Matrix Games Forums

forgive me if this has been answered already. I am wondering if it is possible in some way to organize an operation or campaign within the game. For example when playing the full cmapaign against the AI Soviets, would we see the AI build up in a certain area of the front then attack all at once? Likewise, will the player have a special way of organizing an operation? Will there be any "Case Blue" or "Bagration"?

There might be better experts than me with regards to AI behaviour, but watching the AI in the 1943 Campaign, it seems to probe for cracks in the line, and if it finds one it will launch, what can only be called an "avalanche" attack, causing a breakthrough that penetrated 8 hexes into my rear area. I now make sure I don't leave cracks in my line!!!

On the players side you can use the "HQ build up" function to give armies and corps "maximum effort" supplies ammo and fuel which last 2-3 weeks/turns, but each time you use it, you reduce your whole army's supply capacity by 1-2% for 2-3months.

I imagine in the shorter campaigns the objectives for each side are more clear-cut, but I'm curious how the AI handles things during the main campaign. I wonder if the AI was designed to build up its forces in certain sections of the front and conduct a campaign to obtain a specific goal, or does the AI generically attack everywhere along the entire front?

For example, after Barbarossa failed to destroy the Soviets the Germans were not able to conduct another campaign along the entire front and waited and built up until the summer of 42 to unleash Case Blue and attack again in the south. Their objectives were the oil fields in Baku and cutting off Stalingrad and the Volga life-line. Would the German AI have the same priorities and arrange its forces appropriately?

In a human vs human game objectives and priorities are obvious, but what factors does the AI go by to decide its course of action? Is it simply looking for weak sections in the front? Does it have territory objectives? A combination of both?

I suppose my main concern is that the AI, be it German or Soviet, just throws its forces at you without any real planning or goals other than simply defeating the enemy directly in front of it.

Interesting question.  BigAnorak's reply seems to mean that it will rather look all along the line without forming centers of gravities and major operations/thrusts.  That could lead to poor AI performance on a strategic level (violates fundamental principles to use forces piece-meal, without focus etc), but could benefit operational or tactical behavior by forming small pockets occasionally.   Would be nice though if AI would form specific thrusts and concentrate there, while just (barely) holding other parts...

I think we would all love the AI to think like a chess player, and be planning 3-4 turns ahead, but I am not sure that is a realistic expectation. It will exploit any weakness it finds, but of course, this leads it to be duped by "clever" humans who set up deliberate weak areas to pull it off track.

It is one of the better AI's I have played against, but I'm sure there are better, and definitely a lot that are worse.

I would probably say that the AI is not that complex, might need a Cray to run the game. That level of balancing the and maintaining the "line" and then assess a weak spot in the oppoents line might not be good. You could always thin out your line and suck the AI into attacking then pocket him. Keeping a stable line should be good enough. This game has to be play against a human.

let's see, thin out the line, suck the enemy in and then crush him in a series of pockets....like Kursk 43?

If the AI sees more than one or two turns in advance that would be wonderful.

Do we know if any of the testers has been the Russian and played against the German AI into 1942. Does the German AI wait until it builds up enough forces to launch a second offensive in 42 or does it merely probe before it has really built up enough forces to follow through and take advantage of any cracks in the line. This might be hard to script, but I think that someone will try to build it once the game is out. I for one would be willing to give it a go depending on how the AI scripting works.

There is so much to learn and so much room for this game to grow....can't wait.

ORIGINAL: Captain B

let's see, thin out the line, suck the enemy in and then crush him in a series of pockets....like Kursk 43?

If the AI sees more than one or two turns in advance that would be wonderful.

Do we know if any of the testers has been the Russian and played against the German AI into 1942. Does the German AI wait until it builds up enough forces to launch a second offensive in 42 or does it merely probe before it has really built up enough forces to follow through and take advantage of any cracks in the line. This might be hard to script, but I think that someone will try to build it once the game is out. I for one would be willing to give it a go depending on how the AI scripting works.

There is so much to learn and so much room for this game to grow....can't wait.

Is there AI scripting involved at all? I thought it was all hard-coded, and no scenario contains additional scripts -- maybe that has changed? Would of course be awesome if the AI was mod-able.

If I read the above correctly, AI won't build up "schwerpunkte" per se, but rather hold the line uniformly or according to what the player puts on the opposite spot. Maybe the way AI would "focus" on some target more than others is by the victory points, which always would leave Moscow up first. The mood point would only be if you wanted that to change, and mod the VPs, you'd always know the result first. Could be nice if there would be a certain range for randomization of the VP so that you could be surprised.

It would be awesome if we could have an AI-human AAR against a Russian player, all the way from 1941 to 1943 (especially to see how it restarts the 1942 summer offensive). That would perhaps be most informative.

