WitE 2

[morvael]

Remember you don't pay movement costs when attacking, so it's fair to pay them if you wish to enter target hex after battle. But what is problematic is that you'll pay in/out-ZOC movement costs, and these were usually rescinded in boardgames for the attackers moving into attacked hex.

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Ok that's good.

But what about occupying the battle hex with the attacking units? Is that for free now?

No, you still pay a cost. There is currently only one big change between the WitE2 and WitW rules (which I believe are slightly different in costs to WitE).

The new big change is the rear area admin movement bonus. Units moving in rear areas in hexes that have not been captured in a turn, are not subject to air interdiction and not adjacent to the enemy, get a reduction in their movement cost depending on the road quality of the hexes. You'll always pay at least 1 MP/Hex. This rule is now possible as hexes have variable road quality. So the Smolensk-Moscow Highway is now in game.

[Michael T]

This question of occupying an attacked hex is not so critical for regular open ground. But becomes weird when crossing rivers. Often an attacker has enough MP to attack and dislodge the defender but does not have enough MP left to create a bridgehead. It's an area where the mechanics of the game don't quite work. They could be improved.

What about variable zoc costs? Small units, for example brigade/regiments create just as much friction as a whole corp of Mech units ATM. This should be addressed. I am not sure what possible excuse could be offered for this kind of thing....

[sillyflower]

There is a world of difference (up to a few days anyway) between getting a small bridgehead and moving 3 panzer divs into that bridgehead. If anything there should be extra costs due to the need for bridges to be put up etc. At the moment the attack can be done by units moving up and spending all their MPs (so at the end of the week in game turns) then units close by at the start, move through the bridgehead at the start of their turn ie the beginning of the week days before that bridgehead was made. All very Lewis Carroll.

A few games mitigate that problem with delay markers slowing units moving through a hex after it had been captured that turn, and I haven't seen a better solution.

As to friction/delay moving through a ZOC, IRL that will depend on many factors. They probably all boil down to 2 - the actual ability of the defenders to delay, and that ability as perceived by the attacker. The designated size of the defending unit is not going to be crucial per se. What matters is that unit's combat capability - defence value in our terms. A current USA armoured cav regt is going to be a lot harder to get past that a whole division of troops from many other countries.

[Michael T]

No matter which way you look at it a security reg or a Inf brigade should not delay at the same rate as a whole stack of INF Corp or Tank units. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

Sure, specially trained recon units were adept at delay and subterfuge. Not so a bunch of half trained security troops.

It would be a huge improvement even if just non motorized INF type III/X zoc impediment MP costs were reduced.

I have say it. But is there any real drive to actually improve this game?

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

No matter which way you look at it a security reg or a Inf brigade should not delay at the same rate as a whole stack of INF Corp or Tank units. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

Sure, specially trained recon units were adept at delay and subterfuge. Not so a bunch of half trained security troops.

It would be a huge improvement even if just non motorized INF type III/X zoc impediment MP costs were reduced.

I have say it. But is there any real drive to actually improve this game?

I think there are two issues at work here:

Moving Unit Costs As I understand the rules on ZOC (and here I am talking WitW as I haven't played WitE in many months) Regts and Brigades play a +1 cost to enter an enemy hex or move ZOC to ZOC. The key bit to my mind is that they are entering the hex. Because of their relative lack of combat power they advance more hesitantly. This rule is not seeking to abstract congestion as in friendly hexes the additional cost is not paid. This seems fair to me.

Exerting a ZOC The second issue is should all units, regardless of size, be able to exert an equitable level of ZOC? At the moment any enemy combat unit exerts a ZOC. In the perfect game it shouldn't be so binary but were this to be changed how is it going to be implemented? What rules would there be in this brave new world? What happens when two Regts are co-stacked?

The added level of complexity is similar to proposed changes in the stacking rules. There are of course much better ways and less abstracted systems but at some point the line has to be drawn.

We are working on delivering the very best game we can and it takes quite a lot of drive to spend hours every night after a full day at work improving things.

[Michael T]

I am sure a programmer with any talent at all could implement such a change in about 5 minutes.

I use regiments to highlight the issue. In real game terms you could split zoc costs in to any number of categories. But for simplicity's sake lets keep at two or three for this debate.

You would base the zoc costs on the amount of troops and AFV's in a hex.

A) 5000 or less

B) 5001 to 10000

C) 10001 and greater.

