Matrix Games Forums

They all have individual values for Political, Morale, Initiative, Land, Armor, Air, and Naval.

ORIGINAL: Phenix

How does leaders work? do they have individual values or are they all the same?

About dynamic conditions, I recall a game some years ago, Civil War Generals 2, that had a very good dynamic system, there were basic Victory locations to start with, but then, when fight went on for some hex, it become a victory location, the more fighting for the hex, the more victory points it rewarded, that would simulate very well the obstinated fight for some locations beyond its strategic importance.

The CWG 2 system was indeed ingenious and functional at the same time. However, the game was a battlefield simulator, so the system would have to be at the least adjusted to fit with a war the size of the campaign on the Eastern Front, otherwise some farmfield in the middle of nowhere might be worth a lot of VP's after it has been fought over for 3 years. Using such a system for settlements and cities would be nice though, like Kharkov becoming more valuable after each battle.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

There are historians who think that Stalin didn't want the war to end early, after the Allies had landed in Sicily. According to those historians, Stalin wanted as much influence as he could get in post-WWII Europe and in the world, and he knew after Kursk that the Axis were at least not going to stage any spectacular offensivs anymore, so he had nothing to lose but men and equipment, of which he had plenty. A significant part of that equipment wasn't even his, but came as Lend-Lease from the US, so US factories were indirectly sponsoring Stalin's plans.

I don't think the Soviets would have to capture the Balkans for a major victory, especially as the Western Allies would've freaked if he had. Reaching the border with Yugoslavia should be good enough, after that the Red Army should swing into Hungary like their historical counterparts.

I'm not sure what the best kind of victory system would be. Holding major cities could create a sort of gamey "ninja" victory as the Axis will be mostly trying to capture those cities. Perhaps fighting to the bitter end, with victory points for cities held and units destroyed (with very low points for Rifle divisions and higher amounts of points for elite units for the Soviets, and low points for other Axis divisions, fairly high points for German infantry divisions and high points for Panzer, Panzergrenadier and SS divisions).

In my experience of east front campaign games (There was one for one of the Operational Arts of War that was really good) a smart German player quits as soon as possible. It's hard to see what's in the game for a German player after the summer of 1942. Diverting the Russians into the Balkans might be the best plan or the plan that Stalin wins if the war goes on until 1946 so that about mid 1944 the German player tries to figure out how he can accidently lose Army Group Center, thus virtually guarantee-ing that Stalin can't win by prolonging the war.
Perhaps the players could switch sides in the Summer of 1942 with the starter Russians winning if the Germans are wiped out on schedule and the 2nd Russians winning if the war lasts til 1946.

I think allot depends on how they model the forces in the game. It seems they want you to fight the war..Moscow and Lenningrad in 41. Stalingrad 42 ect..
My thoughts would be to let you choose your objectives as we used to do in certian board games...Russian Campaign..Wacht am Rhine. but again will the model let you do it?
If each side picked 2 primary , 3 secondary and 4 other objectives and added your points up each year and again totaled them at the end of the game? It would make for some pretty good fights if say you chose to take Lenningrad and save Stalingrad and your opponent chose the opposite. How much force is needed when and where.
I don't think letting the Germans pull up short in late 43 or 44 and play for the draw in Russia is a viable option. They should have to hold major Russian cities. You're not the Fuhrer in the game. You're orders are to win in Russia until the Russians make that impossible. The minute you stopped carrying out the orders and tried to lay up...Your war would end with a visit from the Gestapo.
Germany holding at the Polish Russian border and at the Rhine,while they were bombed back into the stone age is not a victory. They would have to go for a win on one of their fronts. I don't think they could have held anyway. Think of a spring/summer 46 offensive with Russia and the Allies getting a year at full strenght to get build up.. By that time they could have destroyed every bridge, major city and electical plant in the country. The German people would have figured out Der Fuhrer wasn't coming up with a secrect weapon. Hitler would have needed a army to guard him from all the secret plots.
It will be interesting to see how they plan on keeping the German player playing when the long retreat starts. More reason to be sure the AI is strong.

ORIGINAL: critter

It will be interesting to see how they plan on keeping the German player playing when the long retreat starts. More reason to be sure the AI is strong.

One possibility would be to let Player A play AG North as a German and All fronts not opposed to AG North as a Russian while player B takes
AG South and Center as a German and opposes AG North as a Russian. Since the AG North player would want German reserves going to his area
He would have to make some political deal (a la Model) with the Russian North Player (since I would assume reserves would have to be jointly controled on both sides) to do the same for him.