[font=tahoma]Rather than start a new thread, I'll piggy-back on WilliePete's question, which is similar to my own:[/font]
 
 
[font=tahoma]Does WitE incorporate any kind of “Operational” interface or game mechanic that allows you to logistically organize actual operations --  in other words, an operation that you have to organize ‘ahead of time’ around specific geographic objectives, with a specific OOB of dedicated armies/units, and a specific timetable?  Or, as in WitP:AE and most strategy games, are any ‘operations’ you undertake actually just a mental-construct you invent for yourself (i.e. on paper) and then have to imagine it being played out in the game?  In short, do you actually plan and carry out Operations in WitE, or does the war go along and you just more or less ‘go with the flow,’ attacking as opportunities present themselves with what units are available?[/font]
[font=tahoma] [/font]
[font=tahoma]I know I’m probably not making myself 100% clear.  The closest analogy I can think of is AGEOD’s “World War One,” where (1915 onward) the game provides a “Grand Offensive” interface that forces you to organize a large-scale offensive operation.  You have to choose the army/armies involved, indicate what the objectives are, and what the planned date of launch is.  Failure to capture the goal or meet the timetable results in penalties (e.g. to national morale, etc.).  [/font]
[font=tahoma] [/font]
[font=tahoma]Personally, I absolutely love this game mechanic.  Of course, I know there is little practical parallel between a WW1-style ‘grand offensive’ and a WW2 operation like “Zitadelle”, but what I do love about AGEOD’s WW1Gold is the way it makes the operational component of strategic warfare *tangible* in the game.  Part of the reason I have so much trouble playing WitP:AE is that you have to rely on out-of-game organizers like WitP-Staff or WitP-Tracker, which to me is quite cumbersome in a game that is already so enormous and so hard to keep track of.    [/font]
[font=tahoma] [/font]
[font=tahoma]Anyway, I’d love to know more about how WitE represents “Operational” elements of warfare.[/font]

I can't think of any operations mechanic. However, you can place units in static mode and gain APs and vehicles to be used in active areas. This is important and will force you to plan ahead if you want to reactivate a part of the front.

As for AI scripting, there are AI first (and second) turn scripts for some of the scenarios. They really aren't effective after 1 or 2 turns, but do help especially for an attacking side in a scenario. They are in the data and can be modified in the editor so in theory with time and effort they can be improved upon.

Aside from the set up, you plan your own operations - and in my case they are still pretty chaotic affairs.   You watch Pyledriver's operations unfold and it's just gorgeous to watch - he has got his staff officers well trained!

I have just re-read this - I should add (and should have said this straight off) that the victory objectives for the scenarios certainly determine the overall 'operations', but it is down to you to sort the planning, the formations that you will use to do what etc

Thanks for the replies. 
 
I just feel for something of this level of complexity, some kind of in-game "operations organizer" would be an enormous help -- maybe less so for smaller scenarios, but for the 'grand campaign,' where you will planning multiple offensives, it could be a real life saver.  The more the game helps you organize and keep track of important information, the better -- the less you have to rely on pen & paper (one of my main complaints about WitP), the better.
 
still, i have no doubt WitE will be a tremendous game and one which I will certainly be purchasing when it comes out --   

ORIGINAL: sandman2575

[font=tahoma]Rather than start a new thread, I'll piggy-back on WilliePete's question, which is similar to my own:[/font]


[font=tahoma]Does WitE incorporate any kind of “Operational” interface or game mechanic that allows you to logistically organize actual operations --  in other words, an operation that you have to organize ‘ahead of time’ around specific geographic objectives, with a specific OOB of dedicated armies/units, and a specific timetable?  Or, as in WitP:AE and most strategy games, are any ‘operations’ you undertake actually just a mental-construct you invent for yourself (i.e. on paper) and then have to imagine it being played out in the game?  In short, do you actually plan and carry out Operations in WitE, or does the war go along and you just more or less ‘go with the flow,’ attacking as opportunities present themselves with what units are available?[/font]
[font=tahoma] [/font]
[font=tahoma]I know I’m probably not making myself 100% clear.  The closest analogy I can think of is AGEOD’s “World War One,” where (1915 onward) the game provides a “Grand Offensive” interface that forces you to organize a large-scale offensive operation.  You have to choose the army/armies involved, indicate what the objectives are, and what the planned date of launch is.  Failure to capture the goal or meet the timetable results in penalties (e.g. to national morale, etc.).  [/font]
[font=tahoma] [/font]
[font=tahoma]Personally, I absolutely love this game mechanic.  Of course, I know there is little practical parallel between a WW1-style ‘grand offensive’ and a WW2 operation like “Zitadelle”, but what I do love about AGEOD’s WW1Gold is the way it makes the operational component of strategic warfare *tangible* in the game.  Part of the reason I have so much trouble playing WitP:AE is that you have to rely on out-of-game organizers like WitP-Staff or WitP-Tracker, which to me is quite cumbersome in a game that is already so enormous and so hard to keep track of.    [/font]
[font=tahoma] [/font]
[font=tahoma]Anyway, I’d love to know more about how WitE represents “Operational” elements of warfare.[/font]

Just want to jump in and say that I have been wanting something like this for a grand strategy game for a long time...something that would give you the sense of planning and organizing an operation, something that you would have to stick to (for some amount of time)...for some of us, it's easy to fall into a mode where you're just moving units around, and maybe you had an objective, but as situations develop, you kind of ignore that and do something else, etc. Anyway, this is an element that I have never seen in a game before, so I think I'm going to check out that WWI game!

