WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 4 - Overview of Logistic Supply

[RedLancer]

Arguably this is biggest difference from WitE as a number of Testers have discovered. This is because if you continue to play WitW with the techniques learned playing WitE you are going to suffer logistically.

In WitE supply can be drawn from any hex containing a working rail connected to the wider rail network (i.e. a green rail hex) and in effect supply movement within the rail network is unconstrained. From a functioning rail hex (in most cases) supply then travels by truck first to a HQ and then from the HQ to a Unit in a two phase process. In WitW this does not happen.

In WitW Logistics Supply moves around the map during the log phase as 'Freight' and it is tracked. Freight is created, stored and transferred between a network of Depots. Because freight is tracked through the system Depots close to the frontline have finite supply. Units can only get Freight from a Depot - putting a unit on a rail hex in WitW achieves nothing. Units will always try to get their Freight from the nearest Depot first. When Freight gets to a unit it is converted into one of the four types of supply - Supplies, Fuel, Ammo or Replacements - but only if they exist in the production pools. (I think of it as cashing a cheque)

So in summary whilst in WitE you had rail hexes close to the frontline with almost unlimited supply and HQs to bridge in gap in WitW you need to look to your nearest depot that may only receiving a trickle of the freight you might like and/or need.

The screenshot shows the logistic view - Depots are the triangles with the bars showing freight received (green), stored (blue), sent (red) and capacity (black). Note the different rail colours showing those used the most. Freight competes for space on the rails with moving units so you might be able to get a unit to the front and then not be able to supply it.

[gravyhair]

This is EPIC! Logistical concerns should be paramount in this campaign, and it looks like 2by3 has hit the nail on the head. I'm jacked!

[morvael]

For me this is the best of WitW's improvements over WitE.

[Erik Rutins]

It's hard to overstate how much more advanced and realistic WITW is in this regard.

[Numdydar]

I assume the number in the depot triangles represents total capacity of the depot?

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I assume the number in the depot triangles represents total capacity of the depot?

No - the number in the triangle is the priority - there are 5 levels (0-4). Level 4 Depots get first look at freight cascading through the system. Level 0 get nothing.

Capacity is the black bar. Capacity is a factor of the co-located Port and Railyards - which is why in the screenshot Antwerp is more capable than Eindhoven as it is such a big port.

[zakblood]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

It's hard to overstate how much more advanced and realistic WITW is in this regard.

sound great in theory, but in practice to some it sounds a bit too hardcore and maybe a bit boring, the main fault with WITE for me anyway was the amount of time it needed to play, there was no quick play, no lets have half and hour, it was full on or not at all, as not everyone has that amount of time, for me it's classed as hardcore or a sim, make any game too realistic and the balance between fun and a hard slog gets a bit too close for many, its a fine line it's going atm, yes not everyone will play any war game, i understand that.

its not every ones cup of tea, but if you make it too hard for those that do, you may loose some of them as well...

i look forward to either testing it or playing it on release, but as the total time spent on WITE is very little, because of the complexities of it, I'm starting to think this maybe going the same way, I'll still buy it all the same, as it will be great to add another one to the collection, i just don't think as yet I'll invest the time needed to fully play it...

too easy and its a steam game and everyone can play it, so more normally buys it, see it, talks about it etc etc

medium and less buy it, it may or may not get a steam release or wide audience, equals less sales etc

hard or hardcore, well that just follows the above patten in the wrong way, but i guess your not making games for the money, your doing it because you enjoy the games you make and play them, or else you'd be making fps etc

so good luck and hope you all get the balance right, and lets hope the mediocre players like me can get into it and enjoy this one better than WITE[&o][&o][&o]

[Balou]

Assuming Germany retakes Antwerp: what happens to all the stuff in its depots ?

[RedLancer]

When an enemy depot is captured 5% of freight is converted to fuel and 5% is converted to supplies, and is placed in the city location. Supplies, fuel and armaments points are destroyed from the owning player’s pools to account for the freight destroyed at the depot. Also when a depot is captured 1 percent of used and 5 percent of unused vehicles in the depot are destroyed.

I've not been ignoring the question on airbase capture - we are still working on this area.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: zakblood
sound great in theory, but in practice to some it sounds a bit too hardcore and maybe a bit boring, the main fault with WITE for me anyway was the amount of time it needed to play, there was no quick play, no lets have half and hour, it was full on or not at all, as not everyone has that amount of time, for me it's classed as hardcore or a sim, make any game too realistic and the balance between fun and a hard slog gets a bit too close for many, its a fine line it's going atm, yes not everyone will play any war game, i understand that.

I don't think it's significantly harder to play than WITE, just that it encourages more realistic strategies and outcomes now. Instead of focusing on HQs for your logistics chain, you now focus on depots. With the new air war included as well, depots/railyards/rail lines give you new gameplay options to restrict your opponent's supply in ways that were quite historical.

