:

1. Armament Points
2. resources
3. supply points (Supplies)

I tried figuring out which one it is, the result can be seen here (the green section it is):

City_usage_airframe-supR.png (234.67 KiB) Viewed 2088 times

Therefore as far as I understand this, the Airframes are being produced by using "supply points" which actually are Supplies.
Heavy Industry is producing Supplies.
Later those Airframes will be converted into serious planes by using Armament Points.

[Wiedrock]

there is no penalty as such, but see 28.3.4 for the risk that manpower might be permanently lost.

There is no Chapter 28.3.4.

[56ajax]

there is no penalty as such, but see 28.3.4 for the risk that manpower might be permanently lost.

There is no Chapter 28.3.4.

It appears that way but it is refering to 28.3.3, just a typo.

[56ajax]

@Wiedrock stated

Contradicting material usage in the Airframe/Chassis section.
Thre different materials are being named:
Armament Points
resources
supply points (Supplies)

I pointed this out when the manual was in beta. IMO there is no such thing as supply points. Nor do airframes or chassis use armament points.

[56ajax]

@Wiedrock stated

Therefore as far as I understand this, the Airframes are being produced by using "supply points" which actually are Supplies.
Heavy Industry is producing Supplies.
Later those Airframes will be converted into serious planes by using Armament Points.

Totally agree, this is my understanding as well.

Which leads me to the question : Do you ever run out of armament points, or does their scarcity impact on production? If the answer is No why are they in the game?

[Joel Billings]

there is no penalty as such, but see 28.3.4 for the risk that manpower might be permanently lost.

There is no Chapter 28.3.4.

I've changed this to 28.3.3 in the next living manual.