(W) in a battle report ?

[boudi]

Hi,

What does mean a (W) in defense, in a battle report window ?

Thanks.

[Denniss]

AFAIR a Fighting Withdrawal with reduced losses for defender; commander was anticipating the defeat and initiated an orderly retreat to avoid being overrun.

[boudi]

Thank you !

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: boudi

Hi,

What does mean a (W) in defense, in a battle report window ?

Thanks.

They gave this as an advantage to the German side. IMHO they should have added another item of NRUAC (No Retreat Under Any Circumstance) for both the German & Soviet Side to simulate the "do not retreat & hold at all costs" orders given by both Hitler & Stalin. You would take extra big losses but would still hold the hex. Bleh, anyway just my two cents since this would simulate the actions in the winter and at Stalingrad respectively.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: boudi

Hi,

What does mean a (W) in defense, in a battle report window ?

Thanks.

... IMHO they should have added another item of NRUAC (No Retreat Under Any Circumstance) for both the German & Soviet Side to simulate the "do not retreat & hold at all costs" orders given by both Hitler & Stalin. You would take extra big losses but would still hold the hex. Bleh, anyway just my two cents since this would simulate the actions in the winter and at Stalingrad respectively.

Is this not what the +1 bonus for the Soviets is also meant to simulate?

It would be interesting if you could set this doctrine as part of a players actions, perhaps selectively for different units (just like reserve/refit etc.), or have it as part of the fixed options for both sides of a scenario (Stalingrad?)

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: boudi

Hi,

What does mean a (W) in defense, in a battle report window ?

Thanks.

... IMHO they should have added another item of NRUAC (No Retreat Under Any Circumstance) for both the German & Soviet Side to simulate the "do not retreat & hold at all costs" orders given by both Hitler & Stalin. You would take extra big losses but would still hold the hex. Bleh, anyway just my two cents since this would simulate the actions in the winter and at Stalingrad respectively.

Is this not what the +1 bonus for the Soviets is also meant to simulate?

It would be interesting if you could set this doctrine as part of a players actions, perhaps selectively for different units (just like reserve/refit etc.), or have it as part of the fixed options for both sides of a scenario (Stalingrad?)

No, I don't see the +1 bonus for the Soviets as the simulation for a "stand at all cost" (no retreat order). I see the +1 Soviet attack as a way to give the Soviets a means to counter attack in 41. I digress from there.

I believe you are seeing what I'm trying to imply. The ability to give a command or for key hexes to have these units to "stand at all cost" thus they have a high probability of standing or forcing a surrender if they are totally overrun. Say a 6 to 1 odds forces surrender of a hex that is under a "no retreat order", all other results result in higher than normal casualties. Shouldn't be able to set many units like this but should be able to do for key hexes, such as for the Soviets Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad. Of course it is a pipe dream for the current game but nothing wrong with dreaming ;-}

[Stelteck]

The problem with "stand at all cost" order if that make any offensive even less predictable, as sometimes hex can be hold against big enemy superiority.

I'am not sûre the game need more random mechanism.

[morvael]

Hold at all costs stance (same as withdraw when attacked) would be useful. They exist in a game like V for Victory, and are very useful (same as probing attacks and all-out assaults). Too bad this doesn't exist in this game, with units always being under standard defensive orders.
Adding this would increase micromanagement.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Hold at all costs stance (same as withdraw when attacked) would be useful. They exist in a game like V for Victory, and are very useful (same as probing attacks and all-out assaults). Too bad this doesn't exist in this game, with units always being under standard defensive orders.
Adding this would increase micromanagement.

Expend X number of AP's to increase defensive stand to a morale point Y (computed by rules)
for a Corps or Army. (Much less than HQBU) Then if that morale point is reached the unit shatters rather than retreat. Thus decision making that has some influence on results.

I always thought GG games were about micromanagement and the master of the details are far superior players.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Expend X number of AP's to increase defensive stand to a morale point Y (computed by rules)
for a Corps or Army. (Much less than HQBU) Then if that morale point is reached the unit shatters rather than retreat. Thus decision making that has some influence on results.

I always thought GG games were about micromanagement and the master of the details are far superior players.

Perhaps this models an extraordinary local propaganda and morale boosting effort, or NKVD standing in the rear to machine gun retreaters. Things which could not be done everywhere all the time.

Admin points are the usual way of rationing actions to make them selective and rare.

I, and I think most who play the game, enjoy the micromanagement at a local or critical point. The game play issues come when it is mass micromanagement.

