Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: zbig

Do the movement points on the counters decrease as the unit moves?

Yes, in most cases. If you drag and drop without the move animation turned on then you won't see MP's change until the unit reaches it's destination hex.

In the 42 AAR, some of the units look red to me (I do have serious trouble resolving reds and greens these days). Are they guards units?

Yes there are guards units

I have a question in regards with reinforcements, for example, What if you started a game from '41 and got to late '43 and there was no Stalingrad. Do the divisions that historically had been destroyed in Stalingrad, are they automatically withdrawn in late '43 to reinforce the Italian front? Since we are playing a game that is supposed to be historically accurate, what if you change events in the east so that historic events did not happen, how does that change divisional replacements and reinforcements?[&:]

ORIGINAL: Naughteous Maximus

I have a question in regards with reinforcements, for example, What if you started a game from '41 and got to late '43 and there was no Stalingrad. Do the divisions that historically had been destroyed in Stalingrad, are they automatically withdrawn in late '43 to reinforce the Italian front? Since we are playing a game that is supposed to be historically accurate, what if you change events in the east so that historic events did not happen, how does that change divisional replacements and reinforcements?[&:]

I'd have thought you'd have changed history during play then. A game can't follow history during play and be played at the same time...otherwise you will just watch a re run of what actually happened. the units were destroyed at Stalingrad so we have no real idea if they would have been withdrawn to the Italian front or not. So I imagine the units will be at your disposal to use in another way.

You could say the same for Kursk or Barbarossa...or any battle where units where lost.

German units that are destroyed will reappear at the western edged of the map and get rebuilt.  So if a unit that is designated to withdraw at some point in the future is destroyed first it will come back, be rebuilt, and then withdraw at the appropriate time.

ORIGINAL: Naughteous Maximus

I have a question in regards with reinforcements, for example, What if you started a game from '41 and got to late '43 and there was no Stalingrad. Do the divisions that historically had been destroyed in Stalingrad, are they automatically withdrawn in late '43 to reinforce the Italian front? Since we are playing a game that is supposed to be historically accurate, what if you change events in the east so that historic events did not happen, how does that change divisional replacements and reinforcements?[&:]

Here's how we handle Stalingrad and any similar situation: Units are "withdrawn" from the game for two reasons:

1) They are permanent withdrawals either do to the fact that they were re-deployed on another front never to return to Eastern Front or they were destroyed in combat and the Germans choose to disband rather than re-build the unit. Therefore divisions lost at Stalingrad, re-built and returned to the Eastern Front never leave the game but those that were lost, re-built and then deployed on another front for the duration are withdrawals. BTW, the Stalingrad withdrawals occur in the Spring of 1943 when the historical divisions were being re-built, not at the time of the battle of Stalingrad.

2) Units in question were withdrawn, participate in some activity (usually but not always combat) off the Eastern Front, and then return to the Eastern Front. This type of withdrawal usually applies to units like the elite SS divisions which were constantly being shuffled back and forth. The important factor here is that these units have to do something while off the Eastern Front. Units that were withdrawn, re-built and returned to the Eastern Front are NOT withdrawals in game terms.

Different question based on looking at PD's latest AAR, and trying to be good by not asking on his thread!

Am I right that even fixed units can move one hex per turn? Can they fight (assault) without penalty?

Another question, and sorry if this has been dealt with elsewhere: what happens when you assault from a number of hexes, some over a river and others overland? What happens to the effectiveness of the combat elements of the different units?

And another:
Are fixed fortifications, such as the Stalin line, represented and if so are they ever presented along hex sides, and thus are they capable of being turned? It seems to me that with most fortifications, bar genuine fortresses and the German hedgehog, the direction of attack is all important.

Thanks

ORIGINAL: von Jaeger

Different question based on looking at PD's latest AAR, and trying to be good by not asking on his thread!

Am I right that even fixed units can move one hex per turn? Can they fight (assault) without penalty?

Another question, and sorry if this has been dealt with elsewhere: what happens when you assault from a number of hexes, some over a river and others overland? What happens to the effectiveness of the combat elements of the different units?

And another:
Are fixed fortifications, such as the Stalin line, represented and if so are they ever presented along hex sides, and thus are they capable of being turned? It seems to me that with most fortifications, bar genuine fortresses and the German hedgehog, the direction of attack is all important.