Control could change so that in Summer 1942, the AG South (and eventually A and B and Don and Frieter-Pico) player could have the Russian North and deprive the Russian southern front of Reserves until things got critical around Stalingrad --- then that criticality could force a switch and the German North and Central Player could find himself switched into the AG A B Don Frieter-Pico melange and face what he had been commanding earlier...just as Manstein said to Hitler "I urge you to consider what would happen if we were commanding the other side."

Is there a victory point cost associated with disbanding units? I always hated how TOAW considered my disbanded formations to be destroyed by the enemy as far as the game was concerned.

Was it really that bad?  Considering even vapourized units simply had their components magically returned at a later date as reconstituted units/replacements.

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

Is there a victory point cost associated with disbanding units? I always hated how TOAW considered my disbanded formations to be destroyed by the enemy as far as the game was concerned.

Was it really that bad?  Considering even vapourized units simply had their components magically returned at a later date as reconstituted units/replacements.

It requires 1 administrative point to disband a unit. There is no victory point cost for disbanding units.

Was it really that bad? Considering even vapourized units simply had their components magically returned at a later date as reconstituted units/replacements.

It was more of a problem for units that didn't reconstitute, as their "loss" increases the friendly loss penalty. Some scenarios didn't really give the player a lot of flexibility and more or less forced them to play with the historical units.

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Ok, lets cover supply and interdiction of supply. Please describe the supply methodology in general and factors that influence the supply status of a unit.

Supply in WitE is a very complicated and involved process that would take pages to describe in detail so I will just give you the gist of it here.

There are three kinds of supply in WitE, fuel, ammo & general supply. Every unit in the game has particular requirements for each of these supply types. Units consume fuel when the move (or planes fly), ammo when they fight and general supply for a variety of purposes including the obvious rations.

When units consume more supplies than their supply requirements they must be re-supplied. Units draw supplies from their HQs or directly from a rail head if it is closer. Units can draw supplies up to 5 hexes (or 20 motorized movement points) from an HQ or rail head. HQs can draw supply up to 25 hexes (or 100 motorized movement points) from a rail head. The combined rail head to HQ to unit supply line cannot exceed 100 motorized movement points. HQs cannot supply other HQs.

Units within 6 hexes of a supply source get the full amount of available supply. Beyond that range supply is progressively deceased. Units low on supply have reduced movement ability (ground units) and are less combat effective (all units). Units beyond supply range or isolated are severely effected in both movement and combat.

Partisans can "interdict" supplies by damaging rail lines and supplies can be destroyed by bombing the HQ but in general the Eastern Front is just too big a place for either of these methods to be terribly effective.

Very interested in the logistics chain - especially land elements -- how to build, maintain & protect it. I am unable to find other references about construction of transport infrastructure such as railheads + improved road network.

1. Does the AXIS player have control over where, when & how to build rail lines/junctions or major roads - ie. Can he build cheap autobahns? The aim - to increase the "motorized points" distance by improving transport infrastructure?


2. What limits these builds - for example, does he have a certain number of Transport Infrastructure "points?" And can the Soviet or Allies target these "points" by Allied strategic bombing strikes on production?


3. Can the player increase build-rates in any way? If so, specific details such as time, resources and cost?


4. Is the Axis player limited to simply altering the Russian-gauge track or can he build brand new ones? What differences are there, in terms of time and costs if he does so?


5. Last question is about Political Policies in Occupied Zones -- historical records show that when the Wehrmacht went into the Ukraine, the population initially responded as if they were liberated. Does the human player have any option to follow-through with this policy, thereby maintaining a policy of liberation rather than jackboot subjugation?
Has such a choice been considered?


Looking forward to this game - having spent many hours playing the original version all those years ago..[:'(]


Cheers

You don't build new roads or rail lines in WitE.  What you see is what you get.  There is no politics in the game.

Very interested in the logistics chain - especially land elements -- how to build, maintain & protect it. I am unable to find other references about construction of transport infrastructure such as railheads + improved road network.

1. Does the AXIS player have control over where, when & how to build rail lines/junctions or major roads - ie. Can he build cheap autobahns? The aim - to increase the "motorized points" distance by improving transport infrastructure?


2. What limits these builds - for example, does he have a certain number of Transport Infrastructure "points?" And can the Soviet or Allies target these "points" by Allied strategic bombing strikes on production?


3. Can the player increase build-rates in any way? If so, specific details such as time, resources and cost?


4. Is the Axis player limited to simply altering the Russian-gauge track or can he build brand new ones? What differences are there, in terms of time and costs if he does so?


