Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: timmyab
I've long come to the conclusion that half weekly turns are the way to go. This does lead to the problem though that full campaign games are over 400 turns long [X(] I'm mostly interested in 41/42 anyway so I'd be happy to just play the first two years or so. It's true that some of the MM deadwood could be cut out which would help.

As much as I love map detail I don't think I could cope with 2½ times as many hexes. My head would go pop

My thinking was that 4d/turn WeGo could be played with similar speed to 7d/turn IGoYouGo, so that would not affect real time used. Map scale of 10km/hex could be indeed scrapped, because I would like to experiment with a ZOC-less game. And if hex is big enough it can be argued that unit's influence does not extend beyond its borders, and it works better for a combat model that I have in mind, in which units from both sides would engage on a single hex (solving another problem with hex shapes and the ineviteable problem of uneven exposure).

edit: also, in a WeGo game you only plan, not execute, so there is no way to waste a lot of time optimizing your movement and combats, so IMHO such turn would take much less time.

I am willing to give it a go if you set it up & pm me the password. I won't be able to make a start until the weekend as I am not feeling very well atm & I will also need to complete my game turn against Sillyflower. It would be nice to track this down before 0.9 is released if possible.
Manstein63

I've never been a fan of wego systems. If somebody ever puts the 'I' into AI then I'm sure they'll be awesome.
Some sort of hybrid system may work though with a wego phase followed by an igougo turn. A turn would take even longer though of course.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

You obviously can't read or have a very short memory as I am all about the game having more influence from the dictators. Always have been.

Whilst I understand your rationale, I have to differ with you on this issue. Political interference (equally from those of all parties) was the bane of my life when I was working, and the last thing I want is to have this replicated in my gaming [:(]. It's 1 reason I've not bought DC3.

In WiTE the Russian player must be Stalin if anyone - no one else had the powers the player has. Th German side is more complicated as the german player has fewer powers than russian one. None of Hitler's control over production or which units come onto or leave the map, but much more control than OKH.

++++ to Silly, no politics in my gaming.

Especially no interference with the "brilliance" of our player community!!

It all depends on how much historicity you want in your game. It's just degree's. I want more from WITE. I get some people would not.

However you need to bare in mind that Hitler and Stalin made the War in Russia what is was. I find it very difficult to disengage them from it totally.

My biggest wish would be for some C&C effects for Russia early on that really reflected the chaos and backwardness of the Soviet communications system and the fact that senior commanders would not do anything without the blessing of Stavka (Stalin). And Stalin ordered crazy attacks and was very reluctant to retreat.

I have my wishes for Hitleresk rules as well. But I leave that for another time.

In the end WITE is still the best game out there for PC East Front games. I think I have tried them all now, including DC3.

While I may be late to the party, it would be awesome to help test WITE 2.0 as I helped test WITW.

Just getting back into wargames after a nice leave due to work and life.

Back to WITE 2. My concern with 1 is the Soviet has tremendous flexibility in force structure over the the campaign and the Soviet army 2.0 rarely resembles historical. The Germans are locked into the historical OOB over the 3.7 years irrespective of what is in the production pool.

Having played War in the East since it was first released as War in the Russia on the Amiga I would love to play War in the East 2.0 as an alpha tester if that is possible.

Matthew Buttsworth

ORIGINAL: rmonical

Back to WITE 2. My concern with 1 is the Soviet has tremendous flexibility in force structure over the the campaign and the Soviet army 2.0 rarely resembles historical. The Germans are locked into the historical OOB over the 3.7 years irrespective of what is in the production pool.

I'm not sure what we are doing - I think the idea is to limit the Soviet player to a set number of each Unit Type. One change we have already made is to take the Tank Brigades off the map and allow Rifle Divs to attach one SU.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

ORIGINAL: rmonical

Back to WITE 2. My concern with 1 is the Soviet has tremendous flexibility in force structure over the the campaign and the Soviet army 2.0 rarely resembles historical. The Germans are locked into the historical OOB over the 3.7 years irrespective of what is in the production pool.

I'm not sure what we are doing - I think the idea is to limit the Soviet player to a set number of each Unit Type. One change we have already made is to take the Tank Brigades off the map and allow Rifle Divs to attach one SU.

This is such a fundamental decision, I hope there is a lot of thought put around this. Playing Soviet now, in my opinion, is more fun than the Axis side as you get to create the Red Army how you see fit. For people that like to tinker like myself, this is most enjoyable.

I would hope to see some flexibility on the Axis side. Please don't go the route of the "EF Box" as we did in WITW. It was too abstract and just didn't feel right. The game should just focus on the Eastern Front, and I think the Axis player should get some kind of way to control his forces. Perhaps a "hitler opinion" based on progress on the eastern front would give the player more APs as Axis to customize his forces more. You don't have to listen to Hitler, but it would probably be wise to do so under such a system. The same could be said on the Soviet side, if you do certain things you'd get an AP bonus, which could help give the game more of a feel that holding certain locations and keeping your army together matters.

3 questions:
- german mobile forces have a tremendous mobility. Will WITE2 work on the same way?
- In order to prevent beakthrough, most russians do a multiple hexes deep defence. It's unreallistic but partially due to the "one week" scale. Will it change?
- Any idea of the date of release?

Thanks

@NOSB - I said I'm not sure. A soviet player would still have a choice but not unfettered flexibility. I appreciate your thoughts on the WF Box and we have already have a solution that reduces abstraction but gives flexibility.

@STEF78 - We now have the new combat delay code from WitW. This slows things as does the more realistic logistics model where lack of fuel reduces MPs and supply CV. We are not changing one week turns. Finally I will never discus release timings (or cost).

Tank Brigades off the map and allow Rifle Divs to attach one SU

This is great news!

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Tank Brigades off the map and allow Rifle Divs to attach one SU

This is great news!

Agreed. I really only use them to dig and hold unimportant sectors now

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Finally I will never discus release timings (or cost).

You're the reason we can't have nice toys (or at least more things to complain about with our nice toys).

ORIGINAL: orabera

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Finally I will never discus release timings (or cost).

You're the reason we can't have nice toys (or at least more things to complain about with our nice toys).

What an odd thing to say. Cost and Time are for Matrix to decide - not those of us working directly on the game.

I internally debated with myself before clicking OK. Wasn't sure anyone would get it but I thought someone else would call me, thought you would understand.

Joke.

I'm the only person who gets me.

Mike

seems so

Hi, If you take off the tank brigades where are the Soviet tanks? Is it to prevent the player from isolating Panzer divisions with a puny throw away brigade?