Each AFV might equal 10 men.

These are just examples. I am sure those in the know could come up with better numbers and formula.

But I will leave that one alone now. I raised it. That's all I can do.

What about the first blizzard? Are there plans to re work it?

EDIT: Just to be clear. I just want to see WITE 2.0 as a real improvement over WITE 1.0
That is the motivation.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

No matter which way you look at it a security reg or a Inf brigade should not delay at the same rate as a whole stack of INF Corp or Tank units. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

Indeed, which is why I took DV as the measure rather than a headcount. To answer RL's point re stacking, it should be based on the DV of the stack. Perhaps there could then be 3 levels of ZOC - weak, medium and high. I have no idea how easy/difficult this would be so I shall stop.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am sure a programmer with any talent at all could implement such a change in about 5 minutes.

I use regiments to highlight the issue. In real game terms you could split zoc costs in to any number of categories. But for simplicity's sake lets keep at two or three for this debate.

You would base the zoc costs on the amount of troops and AFV's in a hex.

A) 5000 or less

B) 5001 to 10000

C) 10001 and greater.

Each AFV might equal 10 men.

These are just examples. I am sure those in the know could come up with better numbers and formula.

But I will leave that one alone now. I raised it. That's all I can do.

What about the first blizzard? Are there plans to re work it?

EDIT: Just to be clear. I just want to see WITE 2.0 as a real improvement over WITE 1.0
That is the motivation.

So an HQ has better ZOC than an armoured cavalry regiment? I know, you meant combat units. But what about supply? A completely out of supply division has better ZOC than an perfectly in supply regiment? OK, so use CV? But a fresh parachute division and a slightly tired armoured brigade might have similar CV. But should have huge ZOC differences (no mobility, only field art).


Do I need to go on? I would love ZOCs to be more scientific, but designing such a system would be a game in itself. Also, why stop at ZOCs? Stacking is equally abstracted. 3 regiments fill a hex, but one supersized div, with max attachments extra tanks, extra infantry regiments don't. Want to see an apparently crowded hex, put 3 big HQs on one hex... over 200000 men easy! I know - the HQ is abstracted and isn't all in the hex, representing a capability in an area. The ZOC system isn't really broken... Nor for that matter is the WiTW combat delay, or movement point system. No more broekn than having hexes to start with Yes, to force a unit to retreat but not have the MP to advance is slightly hard to rationalise, but how would you fix it? Charge MP to attack? But how many? A really big attack could take days, so you could say it should take 5 or 10 infantry MP. But it might only take 2 hrs so it should be 1MP (or less). How are you going to do it? Many games have 'movement phases' and 'combat phases'. I think we are better off than that...

Have you played WitW? The supply system alone will be a HUGE benefit. The logistics becomes the king, as it should be. You will be far less bothered by MP costs of advancing after combat... to start with you will be wondering how anyone manages to win a combat at all! The air system is also hugely improved.

[latosusi]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

These battle delay MP I have heard of, I assume the units who participated in the attack are not hit with that extra cost?

And why if the attacker has won the battle should he have to pay MP to occupy the hex (other than zoc costs) he has just fought a battle in?

I guess what I am getting at here is why can't the attacker advance for free (other than zoc costs) in to a just cleared hex he has won. This aspect has always made me wonder about WITE. As almost every other game I have played has an advance after combat that is virtually free for the attacker.

That would be nice if you get good attack results (routed/shattered etc.)

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

...
I have say it. But is there any real drive to actually improve this game?

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am sure a programmer with any talent at all could implement such a change in about 5 minutes.

...

whow, you really are going all out to make friends and influence people.

[RedLancer]

Please don't make this thread adversarial and personal. Michael T, as always, raises challenging questions and any desire to improve the game is good. Questioning the art of the possible is welcome, personal attacks whether slights or insults are not as some have discovered to their cost.

Both with stacking limits and ZOC there is always a yet more refined approach that can be taken. The sticking point is the time and ease of coding any changes as Joel eruditely pointed out with regard to stacking.