ORIGINAL: TPM

Just want to jump in and say that I have been wanting something like this for a grand strategy game for a long time...something that would give you the sense of planning and organizing an operation, something that you would have to stick to (for some amount of time)...for some of us, it's easy to fall into a mode where you're just moving units around, and maybe you had an objective, but as situations develop, you kind of ignore that and do something else, etc.

I completely agree, TPM. i hate falling into that feeling of 'just moving units around' even if you have an objective, as you put it. I'm playing Decisive Campaigns now (great game!), and even though the scenarios represent single operations (Fall Weiss, etc.), the maps are large, there a lot of units, and i find myself losing track of which Corps I want to take which specific objectives, what routes to take, and so forth. I'm sure with WitE, on such a more massive scale, the organizational problems are going to be considerable.

At the risk of getting flamed -- one of the things I really like about Hearts of Iron 3 (!!) is the AI-control option, which lets you set objectives for groups anywhere along the OOB (I prefer setting goals for Armies rather than Corps below or Army Groups above). You set the Army to AI Control, pick a few objectives, and then set an 'axis of advance,' which is represented as a vector on the map, and thus gives you a clear visual sense of where the Army is going! Despite some of the AI shortcomings, it really gives you the feeling of being in overall control of "an operation" rather than micromanaging all the units from one moment to the next.

I love to read the AAR's on this forum. One of the great things those AAR's give you is a clear picture of 'an operation,' complete with the specific corps and groups assigned to what objectives, big arrows pointing to offensive thrusts and planned encirclements, etc. HOW GREAT it would be if the game itself had a way of letting you do this as a planning tool!!!

I know, I know -- much much easier said than done. Still, it would be tremendous fun (and a huge help) --

I absolutely agree, having the option to play only as "High Command" and only give directives instead of moving all the units would be great. And as there is an AI in the game controlling one side (or both) I would imagine that this is not impossible to implement. But then I know next to nothing about AI coding...

This way to play the game is not implemented, and imo it will give you much less fun. The best thing to do is to control everything about ground and air combat, and then if something goes wrong search what happened and try to improve. This is the beauty of micromanagement [:)]

Thanks for all the replies! It's good to see everyone pumped up about this game!

I suppose the HQ build-up ability will be the closest function we get to help organize and conduct our operations. An in game operations organizer of some sort is a great idea. The game is so large that I'm worried I will get lost and even fatigued in moving my units. Is there some kind of function that allows us to give group orders at the corps or army level so the units that fall under those commands move on their own?

I don't think my original question was definitively answered. I'll be honored and looking forward to wage war against my mates on the forum here, but my concern is more for the AI in that it will not be creative in its attacks, especially during the longer main campaign. The way I understand it now is that cities/victory locations or gaps in the line will drive the AIs attacks. However, I still wonder if will we see the AI build up in a certain area then make a large focused push, in effect conducting an operation?

By their very nature, screen shots can show very little of the dynamic nature of the integrated movement and combat system in WITE, as it cannot show the exact way in which units get from A to B, or the thought processes that a player goes through, as he gets from A to B, but needless to say you would need some pretty impressive programming to get anywhere close to having AI that will emulate these processes. I think it is inevitable that players will have to fine tune the challenge that the AI offers by increasing the handicaps that he/she operates under.

In his designer's notes Joel credits SPI's "War in the East" board game from the mid-70's as inspiration for Gary Grigsby's War in the East, so it depends on your age as to whether this will give an indication as to the type of monster game you will be wrestling.

Knowing that it is a "monster" game that you are facing, does mean that you will be in what I call "Goldfish" mode, going "OMG, OMG, OMG" for about 2 weeks. After two weeks, figuring out what you need to do to capture Leningrad in 12 weeks and Moscow in 17 weeks should be getting easier. I'm now nine months in, and I am still learning, or rather my arch-nemesis Flaviusx is still "educating" me.

the less you have to rely on pen & paper (one of my main complaints about WitP)

There are so many finer points that you will need pen and paper!

How often have I pressed F12 (end turn button) only to remember to move a certain unit in a certain hex, or have forgotten to drop supplies for my advancing Pzr Army.

Where to attach Pioneers, what leader I want to appoint.

Plus the need for sleep. Orders for the next days battle or will I be able to remember all the little things that might turn the war in my favour. Or forget the minor things that will be of benefit to my enemy be it AI or human.

A pen and paper is not a big deal when you play this game, forgetting to use it might be.

Mat