There should be an attrition cost to moving through enemy zones of control. A unit moving past the enemy would be subject to enfilading fire and suffer casualties. Also units trying to escape a pocket might rout or surrender.
Currently there is no cost other than movement points. I suggest a unit moving directly from one EZOC to another take casualties and be subjected to a morale check to possibly rout or surrender.
Game Suggestions:
Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21, elmo3
Infiltration Attrition
STALINADE
The real RED soda!
The real RED soda!
RE: Game Suggestions:
After reading some suggestions and with experience of the game i think their is something wrong with pockets and surrenders. Actually the game is "you are trapped= you are dead" historically if you watch some movies/docs about defenders of Brest litovsk or Stalingrad even encircled forces could stand a determined resistance according quality of their staff commanders and supplies. Yes germans and russians are not japanese, they surrender but they often fought at last until they had no munitions or supplies. So I don t agree with the fact that encircled forces surrender so easily than in this game and may be on the other hand it is too easy for a commander trapped in a pocket to escape alive... that change many things : it s not worth to supply encircled forces, nor trying to secure because they wont exist next turn. Actually it is a funny counter game but i dont see realism and historical realism with my actual campaigns. Well i know some new rules introduced concept of ressupling a pocket at condition their is an airfield into it : in practice are players sending airfield so near front fearing an envelopment ? Best encirclements arrive rather when defender is surprised and not when he s putting himself and airfield in a pocket, why not for attracting enemy in a trap ? lol
Yes their is at last a famous example when this kind of encircled airfield was defended at all cost... this is the Dien Bien Phu Pocket (i m joking) but historically many defenders died for it as that was the case for Goumrak airfield, but in this game an airfield will fly away just when an enemy unit will be near (an other big contrast with historical reality) and if enemy just reach it other counters wont act as a reserve to save it at all cost: only units in the same Hex will do this job... And what about the possibility of pionners to build an emergency airfield with this rule ?!
My idea is that encircled forces should benefit nearly full strenght during only first turn where they are encircled, and all players wo are pesting about Lvov pocket in 41 wont say that russians let them encircle doing nothing.
Yes their is at last a famous example when this kind of encircled airfield was defended at all cost... this is the Dien Bien Phu Pocket (i m joking) but historically many defenders died for it as that was the case for Goumrak airfield, but in this game an airfield will fly away just when an enemy unit will be near (an other big contrast with historical reality) and if enemy just reach it other counters wont act as a reserve to save it at all cost: only units in the same Hex will do this job... And what about the possibility of pionners to build an emergency airfield with this rule ?!
My idea is that encircled forces should benefit nearly full strenght during only first turn where they are encircled, and all players wo are pesting about Lvov pocket in 41 wont say that russians let them encircle doing nothing.
Please make hex x94 y0 a permanent supply point
Hex x94 y0 (railway from Murmansk) should be a permanent supply point. It is highly unhistorical that Leningrad is encircled by Germany raiding hex x99 y10 or similar even when the rail from Murmansk is intact [note that generally it would be no problem if not for HQ buildup/ chain]. Anyway, the solution is relatively simple - it is enough to make x94 y0 a permanent supply point.
It would be also nice to add possibility to trace supply over lake Onega, the same way the supply is traced over lake Ladoga, but at least the railway hex x94 y0 should provide supplies...
It would be also nice to add possibility to trace supply over lake Onega, the same way the supply is traced over lake Ladoga, but at least the railway hex x94 y0 should provide supplies...
-
Tjeff101_57
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 2:36 am
- Location: Campbellsville, Kentucky, USA
RE: Game Suggestions:
That's a good idea----but I'd take one further--I'd like to automate it by being able to type (by hex xx,yy) in a startpoint, endpoint and a waypoint or two for each rail repair unit
RE: Game Suggestions:
I have been playing games for a very long time - going back to board games. I think what is being discussed here is very important. It hits right at the core of what is wrong with large strategic computer based simulations. As it always happens, players at some point discover that by playing any side that they can "game" the system. This is based on rigid rules of what really happened.
This where all creators of theatre-wide simulations go horribly wrong in their thinking.