Thanks

Units with a status of STATIC can move 1 hex not units fixed in place by scenario design and they cannot attack without being activated (lack sufficient movement points). In the AAR (1942 - 1945 Campaign) many of the units on the northern half of the map are in static status; they can only move one hex until activated. By contrast, fixed units cannot move at all until specified by the scenario or unless they are activated by enemy action. For example the Finnish Army is fixed (movement rate 0) for the first three turns of the 1941 - 1945 Campaign.

In a hasty attack only units stacked together can attack simultaneously and then only the units that individually have sufficient movement points to do so. In a deliberate attack all units adjacent to the hex being attacked can attack simultaneously but again only the ones that individually have sufficient movemnents (even more MPs than a hasty attack). In general, the more movement points a unit expends the less effective become all its combat elements but this statement is a simplification of a very complex process actually going on in the game.

The Stalin line is represent by those hexes beginning the game with a higher fortification level than the default 0. At 10 miles to the hex the scale is too large to represent concepts such as facing. If a hex has a fortification level greater than 0 it has that level in every direction.

Thanks, Jaw.  

I guess the second question is answered by the 'more movement points a unit expends the less effective become all its combat elements' but I want to know those complex details!!!!   (I know I won't be able to really get to grips with them before release.)

Essentially, am I right that each combat element of each unit will be affected by having to force the river, attack into the forest or whatever, and there will be diffferent effects for different arms in different terrain, and this will also be affected by supply, morale, fortification level and type of enemy combat element etc etc.   

I presume there will be some sort of table or matrix (or matrices) for these various effects in the manual?   No chance of a sneak preview, I suppose?[:)]

Thanks again

ORIGINAL: von Jaeger

Thanks, Jaw.  

I guess the second question is answered by the 'more movement points a unit expends the less effective become all its combat elements' but I want to know those complex details!!!!   (I know I won't be able to really get to grips with them before release.)

Essentially, am I right that each combat element of each unit will be affected by having to force the river, attack into the forest or whatever, and there will be diffferent effects for different arms in different terrain, and this will also be affected by supply, morale, fortification level and type of enemy combat element etc etc.   

I presume there will be some sort of table or matrix (or matrices) for these various effects in the manual?   No chance of a sneak preview, I suppose?[:)]

Thanks again

The manual is still in the process of being written/revised so I can't be more specific at this time. As for the amount of detail that will be revealed in the manual I can't say whether it will be any better or worse than any other computer game. The beauty of computer games is that they relieve the player of the burden of memorizing all the rules but their bane is that the detailed mechanics of the game that old board gamers like myself use to love to analyze is gone also. There will obviously be movement point cost charts for calculating moves and combats but the computations necessary to figure out the combat effectiveness of a Panther tank whose division has expended all its movement points to reach and attack across a major river into a heavy urban hex may not be spelled out. Fortunately I'm not the person responsible for writing the rules manual!

Really well put Jim. Who and I mean who, could spell out the mind of Gary? Al has his hands full... Al is the gentleman forced with the task of keeping our manual in order...Very well done so far I would say. Whats it up to now 130 pages, its a novel, don't worry it's only 65, theres 2 sides on a page...lol...This game has all the bells and whistles you want.

Again, thanks to both of you for the replies. I am not being a super nerd here (although I did enjoy, like Jaw used to I suspect, wading through the Squad Leader rules when I wasn't able to actually play the game !!) - what I want to know is this:

Once I have learned how to play the basic mechanics of the game, am I going to be able to 'read' the likelihood of success, and importantly the likely relative cost of a battle, by looking at the units and the type of combat elements within those units, then examining the terrain, the weather and other factors, and by considering what is known about the enemy? I don't need to know all the 'under the bonnet' calculations to do this, nor would I be able to understand half of it, I'm sure, but I do need to know something of how it all works together in order to husband my troops and equipment and use the best combination of kit for the best job.

If this is driving you mad or boring you into submission[>:], I apologise in advance, but now I know something of the strategy from the excellent AAR's, I want to know more about the battle tactics, especially for the tricky and high risk battles, sieges, major river crossings etc.

Thanks for your patience
Stuart

Stuart, all I can say is this game you will enjoy for years. I have and the wife hasn't filled any papers yet...lol...And my name is Jon...Enjoy the posts, I am...

