Game Suggestions:

[Achsah]

my wish for the game would be the option to deligate tasks and have a chief of staff type thing that analyses the commander report and makes settings as orderd by the player..kuje *set all stavka inf div to refit. or manage air bases disband all bases in moscow mil dist.stuff like that. or set southern front to 60% manpower.[:D] chief of staff would really add to the realism and immersion value of the imo thanks for the thread[:D]

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Hello I just purchased WitE. My background in WW2 games is the board game World in Flames, Decisive Campaigns series both Warsaw to Paris and Case Blue, and others.

My wish would be to have this kind of game, on the same scale with divisions, brigades, regiments. But, on the whole european theater, 1939-45. That is with Germany, Italy, France, USSR, UK, USA, minors,etc.

Is it too crazy? I remember a board game of this scale called Europa Series, but with a computer it is a lot easier to handle, and does not require a whole house for the maps (maybe dual 24" or larger monitors).

Michel.

Not crazy but unrealistic in terms of computing power. Maybe if five or six years it might be.

I still have Europa in the loft, all of it, but I never managed to get more than two maps out to play it. I did at one time spread all the maps out on the floor, just, having to moving furniture etc. Fine if you had a spare room big enough but then you had to find some way of getting to middle without disturbing the counters, and with all the counters it would have probably taken you three days to play a turn. All-in-all it wasn't a very practical game.

[Mehring]

A review mode for server games that allows you to inspect all your units and information.

[Mehring]

Introduce AP cost for each bomber supply mission, maybe modified by political rating of commander in receiving (H)HQ.

[Mehring]

The rules explain that isolated support units forced to displace are not destroyed because when the pocket is formed they would occupy a wide area, presumably not necessarily within the pocket. That may be the case, particularly with non-front line SUs like arty and construction units. However, this does not concur either with the loss of control of non-ZOC hexes within the pocket or the fact that these units continue to contribute to in-pocket combat at full strength.

As is, it now often makes sense to leave HQs and their SUs in pocketable locations to add virtually free combat strength to a pocket. Since the rule's current implementation detracts from realism rather than the rationale, for WitE 2 I suggest that all SU elements not directly attached to a pocketed combat unit take a check to see if they are in the pocket when it is formed. This could be modified by vehicle/gas shortage, leader initiative, distance to nearest friendly hex, type of SU (front line or rear area) etc. You might even have a CR enabled option for SUs parent unit like "attempt escape" from encirclement as opposed to "stay with HQ."

If the SU's elements on either side of a pocket would be considered "unready," those inside might be temporarily merged with a combat unit, those outside, either temporarily pooling pending reunification with elements within the pocket, or just re-joining the production pools. If either or each retained sufficient % of elements/morale to establish a viable "ready" SU, the unit might temporarily split, the outside unit taking no replacements until reunited ( to avoid gaming " AP free" SUs).

Pocketed SUs would then be destroyed when their HQ surrenders/displaces. SUs directly attached to combat units should in any case share the same fate as their HHQ.

[Mehring]

Anyone suggested linking evacuation of population from Russian cities to dates? That could certainly give the Russian an incentive to fight historically.

[Mehring]

I think the basic idea of 1:1 = 2:1 is good but it doesn't seem right that the Russian should retreat all summer than suddenly have an "attack doctrine." What about linking 1:1 = 2:1 to the number of successful attacks made every turn? If the Russian doesn't make the attacks, they lose the doctrine.

[uw06670]

Unit Withdrawl

I've read a couple of threads about units withdrawing at inopportune times. But I actually think the game is too helpful in flagging the units that will withdraw in the distant future. When you hover over a unit and see "unit will withdraw in 107 turns" I think it is too much info. I know its a game and people like to know what is going to happen when, but it really pulls away from the immersion factor. You should not know when units are going to withdraw until close to the time they actually are. Have a 4 turn notice or maybe a little more. That replicates the "oh sh*t" factor the generals had to face.

To make it even better, have the exact turn and unit be random, within certain factors. So instead of LAH SS withdraws on Turn 123, have random Super Division exit on turn 123 +-4 turns. The German player will get the actual 4 turn warning, but Soviet won't know. That way not only will the German player have to be on their toes, but the Soviet player won't be able to plan in advance for units to disappear. This would meet the spirit of the event even if not 'exactly' historical.

I think it would be more fun that way.