I think the post by Big Anorak hits the nails on the head - right from the manual:
quote:
The game is an “Alternate History Creator” that focuses
on simulating the logistic and command and control problems that the historical commanders
on the Eastern Front had to deal with. It will allow players to explore many of the strategic and
operational “What ifs” that have been discussed by historians and armchair strategists for
many years. As such, economic and research based “what ifs” are not the focus."
First of all it is NOT an alternate history creator - it is to a very small degree - but no matter what the Axis does, unless he gets an auto-victory - he is basically screwed. The Soviets will build up and eventually overrun him.
This is why no games are running (human to human) past early 1942.
Also by not having the what-if's imbedded in the game it does not take into consideration the most important part of the human vs human or human vs AI overall strategy - there is too much rigidity in the game. You KNOW that the Germans will have this much production in this year or that. You KNOW what replacments or units will be transferred to the front and when. You KNOW that the SU will eventually build into this big juggernaut that is unstoppable starting in the late summer of '42 or early '43.
I recently wrote a long post about this exact problem. It was blown off by a few people than got thrown into the trash of other posts - and lost.
I introduced the idea of creating a simple creation of out of theatre (and in) "what-if's". I made the mistake of listing ten or twenty of them. It was then shot down by certain posters, saying that "Ohhh.. that would have never happened". You see that was never my point. The idea put forth is WHAT IF ONE OR MORE OF THEM DID!! And they were always questionable to happen till the end of the war (i.e. simulation).
These variables would keep players playing the game to the end to my estimation.
The most important part of a strategy simulation that should be implemented is the "fog of war". I always play my games with it fully implemented. The problem is that there is not enough of a fog of war. Do you really think that the Soviets or even the Germans had the capability to "see" through the eyes of recon planes "everything" that was going on at the front - through hundreds of recon sorties. It's almost as if the Soviets and Germans had spy sattelites for pete's sake.
You know why the Ardennes Offensive (or Battle of the Bulge, if you wish) was a surprise to the Americans? Hell, they had plenty of recon planes, didn't they? It was because of the art of deception. Complete radio silence, hiding tanks in forests, moving units at night. A pretty good job by the Germans, I might say. To hide 26 Divisions and all that armor and to attack the Allies with total surprise.
I remember reading a book on the Battle of Kursk - and Zhukov heaviliy fortified his flanks and eventually defeated the massive attacks on his northern and southern flanks by SS panzers armies - bacause he said - that is what I would have done.
Also I am reminded by Hitler's quote on the Soviet Army: "All you have to do is kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down".
Would he would have attempted the invasion if he had known that the Soviets would get American/British help via the Murmansk port? Or had the capacity to "move" factories east behind the Urals?
I'm getting away now from my main point. I also don't want to bore you with hundreds of "what-if's". But hopefully you get my drift.
The main thing wrong with big intricate simulations like this if that we all plunk down $60 to $80 because are intrigued by the thought of a huge intricate model of the greatest battle ever fought - the Russo-German war in the East. It is fun for awhile, but then a strategy arises from constant play by smart players to "game" the system. I am not blaming them at all. They after all find the flaws in the game - as to almost make it unplayable.
In the end I am only saying that if this game could be modeled to include historical variants it would keep the players- playing the game to the bitter end. Also it would give the players the ultimate satisfaction - "FUN".
But, companies spew out these games, like War in the Pacific (where you just move pieces around a board for MONTHS - knowing the U.S. will win the end.) Then moving on from WiTe ( after getting thier money) to designing WiTw - where again they will again get paid. With the deep design flaw is still present. After you slap down big cash for War in the West - players will eventually find a way to "game" that computer simulation. But by then they will be on to their next project..and so on..and so on.....
The thing is you don't really "fix" a game by creating dozens of patches. You don't stop the blood from severed arm with a band-aid (I know what that is all about - because I have seen it up close). You have to fix the root problem. Until that is done - I will keep my money in my pocket.
You can poo-poo my post - but in my heart and in my opinion I know I'm right.
Keep up the good fight men!
This where all creators of theatre-wide simulations go horribly wrong in their thinking.
