Matrix Games Forums

I have the following titles and all expansions:

EDBTR

WITP-AE

WITW

WITE-2

I have dabbled with WITW and WITE-2. WITP-AE, I found very hard for me (perhaps I am weakest at naval warfare). And I am now playing a full campaign of EDBTR. (I thought I would ask here as it is the newest master piece.)

But it has dawned on me that despite all these games offer opportunities to demonstrate genius, much of these games is about grinding attrition. In fact, it easier to do a squad, battalion, or division game and focus game play on brilliant maneuver. But I believe as the scope reaches to entire armies; even brilliant maneuver only serves to set up a better ratio of attrition.

I know these games do contain shorter and smaller scope scenarios. But I want ask ... the hardcore GG players who play entire campaigns ... and forgo automation like air, depots, and theaters. Between your moments of genius how do you deal with the grinding attrition needed to validate the correctness of your plans?

I hope my question is clear enough. I don't know how to explain better.

Thank you for your time.

I'm not sure if I entirely understand the question, but it appears to be generic to many strategic wargames.

Attrition is part of war, and therefore fitting for a wargame. In the Napoleonic era compare Ulm and Austerlitz, to Borodino and Danzig. Often armies of manoeuvre get overwhelmed by the size of the opposition forces and ground down in campaigns of attrition. WitE2 will take you on that journey as Axis. Part of the joy of the game is keeping the manoeuvre phase going for as long as you can.


Sometimes strong defensive positions need to be reduced before a break through can be achieved. Sometimes attritional attacks are a faint, for the intended breakthrough is planned elsewhere. Sometimes attritional attacks are just that, and required to erode the oppositions materiel forces.

Yes, I do get that attrition is a key aspect of combat. Years ago I recall I saw many debates on attrition vs maneuver warfare. One paper argue that all maneuver contests will ultimately resolve into battles of attrition where if you maneuvered correctly than you will be the beneficiary of various force multipliers in the attrition phase of the struggle. The paper argued that maneuver always leads to attrition, since this is the only way to ultimately end a war and impose your political will upon a foe.

So, I only see games focused on mainly maneuver being of small scale (way smaller than all of GG games; more on a CM/Mius scope). Obviously, an entire theater will lead to attrition.

On the other hand, since I am retired software engineer ... I love GG's design and modeling of conflict. Not just clean UI design, but the modeling depth and mechanics which are sorely lacking in titles such as HOI4. So, as a systems nerd all GG games shout PLAY ME. But as a gamer, I worry about full campaign tedium.

I guess I was asking about this from a gamer perspective, since long protracted struggles of attrition can get become tedious in terms of gaming. I look at the grand campaign here and wonder how I will feel 200 turns in? I hope that is a little clearer.

It reminds me of test cricket or fishing. The excitement can come not from something happening, but the anticipation of something happening.

Big moves can and do happen, especially once your opponent is stretched and has no more reserves.

Attrition vs Maneuver ?

In general, don't feel like there is much cause for concern. There are the historic periods of offensive operations that provide ample opportunities for maneuver.

Now obviously, weather plays a big role in this in WiTE2, as it did historically.

Personally, I feel more could have been done to promote tactical maneuver, such as raising the retreat odds to 3-1 and giving a bonus to the attacker for each hex-side the attacker has troops attacking from. (as modeled in a couple of other games, such as SSG's The Ardenne's Offensive) (side note, TAO2 used to be free for download, but that seems to have gone away when Matrix became involved? https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... p?p=964893 )

This feature significantly rewards attackers for utilizing tactical maneuver on the battlefield.
(yeah, I know, the scale of the games are different, but I still liked the game mechanic and felt something similar could have been applicable)

I’d encourage you to look up my AARs here, and in WitW and WitE.

I have zero interest in the X turns left, Y hexes to Berlin style game play. I’m playing each scenario to try and lure my opponent into traps and battles of my choosing. I’m trying to win, not hang on.

My chief complaint with the series is that the game is too complicated for an AI to be able to play ‘fairly’ (under the same rule set as the human), yet people usually bail when the game turns against them.

I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve parried 20 turns of German advance, only to see my opponent disappear before we get 5 turns into the Soviet counterattacks.
My latest example made it to turn 13 before I saw the opponent post a new match. His pace slowed to turn 20, but now it’s been over a week and I suspect the long planned Soviet Winter Offensive will never see the light of day.
I was planning for much more for than German attrition…

I am an SP player.

But I understand that it is hard to provide challenge to a good human player. This has only been achieved in chess, but it took 30 years of programming (not counting deep learning). As you, Seminole, noted for a game with a simpler rule set.

So, AI cheats is must. But this is where the quality of the design comes to play. Since AI, cheating should not break immersion like TW spawning huge battle stack right in front of you.

BTW, is it true that beyond 110 morale the WITW/WITE-2 AI receive unlimited strategic movement? So, that it can always recreate the front line?

Thanks.