[Stelteck]

We have to remember that a lot of modifications performed since the release of the game have been done in order to nerf rigid lines of defense and allow a more fluid play, with lots of attacks/counter attacks. (Such as the complete rework of fortification building that occured, etc....).

Adding a defense at hold cost option and improving the capability to hold hex against deliberate offensive would go against this tradition.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

We have to remember that a lot of modifications performed since the release of the game have been done in order to nerf rigid lines of defense and allow a more fluid play, with lots of attacks/counter attacks. (Such as the complete rework of fortification building that occured, etc....).

Adding a defense at hold cost option and improving the capability to hold hex against deliberate offensive would go against this tradition.

The idea is not have a 800 mile impregnatable defensive line but allow players to both do HQBU and Stand at all cost to strategically spend AP's . The hold at all cost has an additional constraint of morale as a limiter that once reached turns a retreat into a rout ...the fluid problem is not violated but in fact becomes more possible.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

The problem with "stand at all cost" order if that make any offensive even less predictable, as sometimes hex can be hold against big enemy superiority.

I'am not sûre the game need more random mechanism.

CHAOS is a ladder

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

We have to remember that a lot of modifications performed since the release of the game have been done in order to nerf rigid lines of defense and allow a more fluid play, with lots of attacks/counter attacks. (Such as the complete rework of fortification building that occured, etc....).

Adding a defense at hold cost option and improving the capability to hold hex against deliberate offensive would go against this tradition.

The idea is not have a 800 mile impregnatable defensive line but allow players to both do HQBU and Stand at all cost to strategically spend AP's . The hold at all cost has an additional constraint of morale as a limiter that once reached turns a retreat into a rout ...the fluid problem is not violated but in fact becomes more possible.

And a way to counter the panzerball in current game. I like it. Lets get it out of the pipe dream arena and into something constructive game wise.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Some damn good ideas here

[Crackaces]

I do think a hold at all cost order needs consequences like leader execution replacement with failed checks. Therefore desperate orders that has consequences besides expenditures of AP's.

[Telemecus]

I always thought the winning or losing of a signature battle should have an impact on national morale - even if only a point or two and only temporary?

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

I always thought the winning or losing of a signature battle should have an impact on national morale - even if only a point or two and only temporary?

I did a big post on this last year and concur with you Telemecus

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

I always thought the winning or losing of a signature battle should have an impact on national morale - even if only a point or two and only temporary?

I did a big post on this last year and concur with you Telemecus

Could you give us the link?

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

I always thought the winning or losing of a signature battle should have an impact on national morale - even if only a point or two and only temporary?

I did a big post on this last year and concur with you Telemecus

Could you give us the link?

Well, it was this year on 1/5/17

It is in the WiTE 2.0 thread PG 42 Post # 1240 dtd 1/5/2017 & some nice follow up afterwards.

I wrote this;

Forgive me if someone posted something similar.

"Morale gain and loss National Level"

War is a Political act with a political purpose. To achieve this goal a military strategist would have to devise the best way to defeat a foe. The two ways to defeat a foe is to attack their “means” (i.e. resources) or their “will” to fight (i.e. morale). The Germans has a resource means disparity with the Soviet Union although the Germans do possess a quality edge and will (high morale). Just as a physicist uses the equation E=mc2 as the most important equation for everything they do. A Military strategist uses the following equation; “Power of Resistance = (means) X (will) “ (read this as power of resistance equals means times will). If at any time the “means” or the “will” side of this equation goes to zero the side surrenders.

Thus, you can attack the “means” side of this equation by attacking the resources or the “will” side of this equation by attacking morale. Unfortunately, the game allows unlimited attacking of the “means” side of this equation. The “will” side of the equation you can’t do anything about (I’m not talking about unit morale but national morale). Not to mention will (morale) is hard coded into the game with too many static events pertaining to a factual calendar of events of what we know has transpired in our past of WW2. When in actuality events should change based on the “players” movements in the current game and not hard coded to go up or down on a specific date of our factual history of WW2.

I truly believe WiTE2 needs to initiate a way to regulate the “will” side of this equation that comes from the American War College. The game can have certain cities worth so many Morale points so if you take a city your morale will go up and the other side morale down (could be for a specified number of turns). Gain Morale/subtract morale based on large battles (over 100k for instance) and/or after so many lost or won battles. The hard coding of the morale going up for Russians and Down for Germans should be tied to actual events that are playing out in the game being played. Not by a factual calendar of events of what we know transpired and totally unrelated to the game being played.