I think the post by Big Anorak hits the nails on the head - right from the manual:
quote:
The game is an “Alternate History Creator” that focuses
on simulating the logistic and command and control problems that the historical commanders
on the Eastern Front had to deal with. It will allow players to explore many of the strategic and
operational “What ifs” that have been discussed by historians and armchair strategists for
many years. As such, economic and research based “what ifs” are not the focus."
First of all it is NOT an alternate history creator - it is to a very small degree - but no matter what the Axis does, unless he gets an auto-victory - he is basically screwed. The Soviets will build up and eventually overrun him.
This is why no games are running (human to human) past early 1942.
Also by not having the what-if's imbedded in the game it does not take into consideration the most important part of the human vs human or human vs AI overall strategy - there is too much rigidity in the game. You KNOW that the Germans will have this much production in this year or that. You KNOW what replacments or units will be transferred to the front and when. You KNOW that the SU will eventually build into this big juggernaut that is unstoppable starting in the late summer of '42 or early '43.
I recently wrote a long post about this exact problem. It was blown off by a few people than got thrown into the trash of other posts - and lost.
I introduced the idea of creating a simple creation of out of theatre (and in) "what-if's". I made the mistake of listing ten or twenty of them. It was then shot down by certain posters, saying that "Ohhh.. that would have never happened". You see that was never my point. The idea put forth is WHAT IF ONE OR MORE OF THEM DID!! And they were always questionable to happen till the end of the war (i.e. simulation).
These variables would keep players playing the game to the end to my estimation.
The most important part of a strategy simulation that should be implemented is the "fog of war". I always play my games with it fully implemented. The problem is that there is not enough of a fog of war. Do you really think that the Soviets or even the Germans had the capability to "see" through the eyes of recon planes "everything" that was going on at the front - through hundreds of recon sorties. It's almost as if the Soviets and Germans had spy sattelites for pete's sake.
You know why the Ardennes Offensive (or Battle of the Bulge, if you wish) was a surprise to the Americans? Hell, they had plenty of recon planes, didn't they? It was because of the art of deception. Complete radio silence, hiding tanks in forests, moving units at night. A pretty good job by the Germans, I might say. To hide 26 Divisions and all that armor and to attack the Allies with total surprise.
I remember reading a book on the Battle of Kursk - and Zhukov heaviliy fortified his flanks and eventually defeated the massive attacks on his northern and southern flanks by SS panzers armies - bacause he said - that is what I would have done.
Also I am reminded by Hitler's quote on the Soviet Army: "All you have to do is kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down".
Would he would have attempted the invasion if he had known that the Soviets would get American/British help via the Murmansk port? Or had the capacity to "move" factories east behind the Urals?
I'm getting away now from my main point. I also don't want to bore you with hundreds of "what-if's". But hopefully you get my drift.
The main thing wrong with big intricate simulations like this if that we all plunk down $60 to $80 because are intrigued by the thought of a huge intricate model of the greatest battle ever fought - the Russo-German war in the East. It is fun for awhile, but then a strategy arises from constant play by smart players to "game" the system. I am not blaming them at all. They after all find the flaws in the game - as to almost make it unplayable.
In the end I am only saying that if this game could be modeled to include historical variants it would keep the players- playing the game to the bitter end. Also it would give the players the ultimate satisfaction - "FUN".
But, companies spew out these games, like War in the Pacific (where you just move pieces around a board for MONTHS - knowing the U.S. will win the end.) Then moving on from WiTe ( after getting thier money) to designing WiTw - where again they will again get paid. With the deep design flaw is still present. After you slap down big cash for War in the West - players will eventually find a way to "game" that computer simulation. But by then they will be on to their next project..and so on..and so on.....
The thing is you don't really "fix" a game by creating dozens of patches. You don't stop the blood from severed arm with a band-aid (I know what that is all about - because I have seen it up close). You have to fix the root problem. Until that is done - I will keep my money in my pocket.
You can poo-poo my post - but in my heart and in my opinion I know I'm right.
Keep up the good fight men!
RE: Game Suggestions:
ORIGINAL: sajer
This is why no games are running (human to human) past early 1942.