As Joel is away I'll make my comments on ZOCs so no-one misconstrues silence as acceptance or avoiding the question. For ZOC a hex is either enemy, contested or friendly. As this affects MPs and the minimum cost variable for movement is a single whole integer any change between those three states would require a complete reset of MP numbers. Such a change is so large that it is well towards the not a hope end of the likelihood spectrum. Coding the threshold for influence of an enemy on adjacent hexes might be more possible but at the moment all enemy units influence adjacent hexes so any change is also a fundamental design shift. The current design choice is an abstraction but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

The same approach of making a choice applies to what units should be in game. In may instances German police units played a role in combat but adding them for the reasons raised by Metatron in perhaps a step too far. Choosing where to draw the line rests with the designer and always open to the vagaries differing opinions.

As for the question on blizzard rules I hope to return some harmony to this thread. Loki100 has highlighted extremely accurately in a number of posts how different WitE2 is already. The first winter rules have yet to be added. The rules, when created, will need to set gameplay and history within the new basic game framework and I am sure they will. This time we have the added benefit of hindsight with how the rules should be set.

[Banori]

that´s a good idea

[Banori]

i think it´s a good idea

ORIGINAL: timmyab

Here's an idea for WITE2

Attacking an enemy unit can reduce the MP's of that enemy unit in it's phasing turn.
I would make the reduction in the number of MPs dependent on final CV ratio.

For a start this would give Soviet players a good incentive to attack German units in 41 and 42.
It's also realistic generally. If units are engaged during their non-phasing turn why should they have as much capability to move as a unit that wasn't engaged. It doesn't make sense. Holding and spoiling attacks are a common feature of any battlefield.

[Michael T]

@HMSWARSPITE - your argument makes no sense at all to me. Even the most rudimentary change to the zoc rules would be an improvement. You are happy with the zoc rules? Fine. But don't muddy the water with silly arguments about all this supposed added complexity a change would entail.

HQ's don't have zoc's. No need to say anymore on that point.

Who said it was broken? I said it can be improved. Spend some time thinking about what some good improvements would be rather than counting toothbrushes.

As for WITW, I was at one point a tester. Short lived as it turned out. But I did help make one or two small improvements. But in the end arguing with people like yourself wore me down and I gave up.

[Michael T]

@John, even if you simply said we are going to half the zoc costs that reg/brigades impose upon units moving thru them it would be a big improvement over the current rule.

The current zoc rules and over run rules in combination make creating screens of ants (either in front or behind) a very effective defense. However it's totally unrealistic as many have pointed out. We see carpets of brigades 4 and five lines deep. An impenetrable mass of ants due to non existent over run rules and very sticky zocs for said ants.

To over come this horrible tactic the devs need to either drastically reduce zoc costs for units moving past ants or make them much more prone to being over run.

And to be honest I doubt you would find one (non biased) player who would not agree this is a major failing of the current game.

[loki100]

double post for some reason

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

...
The current zoc rules and over run rules in combination make creating screens of ants (either in front or behind) a very effective defense. However it's totally unrealistic as many have pointed out. We see carpets of brigades 4 and five lines deep. An impenetrable mass of ants due to non existent over run rules and very sticky zocs for said ants.

To over come this horrible tactic the devs need to either drastically reduce zoc costs for units moving past ants or make them much more prone to being over run.

And to be honest I doubt you would find one (non biased) player who would not agree this is a major failing of the current game.

there is of course more than one way to solve this particular problem?

there are less brigade size units on the map than in WiTE and there are often better uses for the ones that *could* be on the map than creating a sea of reserve lines. As in WiTW they can be attached to HQs and sometimes to units. In both modes you'll see the logic for why the Soviets had so many independent brigades in the early shock armies - something that makes absolutely no sense in WiTE but will really give a Shock Army built around rifle divisions extra combat punch (in the short term).

[Michael T]

In my experience, players, if given the chance will have as many on map units as they can. Because the ants create friction as equally well as larger formations. I realize there will be less ants in WITE 2.0. As there are no on map tank brigades. A big improvement.

However as long as the player can put them on the map he will. Because there will always be circumstances when belts of sticky ants will serve a purpose. But that purpose (a carpet of ants) is not in any way realistic in the effect they have.

If you can say that a carpet of ants is not possible anymore then bravo, case solved. Let's move on. But since the Soviet as far as I know will still have many dozens of INF brigades, security regiments, AT brigades etc then the potential for carpets is still there.

[Ketza]

Fire in the East somewhat dealt with the ant problem by giving artillery units a combat rating of 0 unless they were stacking with a like number of combat units for mutual support. They also had zero impact on zoc costs unless they were supported. Would love to see something like that in WITE2