[swkuh]

@uw06670: +1

But implemented as simply as possible, just not flagging units would be a good 1st step. "Reasonable randomness," if possible would be very nice. An "oh s..t" message is frosting on the cake. My thousand person team of inexpert coders is hard at work.

[Majick]

Hello All,

I'm very impressed with the presentation of the hard copy of War in the West. Is there any plan to re-release a deluxe version of WITE presented in a similar way? e.g. huge hard bound manual with game inside cover.

I for one would buy it

Jon

[Denniss]

I doubt this will be done for WitE 1 unless there's a sufficiently high feedback regarding this. But I expect future WitE 2 to be shipped with an optional deluxe hardcover manual.

[Majick]

WITE 2? Even better

[Denniss]

Will be based on WitW engine, hopefully with some improvements done for WitE 1.08. But still a long time to see this.

[chaos45]

My suggestions would be.

If you do a War in Europe type situation you need to remove all the auto removal of factories and units that happens. As most of this tied to historical events that may not happen if the player is running the entire scenario.

Also many units withdrawn were because they were burned out and needed to refit until the Late late war when they were re-purposed to the western front. If you do a remake of only eastern front the player should be allowed to choose what unit withdraws To many times Ive had units in key positions be on the withdraw list when in a real life situation that would never happen.

Also allow the Germans some freedom on production in factories/units. If for some reason you suddenly do better than historical you can end up with stuff just sitting in pools waiting for you to take losses.

Also more accurate casualty model....for one week turns battles should be more lethal. Tired of seeing division sized+ engagements with a couple hundred losses per side and corps+ sized engagements with only 1-2k losses. If for a week an assault is carried out by 150k determined attackers vs 30-50k dug-in and determined defenders the losses should be staggering for both sides not ohh comrade stalin we lost a regiment and called off the attack...which is bull hockey if you read how bloody alot of this fighting really was.

Also historically the Soviet were super low on manpower at the end and sending in old men and boys drug out of occuppied zones to their units....dont think the game really shows a soviet manpower shortage in the late war due to the bad casualty model.

[uw06670]

To many times Ive had units in key positions be on the withdraw list when in a real life situation that would never happen

Actually having read a lot about how battles went down on the East Front lately, units removed were often key to their sector and sometimes it forced the end of an offensive. Hitler wanted the super units moved to other Fronts and of course they weren't sitting around idle, ever.

[chaos45]

Im not talking just super units. If an infantry division is removed because most likely historically it was burned out it might actually be in a good spot in the line why couldnt the player just pull a different infantry division.

I understand all the SS divisions moving around....but even then they were pulled out in 1942 to rebuild mainly esp 3rd SS as it took a real beating in the winter of 1941/42. If the division hadnt been mostly chewed up would it have been withdrawn is then a question no?

6th panzer is another one...it lost virtually all its tanks and was pulled out to rebuild...so if in your game it doesnt get smashed why would it get pulled out to rebuild? Those are the things I have issue with.

[uw06670]

Ah, yes that makes complete sense. As we can send units out for Refit on our own if they get hammered, then yeah seems unnecessary to remove units if that was the historical reason for doing so.

There were specific instances where strong units were sent to France or Italy to bolster defenses. Those are the most important ones to enforce in game as long as the Western and other fronts are just being simulated.

[chaos45]

yes from 1943 on if a unit was withdrawn specifically to defend Italy/France then so be it. If it was withdrawn because it was mostly destroyed and needed to be rebuilt then it shouldnt be an auto withdrawl. In all honesty what should happen is either the player gets to choose a beat up unit to send for rebuild or the historical replacement totals used to rebuild those units in france needs to be added as replacements to the eastern front so you as the play can pull units out of the line and refit them.

[Denniss]

A Disband-withdraw is what you are looking for. Instead of disappearing all equipment is flushed to the pools.

[Mehring]

One way to increase casualties in specific situations for WitE 2 would be to add to the various unit stances, such as "refit" and "reserve." Defenders could choose between levels of desired defensive tenacity, actual tenacity depending upon the morale/experience of the units. Choices might be "delay," "normal" and "last bullet." The tougher the defensive stance, the higher potential for defending reserve commitment, casualties on both sides, also routing in the event of defeat. Also, troops given a tenacity beyond their morale, experience and fatigue levels might risk shattering of at least rout.

Attacks might likewise pay a premium in casualties for lowering the odds at which they succeed or making break off less likely.