Apparently you haven't been following the AAR section of the forums.
You KNOW that the SU will eventually build into this big juggernaut that is unstoppable starting in the late summer of '42 or early '43.
The Russians are incapable of creating an unstoppable juggernaut in WitE by late 1942, unless the German player played very poorly.
You know why the Ardennes Offensive (or Battle of the Bulge, if you wish) was a surprise to the Americans? Hell, they had plenty of recon planes, didn't they? It was because of the art of deception. Complete radio silence, hiding tanks in forests, moving units at night. A pretty good job by the Germans, I might say. To hide 26 Divisions and all that armor and to attack the Allies with total surprise.
The Ardennes offensive wasn't a total surprise. The Germans did well to hide the build-up, but the Allies also did choose to ignore certain reports and information. Additionally, in WitE, putting units in forest and urban hexes does mostly hide them from enemy recon.
I remember reading a book on the Battle of Kursk - and Zhukov heaviliy fortified his flanks and eventually defeated the massive attacks on his northern and southern flanks by SS panzers armies - bacause he said - that is what I would have done.
The Germans didn't have "SS panzer armies" at Kursk. There was only one panzer army (the 4th) invloved, which attacked the southern flank.
RE: Game Suggestions:
I'm not fully buying into the idea that putting units into static mode on the front line should greatly reduce attrition. The idea of attrition is skirmishing and stuff like that, which somehow requires lots of trucks?
-
Cavalry Corp
- Posts: 4109
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:28 pm
- Location: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
RE: Game Suggestions:
My suggestion
I think that there should be a morale boost Say 5 -10 for Axis units when they are on their own terriotory for instance...
In the battle of East Prussia 1945 the Germans deliberately made sure East Prussian Divisions where there and from what is read they did fight harder - and actually that aspect was included in the old boardgame To the Wolfs Lair.
This would apply to Lithuanian SS and Baltic state units as well,i n their own territories infact these states had axis or freedom partisans and fought to Russian well after the end of the war.
I would also like to see added that every German Town upwards has a VS unit as they did. Despite they fact they were of not much combat value they still destroyed a lot of Russian tanks and slowed they advnace. This could be done like the AA units are added etc.
Cheers
Cav
I think that there should be a morale boost Say 5 -10 for Axis units when they are on their own terriotory for instance...
In the battle of East Prussia 1945 the Germans deliberately made sure East Prussian Divisions where there and from what is read they did fight harder - and actually that aspect was included in the old boardgame To the Wolfs Lair.
This would apply to Lithuanian SS and Baltic state units as well,i n their own territories infact these states had axis or freedom partisans and fought to Russian well after the end of the war.
I would also like to see added that every German Town upwards has a VS unit as they did. Despite they fact they were of not much combat value they still destroyed a lot of Russian tanks and slowed they advnace. This could be done like the AA units are added etc.
Cheers
Cav
-
delatbabel
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:37 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Contact:
RE: Game Suggestions:
The rule that allowed the Soviets to win battles at >1:1 should be reinstated, flying pig graphics from Pelton or not. It's now far too easy for the Germans to steamroller into Russia from March 1942, without any resistance. However the reverse of that rule should apply when the Soviets advance into Germany -- Germans can win a battle at >1:1, Soviets need >2:1 to win a battle. That should slow down the Soviet advance to Berlin somewhat.
I still think that fortification is too easy, especially far from cities, etc. The reason the Soviets were able to create major fortifications around Leningrad and Moscow was due to the mobilisation of the town forces -- rifle divisions on their own don't dig all that well. So I would reduce the fortification allowance for most units in the game, and increase the fortification bonus from cities. The same should apply to German units fortifying near towns in Germany -- construction bonuses from mobilising the townsfolk.
I still think that fortification is too easy, especially far from cities, etc. The reason the Soviets were able to create major fortifications around Leningrad and Moscow was due to the mobilisation of the town forces -- rifle divisions on their own don't dig all that well. So I would reduce the fortification allowance for most units in the game, and increase the fortification bonus from cities. The same should apply to German units fortifying near towns in Germany -- construction bonuses from mobilising the townsfolk.