ORIGINAL: von Jaeger

Again, thanks to both of you for the replies. I am not being a super nerd here (although I did enjoy, like Jaw used to I suspect, wading through the Squad Leader rules when I wasn't able to actually play the game !!) - what I want to know is this:

Once I have learned how to play the basic mechanics of the game, am I going to be able to 'read' the likelihood of success, and importantly the likely relative cost of a battle, by looking at the units and the type of combat elements within those units, then examining the terrain, the weather and other factors, and by considering what is known about the enemy? I don't need to know all the 'under the bonnet' calculations to do this, nor would I be able to understand half of it, I'm sure, but I do need to know something of how it all works together in order to husband my troops and equipment and use the best combination of kit for the best job.

If this is driving you mad or boring you into submission[>:], I apologise in advance, but now I know something of the strategy from the excellent AAR's, I want to know more about the battle tactics, especially for the tricky and high risk battles, sieges, major river crossings etc.

Thanks for your patience
Stuart

In my opinion one of the beauties of WitE is that on the surface it looks like a very conventional wargame with attack and defense "factors" that remind one of a classic board game. I have found that applying the same logic I would in a board wargame (odds of 3 to 1 or better usually succeed) I pretty much get the outcome I expect. Unfortunately getting such odds is not easy and you often have to go with what you have and hope for the best (i.e. try to roll a 6).

If you just apply the common sense you would have acquired from reading military history and playing wargames for years (and your reference to SQUAD LEADER tells me you are no novice) then you will do very well playing this game. You already know the perils of trying to assault an urban area with panzers, the importance of air superiority, the constraints of supply, and the eternal debate of quality versus quantity. WitE just allows you to draw on all that knowledge in one place at one time. Gary has tried to make this game as rational as possible; the tactics that were successful in the real war should be successful in WitE and the mistakes that were made in the real war you can make as well.

Many thanks to you both, Jon and Jim.   It seems the more I read, the more people tell me what I want to hear!   It works as you would expect it to (and you don't have to roll the dice or look at tables).

I may even get to PBEM with this one!   

Oh well, I have ATD2 to keep me occupied till this beauty comes out...

S

It seems we're becoming sort of an Eastern Front enthusiasts family.

Is there something that prevents the player from abusing the system by using certain formations to attack mostly weak targets, so their leader will end up with more victories than defeats and in the Soviet case, a unit has a higher chance of becoming a Guard unit?

I'm loving watching the AAR's of this game. It looks incredible!  My only worry is that it might be too complex for me, as I tend to enjoy simpler games. At this point in the testing, how complex do the playtesters think it is?

Based on 1 month of testing, I can say that the basic structure of the game is very simple. The concept of move, then conduct either hasty or deliberate attacks, is very straightforward. The complexity comes from needing to be able to maximise your combat strength and movement points to enable you to achieve your objectives.

To do this, you have to look at all the stuff going on behind the front lines, such as - repairing the right railway lines so that supplies are getting to your armoured spearheads; making sure your air units are based in the right places to maximise the chances that they will fly the air support missions that will tip the balance in key battles; attaching the correct support units to front line troops to reflect their objectives.

There are plenty of automated functions, particularly air missions and construction battalions "back-filling" the rail network, in which the AI does a good job. You can also auto-attach units to HQ's to avoid the command and control penalties for being out of range, but this uses up your precious admin points (APs).

The answer to your question lies in your definition of a "simple" game. WITE is more complex than Advanced Tactics and Panzer General, but players of TOAW, the SSG's series, Panther Games' series, and HPS's Panzer Campaigns series should have no problems once they have adjusted to WITE's unique mechanics. This took me about a week. I probably have about 2 years to go to "master" this monster!

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Is there something that prevents the player from abusing the system by using certain formations to attack mostly weak targets, so their leader will end up with more victories than defeats and in the Soviet case, a unit has a higher chance of becoming a Guard unit?

What you're suggesting is more plausible in theory than in practice. The driving force behind offensive actions is the capture of important objectives (i.e. cities/urban areas) and the destruction of enemy forces. You are not going to waste your time trying to manuever to attack some meaningless weak unit just to rack up a cheap victory at the expense of your primary offensive mission. Time is never on the side of the Axis player and from a purely offensive prospective time is often not on the side of the Russian player either when you consider that Fall rains and Spring thaws (read mud) always bring operations to a standstill. You will likely find that the micromanagement necessary to abuse the system just it worth the cost in the long run.