5. Last question is about Political Policies in Occupied Zones -- historical records show that when the Wehrmacht went into the Ukraine, the population initially responded as if they were liberated. Does the human player have any option to follow-through with this policy, thereby maintaining a policy of liberation rather than jackboot subjugation?
Has such a choice been considered?


Looking forward to this game - having spent many hours playing the original version all those years ago..[:'(]


Cheers

1 & 4. There are no roads in the game and you can only repair existing rail lines not build new ones.

2. The Axis player has 5 railroad repair units (FBD) which are player controlled plus numerous construction engineer battalions attached to HQs which are computer controlled. You use the FBD units to repair rail lines along your advance routes and the computer controlled battalions concentrate on repairing the secondary rail lines. The Soviet player will eventually get a similar number of railroad repair units and he has construction engineers available from the start of the game.

3. No, but you can slightly maximize the amount of hexes you repair by selecting routes with better terrain (more clear hexes).

5. Although the Axis player has control over the selection of military objectives (e.g. go for Moscow or encircle Kiev) technically he represents the OKH not Hitler or the Nazis administration of Eastern Europe. You must live with the historical policies applied in the East.

"2. The Axis player has 5 railroad repair units (FBD) which are player controlled plus numerous construction engineer battalions attached to HQs which are computer controlled. You use the FBD units to repair rail lines along your advance routes and the computer controlled battalions concentrate on repairing the secondary rail lines. The Soviet player will eventually get a similar number of railroad repair units and he has construction engineers available from the start of the game. "

and they are worth there weight in Gold

@ Jaw + @ Hard Sarge -- Great stuff -- thankyou for your helpful replies.

Given FBD status as "GOLD" - can they be affected by partisan action?

Attaching ENG units to HQ elements is looking like a good plan to help the people at the "sharp end." [8D].

cheers

ORIGINAL: Platypus

@ Jaw + @ Hard Sarge -- Great stuff -- thankyou for your helpful replies.

Given FBD status as "GOLD" - can they be affected by partisan action?

Attaching ENG units to HQ elements is looking like a good plan to help the people at the "sharp end." [8D].

cheers

Partisans cannot attack Axis ground units but you cannot move non-combat units (which an FBD is) into a hex occupied by a partisan unit. A regular Axis ground combat unit would have to attack the partisan unit to dislocate it so the FBD could move into the hex.

I have to say I am surprized by the number of people who say that the german player will give up if they don't win in 41-42. As a player of WITP and playing Japan, I already know they I am going to be holding on for dear life later in the war, the goal is to do better than what happened. Eastern front should be the same. I as the german player would be trying to hold off the red horde from destroying germany for as long as possible with the best tactics I can[:D]

Are units only degraded in strength through combat? I was thinking particularly of the erosion in vehicle readiness through mere movement from hex to hex. It seems that would be significant, especially given the paucity of good roads and the presence of inclement weather conditions, like mud.

There is attrition from movement too.

Move degrades CV values also (fatuge). So you can have a unit start out moving as a 14, and attack as a twelve. After combat it may be an ten, and such. The next turn it may bump up to 13...Gary has all those things built in...

Several posts (#316,329,338,343,361) gave a lot of information about the production xystem. However I would like to know more about, mainly for two reasons. First, time is a key factor for the Germans, so besides a speedy march towards (probably) Moscow in 1941 is important. But is smashing as much of Soviet power as possible equally important ? This is where I think the production system comes in. My specific questions:  

Sorry, I hit the wrong key before I got my questions done:
First question:
Let's assume I - as the German player - conquer a main production center. Will all the factories there be destroyed forever ? Do I have to hold the city? I'm asking because I want to know if it's more about to take away from the Russians or to add "resources" to my production system and the possibility to increase my armaments pool (since enemy manpower and therefore squad production isn't possible in conquered territories).
Second question:
If a city with resource / factory center is conquered and reconquered. Do these center suffer from beeing probably damaged twice ?
 
Background: It's about strategy. If the Germans do not gain a significant advantage in 41 (as they did), should they focus on getting / destroying the Soviet capabilities to wage war in 42 ? If the WitE system allows for a boost of German production capabilities after getting the Ukraine and Donetz cities or even some oilfields (Maikop, Grozny) then Operation Blue would make some sense. If in contrary, resources, oilfields and the like would add nothing to the Germans production, than a "simple" search and destroy AND THEN RETIRE policy could be an option. You wouldn't have to hold a center.
 
Could somebody comment on that ? Thanks.