--
Del
Del
RE: Game Suggestions:
For historical accuracy, please get rid of the Polish flag and Polish coat of arms from the Axis production screen and replace them with General Government symbols.
-
delatbabel
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:37 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Contact:
RE: Game Suggestions:
Here is one from left field.
Have an "AI play turn" mode instead of the regular play mode. Allow each player to assign an "order" to each front/AG/army/corps/korps HQ (set at the front/AG level, and allowed to be over-ridden at the lower levels). Then, when the end turn button is pressed, the AI moves all of the troops, takes care of any attacks, rails units, builds forts, etc.
Orders could be: Pursue, Attack, Transit, Mobile/Flexible, Defend/Hold, Retreat. That should be sufficient. For units with Pursue/Transit/Mobile/Retreat orders, a target hex (for the HQ, with attached units to follow) could be nominated.
It would allow for quite fast play of FTF / AI vs AI games with guidance by each player.
Have an "AI play turn" mode instead of the regular play mode. Allow each player to assign an "order" to each front/AG/army/corps/korps HQ (set at the front/AG level, and allowed to be over-ridden at the lower levels). Then, when the end turn button is pressed, the AI moves all of the troops, takes care of any attacks, rails units, builds forts, etc.
Orders could be: Pursue, Attack, Transit, Mobile/Flexible, Defend/Hold, Retreat. That should be sufficient. For units with Pursue/Transit/Mobile/Retreat orders, a target hex (for the HQ, with attached units to follow) could be nominated.
It would allow for quite fast play of FTF / AI vs AI games with guidance by each player.
--
Del
Del
Suggestion for battle engine - probably for WitW
Suggestion for the battle engine:
As the engine as it is now does not perform sometimes, and from what I understood is still a bit simplistic (i.e. firing ranges etc). I would suggest an overhaul and using one similar to that from Steel Panthers: World at War. Sure, you cannot model all the troops, but say, 5% usually would be enough (so instead of 1000, you get 50). Get a random map, in line with the terrain, simulate entrenchment, auto-deploy, run ai vs ai, and voila. With modern computer this should be quite all right to run in a second or two. And you have a *very* reasonable engine beneath the game. And finally all the micro-stuff about guns used etc would be of real use.
As Gary has been involved in SP:WaW, the engine itself should not be a problem, surely it lurks somewhere. Of course, the simulation in SP:Waw is not perfect, AI is not perfect, and so on but it is much better to what we have, and I believe much more realistic. Also, incorporating leader skills etc should not be a problem in that... One issue I can see is with unique guns (especially very big ones), which are very few and would not be caught into the 5% easily. Still, one can make those available for a given % of turns, so if the battle is 20 turns long in SP:WaW, say the siege mortars would be available for firing once... Other, non-unique guns would be more or less already well defined...
As the engine as it is now does not perform sometimes, and from what I understood is still a bit simplistic (i.e. firing ranges etc). I would suggest an overhaul and using one similar to that from Steel Panthers: World at War. Sure, you cannot model all the troops, but say, 5% usually would be enough (so instead of 1000, you get 50). Get a random map, in line with the terrain, simulate entrenchment, auto-deploy, run ai vs ai, and voila. With modern computer this should be quite all right to run in a second or two. And you have a *very* reasonable engine beneath the game. And finally all the micro-stuff about guns used etc would be of real use.
As Gary has been involved in SP:WaW, the engine itself should not be a problem, surely it lurks somewhere. Of course, the simulation in SP:Waw is not perfect, AI is not perfect, and so on but it is much better to what we have, and I believe much more realistic. Also, incorporating leader skills etc should not be a problem in that... One issue I can see is with unique guns (especially very big ones), which are very few and would not be caught into the 5% easily. Still, one can make those available for a given % of turns, so if the battle is 20 turns long in SP:WaW, say the siege mortars would be available for firing once... Other, non-unique guns would be more or less already well defined...
RE: Suggestion for battle engine - probably for WitW
ORIGINAL: Toidi
Suggestion for the battle engine:
...I would suggest an overhaul and using one similar to that from Steel Panthers: World at War....