In addition, you really have more visibility into your supply system now, which makes it more interesting and more understandable as far as what's going where and how to shift your priorities.

What makes it easier to play than WITE is that there are fewer units. However, if you choose to get into the air war more fully with the new system, you can have just as much to do. If you choose to mostly automate the air war, it plays quickly.

As with WITE, there are also smaller scenarios (Sicily, Salerno, Cobra, Bulge, Market Garden) that allow players who don't have time or inclination for the "grand campaigns" to still have fun.

Regards,

- Erik

[shermanny]

I'll second that. WITW gains in simplicity because there are fewer units to move. The Eastern Front is wide and deep. The Soviets may have 50 guards rifle corps and 30 mechanized and tank corps to manage, as well as a host of lesser formations. And the Germans often end up splitting their infantry divisions into regiments and then they have up to 300 units in play, many needing to be moved every turn.

The complexity of WITW has more to do with depth than breadth. The Allies have relatively few divisions, at least by the standards of the Eastern Front, but they must lay plans further in advance. Invasions, in particular, can require groundwork that must be laid beginning months in advance, and during that time, the Allied player needs to watch that he doesn't tip his hand by concentrating his air efforts too obviously against the chosen beach zone.

[Balou]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Also when a depot is captured 1 percent of used and 5 percent of unused vehicles in the depot are destroyed.

If that means the vast majority of vehicles will be taken over by the new owners, that's good news for raider-type gamers. BTW thanks for your excellent replies to all sorts of questions.

[freeboy]

all this sounds fantastic... did I miss the release date part?
is it dec of this year?
Do we get a wite owner discount?
lol
[&o][X(][:-][&o]

[freeboy]

ok
early december sounds good

Not worried about price that wAs a joke

[Gilmer]

Suuuuuuuuuhhh WEET!!

[Dereck]

Would the following be a feasible setup for logistics?

Use rail to move supplies from a port to a supply depot located on a rail line and then have smaller supply depots drawing supply from the supply depot on the rail line?

[cmunson]

ORIGINAL: zakblood
sound great in theory, but in practice to some it sounds a bit too hardcore and maybe a bit boring

REPLY: Erik Rutins
I don't think it's significantly harder to play than WITE, just that it encourages more realistic strategies and outcomes now.

zakblood, Erik is right, you need to spend some game time being aware of logistics but you don't have to spend a lot of time actively managing it despite the complexity. A map overlay shows at a glance any supply issues you may have. Two clicks creates a new depot. Invasions automatically create depots. The logistics system is very intuitive and automated. You can change the supply level of an entire Army Group with a click and a keystroke.

Logistics are like a lot of the elements in 2x3 games, you can delve into it deeply if you want but it is not necessary. I spend more time tracking my aces then I do managing logistics.

[MechFO]

Quantum leap forward. Looks simple and easy to keep track of without being simplistic.

Some questions:

- can one create storage depots aside from the fixed ones at rail depots/ports? This to help with logistic build ups or as early preparation for a later offence in a sector. As a trade off maybe make a higher % capturable by the enemy?

- can one put units on low supply priority (like for replacements) to better channel limited supply to priority units?

- Is the direction of travel accounted for ? A unit being moved back to the rear congests the same as a unit moving forward?

- is the player in any way capable of influencing rail depot size, rail capacity for rail capacity?

[RedLancer]

- can one create storage depots aside from the fixed ones at rail depots/ports? This to help with logistic build ups or as early preparation for a later offence in a sector. As a trade off maybe make a higher % capturable by the enemy?

You can create depots in any named location or airbase.

- can one put units on low supply priority (like for replacements) to better channel limited supply to priority units?

Yes - there are 5 supply priority levels. The rules are complicated but a unit with Priority 0 gets up to 30% of need and Priority 4 up to 110% of need (if they haven't moved). Replacements arrive as freight - so they are in direct competition with supply - another key difference in WitW.

- Is the direction of travel accounted for ? A unit being moved back to the rear congests the same as a unit moving forward?

No - it's done on a movement in hex basis

- is the player in any way capable of influencing rail depot size, rail capacity for rail capacity?

No - it is fixed but creation of a depot in a location with no railyard will create a level 1 railyard with 100% damage. (See my post on strategic movement)

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: dereck

Would the following be a feasible setup for logistics?

Use rail to move supplies from a port to a supply depot located on a rail line and then have smaller supply depots drawing supply from the supply depot on the rail line?

No depots must be on a rail line or in a port in order to receive freight. The only exception to this is the creation of temporary depots when freight is airlifted to units or to an airbase (much better to do it to an airbase). So you send freight down the rail from your port depots to your rail depots. Units go grab the freight from the depots using vehicles (or in some short range cases animal drawn transport). You can set up lots of forward depots as long as they are on rails, but if they don't have redundant rail lines back to the main freight sources (major ports, national supply sources), then they will be limited in what they can receive.