War in the East Q&A

[squatter]

Thanks for the answers Jaw, think I'm beginning to get my head round how everything is gonna work.

A few more posers if I may:

When you say that weapons function according to how they would in the 'situation' they are in, what factors combine to create a 'situation'. Is it a just a matter of range and terrain? You seem to be saying that the 'situation' doesnt include whether the weapon in question is being used to attack or defend in this given situation. It would strike me that a quad 20mm flak cannon, for example, would be of significantly more use in a defensive situation than an offensive situation, whether in steppes or urban terrain. Pushing one of those into a position to fire in full view of the enemy can't be fun. Likewise an anti-tank gun, or even a turret-less tank destroyer are going to be more useful defending than attacking?

And sorry if this has been asked before, but are there bombardment attacks in the game? If so, are these aimed at destroying fortifications, or reducing readiness and/or increasing fatigue among enemy formations?

Thanks

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

As movement speed is less of an issue with 1 week turns, what's the main difference between regular (horsedrawn/towed) artillery and self-propelled artillery in game terms, either when part of a division or added as support units?

If you are asking about variations in movement speed the the answer is that support units do not appear on the map so they have no MP's. They don't affect unit MP's either.

[ComradeP]

Likewise an anti-tank gun, or even a turret-less tank destroyer are going to be more useful defending than attacking?

AT units are mostly nice to have for ranged fire, as soon as the engagement range shortens, the AT gun crews will be taking fire from infantry weapons and will eventually have to abandon their equipment or move it, whilst the self-propelled AT units will be far less effective because they don't have a turret, which is a serious problem in short range as they have to turn/pivot to fire and thus expose the weaker side armour to the enemy. Self-propelled units are more useful in an attack where the attacker has and can maintain the momentum than in short range defence.

If you are asking about variations in movement speed the the answer is that support units do not appear on the map so they have no MP's. They don't affect unit MP's either.

OK, so the extra mobility of the self-propelled guns doesn't make a difference in the game? That only makes me more curious as to what the difference is, possibly aside from a few points of armour protection. Does self-propelled artillery have a lesser chance of being hit by artillery? A better chance of not losing equipment when retreating?

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP



OK, so the extra mobility of the self-propelled guns doesn't make a difference in the game? ...

All I'm saying is support units don't affect movement. Beyond that Jaw, Joel, or Pavel would have to answer you.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: squatter

Thanks for the answers Jaw, think I'm beginning to get my head round how everything is gonna work.

A few more posers if I may:

When you say that weapons function according to how they would in the 'situation' they are in, what factors combine to create a 'situation'. Is it a just a matter of range and terrain? You seem to be saying that the 'situation' doesnt include whether the weapon in question is being used to attack or defend in this given situation. It would strike me that a quad 20mm flak cannon, for example, would be of significantly more use in a defensive situation than an offensive situation, whether in steppes or urban terrain. Pushing one of those into a position to fire in full view of the enemy can't be fun. Likewise an anti-tank gun, or even a turret-less tank destroyer are going to be more useful defending than attacking?

And sorry if this has been asked before, but are there bombardment attacks in the game? If so, are these aimed at destroying fortifications, or reducing readiness and/or increasing fatigue among enemy formations?

Thanks

By combat situation I am referring to the kind of terrain the combat is taking place in. The longer a weapon's range, the more effective it will be in open terrain. As terrain becomes denser the advantage of long range begins to decline until in really dense terrain only raw firepower matters. The shorter the range becomes the more vulnerable the elements of a unit become to enemy fire but all elements are not equally vulnerable. Elements which by their nature would not be on the front line like divisional artillery or logistical elements are less likely to be destroyed or damaged by combat than front line elements like rifle squads. With reference to a quad 20mm flak gun, I honestly don't know where it would fall on this spectrum of vulnerability.

Whether attacking or defending the effectiveness of any weapon depends on the composition of the enemy force. Having lots of anti-tank guns is going to be of limited value if the enemy has no armor. In the game as in the real world, the line can be quite blurred between what is an offensive and what is a defensive weapon. If you read about the exploits of Erwin Rommel and the Afrika Korps you can easily come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a defensive weapon. If it can kill you, it's an offensive weapon.

There is no separate artillery bombardment attack in WitE as there was in WIR.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

OK, so the extra mobility of the self-propelled guns doesn't make a difference in the game? That only makes me more curious as to what the difference is, possibly aside from a few points of armour protection. Does self-propelled artillery have a lesser chance of being hit by artillery? A better chance of not losing equipment when retreating?

Armor of any sort is always more survivable than anything else in the game. Artillery, including SPAs, are less vulnerable to fire than almost anything else because of their positioning behind the front line. To be honest, I've never played a scenario where I had SPAs in a unit and it was forced to retreat. My assumption would be they are treated like any other AFV for retreat purposes which would make them far less likely of being lost in a retreat.

[wodin]

This game sounds better all the time...i havent seen a game at this level that models the equipment in such detail before. So I take it all the offensive equipment is calculated during combat? Or is it abstracted like in a SSG game? If its all taken into account then thats a dream game for me.

Is there a tactical engine working away underneath the hood when combat occurs?