The devs had said there won't be major overhauls to WitE at this point. Bugs will be fixed, and tweaks made as they determine things are not working as designed but major overhauls won't come until WitE 2.0 which is a long way off. Nothing wrong with making suggestions that they can consider for future games, but I didn't want you to have unrealistic expectations for WitE overhauls.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
Accidental Displacement Moves
Section 15.10: A unit with zero CV finds itself adjacent to an enemy unit while not stacked with a friendly, non-depleted combat unit. This would include HQ units, on-map construction support unit, or a depleted or routed combat unit.
I have accidentally triggered displacement moves several times causing serious consequences. This usually happens when an HQ unit and combat units are stacked next to enemy units and I move my combat units. The HQ unit is then automatically displaced resulting in loss of its fuel and supplies. It typically displaces far enough away that its combat units are out of range for the turn. The displacement cannot be undone and sometimes I don't even notice it!
I suggest whenever a displacement move is triggered this way that WitE issue a warning and ask for verification like it does when swapping plane types.
STALINADE
The real RED soda!
The real RED soda!
-
gingerbread
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:25 am
- Location: Sweden
RE: Accidental Displacement Moves
OK, I probably will have to duck some thrown tomatoes after saying this, but vehicles numbers should be part of OOB data.
A more granulated version of ground elements built would also be nice.
A more granulated version of ground elements built would also be nice.
RE: Accidental Displacement Moves
but vehicles numbers should be part of OOB data.
I see benefits of it, but this would be very serious change. Not sure we could make it without major recoding.
A more granulated version of ground elements built would also be nice.
Not sure I understand this? You want smaller ground elements, ex. rifle squad divided into smaller components?
Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development
-
gingerbread
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:25 am
- Location: Sweden
RE: Accidental Displacement Moves
ORIGINAL: Helpless
but vehicles numbers should be part of OOB data.
I see benefits of it, but this would be very serious change. Not sure we could make it without major recoding.
A more granulated version of ground elements built would also be nice.
Not sure I understand this? You want smaller ground elements, ex. rifle squad divided into smaller components?
I meant that vehicle numbers should be part of the screen seen when pressing {o} pic below. Axis would have one entry and the Soviets one.
As for ground elements, the event log now states for example:
798 GROUND ELEMENTS produced in 798 ground element factories
4464 tons of SUPPLIES consumed by ground element production
0 GROUND ELEMENT factory locations didn't have enough supplies
I'd like to see nuber for each 'A' type: MG '34, Rifle squads etc., so that I dont have to calculate built(this turn) - built(last turn). It also should state the amount of ARM consumed, for each type 'A' and total.
- Attachments
-
- OOB.jpg (37.98 KiB) Viewed 248 times
RE: Accidental Displacement Moves
I'd like to see nuber for each 'A' type: MG '34, Rifle squads etc., so that I dont have to calculate built(this turn) - built(last turn). It also should state the amount of ARM consumed, for each type 'A' and total.
I have added this type of info into WITW save. Will see if it is possible to make it easily in WITE.
P.S. Can you check your email or PM?
Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development
-
gingerbread
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:25 am
- Location: Sweden
RE: Accidental Displacement Moves
I'd like the CV values in the pop up to be displayed with 1 decimal - in the below example, it should say: 70th Rifle Division (3.3/16.5 83%).
- Attachments
-
- Decimal.jpg (15.68 KiB) Viewed 248 times
RE: Game Suggestions:
Just started playing, so I have only a minor suggestion. Can you add confirmation of end turn with F12, so we don't have to first press F12, then mouse over yes and click. Just pressing F12 again to confirm would be much better.
Also, the manual said Air Transport Mode is supposed to have an 'AI' button for automatic supply flights. I haven't seen this button yet. Has it been removed, or is it only visible in certain circumstances ? I use the AI button for Recon and Airport Strikes f.ex.
Also, the manual said Air Transport Mode is supposed to have an 'AI' button for automatic supply flights. I haven't seen this button yet. Has it been removed, or is it only visible in certain circumstances ? I use the AI button for Recon and Airport Strikes f.ex.