[elmo3]

Yes there is a lot going on "under the hood".  You can see some of it by turning up the battle reporting detail level but that can really make battles take a long time to resolve.

[jaw]

When you consider the detail in the combat resolution system (down to individual weapons) WitE is practically a miniatures game at the divisional level.

[Zovs]

To add on to jaw comment, you can rest safely knowing that the details of individual squads, guns, tanks and air (not to mention a whole variety of morale, fatigue, fuel, supplies, ammo, production, training, refit, leadership, damage, doctrine, weather, time, chance, elements, randomness and things such as these) are doing their part and in fact shut out those details and instead concentrate on operational warfare and be quite content with he results you see, hence realizing that the engine is working as it should as the results show.

For me the first couple of battles where the ranged artillery is firing, and squads are dying while tanks are hiding and planes are flying was enough for me to shut down that level of detail and instead concentrate on divisional, corps and army movement within the army groups/fronts and use these tools to perform operational level combat. I also like to add support units, but am finding that the AI can auto assign these just fine to attacks or defenses as well. Likewise I am lazy and rather let the AI handle the air as well.

All-in-all not doing too bad in 1944 as the Soviets (or the better side...[:)])

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: Neal_MLC

After reading the AARs and several other threads there is no doubt that I will be purchasing this game when it is available. My questions is how much will it cost? I have set aside$100.00 for this game. Is this a reasonable amount or could it be more?

Good question. I assume it will be priced like WitP or around $75.00. Anything nearing $100 will limit it's sales. Even $75.00 in these economic time might be too much.

I never bought WitP for $75, had issues with the game system from Uncommon Valor that were never addressed. But The Admiral edition is looking tempting.

[Joel Billings]

I expect it to be under $100. It's likely to be in the WitP AE ball park as it's another monster game.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Yes there is a lot going on "under the hood".  You can see some of it by turning up the battle reporting detail level but that can really make battles take a long time to resolve.

Any chance of a screenshot of a battle report?

The following replies to my question have made me drool...to know everything is being taken into account for me is mind blowing.
I will purchase this game no matter the cost. I begrudge paying to much for games unless they are everything I desire in a genre and this is it.

[elmo3]

Look through my AAR.  I'm sure there are battle reports posted there.

[wodin]

Oh I havent seen a detailed battle report yet only the one wih gives casualties overall...not what was happening during the battle...will check out the AAR.

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick....I thought you could get a battle report as the battle unfolds not just at the end with the casualties and result.

[elmo3]

Yes, if you set it to the higher levels of detail it will tell you more about the battle as it happens.  Those higher level shots are not in my AAR as it would involve trying to capture multiple screen shots in a short period of time and I don't have software to do that.  I'll try to post a shot or two to give you an idea of how the whole thing would look later today.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Yes, if you set it to the higher levels of detail it will tell you more about the battle as it happens.  Those higher level shots are not in my AAR as it would involve trying to capture multiple screen shots in a short period of time and I don't have software to do that.  I'll try to post a shot or two to give you an idea of how the whole thing would look later today.

Thanks very much...just what I wanted to see.

[wiking62]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I expect it to be under $100. It's likely to be in the WitP AE ball park as it's another monster game.

£49.99 for a digital download is a hell of a lot of money, even if it is a "monster game". This level of pricing limits the games sales in my opinion. We all understand the high level of development that goes into these games, but i think Matrix's pricing policy is on the high side. Even though i really want this game, i will not pay that much. Personally i believe £39.99 is far more realistic especially in todays depressed market conditions.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: hart2412

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I expect it to be under $100. It's likely to be in the WitP AE ball park as it's another monster game.

£49.99 for a digital download is a hell of a lot of money, even if it is a "monster game". This level of pricing limits the games sales in my opinion. We all understand the high level of development that goes into these games, but i think Matrix's pricing policy is on the high side. Even though i really want this game, i will not pay that much. Personally i believe £39.99 is far more realistic especially in todays depressed market conditions.

Yes, but the "monster game" is only part of it. If you plan to sell two million units you can afford to set a lower price than a game that will be very lucky to sell 10,000 units. I would love to be surprised by larger sales figures (if only to encourage people to create more games) but I doubt that any one will get rich from inventing/developing/marketing this game.

As to the worth of a game, I prefer to look at cost/player-hour. For example, my copy of EU III was $20.00 and I played it for somewhat less than 200 hours for a cost of $0.10/hour (and EU III is a good game; I have more than one game that cost well above $1.00/hour because the game sucked). Some years ago now [:)] I paid $75.00 for WitP and after 8000 hours I stopped even trying to keep track of playing time with a cost of less than $0.01/hour.

My message here is you have to consider more than just the cost of the game; you have to look at what you will get out of it. So to some (most) people, WitE will not be worth the price and they will not buy it. I personally would pay far more than this price and consider it a bargain; different people have different tastes and (perhaps more importantly) more time to play the game.

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I expect it to be under $100. It's likely to be in the WitP AE ball park as it's another monster game.

Thanks Joel!!

Ok ... all you married guy's listen up ... double that number for chocolate, flowers and dinner for "She who must be obeyed" ... if the game is really good triple it!! That is all.[:D]