Matrix Games Forums

May I say how delighted and amazed I was to find WIR is still alive and kicking after all these years, can't wait to see how it develops.
A couple of improvements that may or may not have already been considered - I'm new to the site.
1) Moving weather fronts that affect areas rather than the entire map so the campaign would be more realistically shortened in the north and extended in the south - obviously randomised as the weather feature is at present.
2) Simultaneous movement/combat. I realise there is probably an obvious technical reason why not but strategy games are supposed to represent the planning and execution of military manoeuvers and the thought of Guderian stopping his boys so Konev's lot could have their go seems decidedly unrealistic.
High Command (remember that little treasure?) employed the simultaneous movement/combat feature very effectively and added a whole new dimension to the planning stage as the players had to assess where attacks were likely to be made and plan troop movements to defend accordingly - of course this created opportunities for bluffing and double bluffing - all very tense when the button was pressed to begin movement.
3) A choice of attack or defence stance would be very useful eg. all out attack, limited attack, hold at all cost, fighting retreat etc.
4) The use of the Todt organisation and Engineers to prepare defensive positions behind the lines.
5) Give the Soviets some control over Partisan operations and let the partisans keep control of areas they take until the Germans retake them.

I'd like to see leaders and leadership made more useful. For example, I'd like to have leaders do more than throwing units into a fight. They should also be able to withdraw units from a fight that are not needed or are threatened.

Similarly, leaders should be able to influence the outcome of a battle. A unit which has beed forced to retreat or even shattered might be "saved" by a good leader. I understand that leadership is reflected in readiness levels but it would be more 'intuitive' to consider leaders seperately.

Another idea would be to have leaders that are 'specialist' in certain type of operations; ie: offensive, defensive, movement etc.

This one has already been mentioned before but seperate Air commands and leaders (similar to Western Front) would be great also.

Thanks for the chance to rant!

A really usefull improvement would be to let good leader reinforce battles that are on the edge.
The way it works now, a battle where you already got a 50-1 odds will see reinforcement divisions and flak units added to the tally.
A truly good leader would now when to commit reserves and when to save them for later.


------------------
John

Hear Hear!

I'm sick and tired of transfering infantry divisions out of my Panzer Corps' after every darned attack! If I get low odds, good, but when I have good one, GRRR!!!

Also, what good does 18 FLAK guns do wneh the russians attack me with 20-1 odds


------------------
M-Kane

Some good ideas there, but what's REALLY needed is a completely redesigned, Windows-native game. I think that's beyond the scope of what Matrix had in mind. They did a great job for what they were given to work with, which was a detailed simulation delivered in a now-obsolete format. I hate to criticize a game that was GIVEN to us, so I'll leave it at that.

[This message has been edited by KG Erwin (edited October 18, 2000).]

Originally posted by Ian Thomas:


A couple of improvements that may or may not have already been considered
1) Moving weather fronts

2) Simultaneous movement/combat.

3) A choice of attack or defence stance would be very useful
4) The use of the Todt organisation and Engineers to prepare defensive positions behind the lines.
5) Give the Soviets some control over Partisan operations and let the partisans keep control of areas they take until the Germans retake them.

All excellent ideas. I think the richness of ideas and the enthusiasm of everyone getting connected here suggests something realy amazing could be done if this group pitched in together.


------------------
Paul
Cottonbalers By God! Damn Fine Soldiers!

Originally posted by Ian Thomas:


A couple of improvements that may or may not have already been considered - I'm new to the site.

1) Moving weather fronts

2) Simultaneous movement/combat.

3) A choice of attack or defence stance

4) The use of the Todt organisation and Engineers to prepare defensive positions

5) Give the Soviets some control over Partisan operations and let the partisans keep control of areas they take until the Germans retake them.

Ian, your ideas are great. I'll put them up on the beta team mailing list, but I have to be honest and say its unlikely they'll be able to add these to the WiR update. They are beyond the scope of what we're actually doing with WiR. They're primary purpose is to fix everything that was broken in the original game, and make any small changes/improvements that could be done easily. Right now, its bugs we're still trying to fix. There will be changes, such as new aircraft and the game will now remember the original population of a city so some of it can be restored when that city is liberated by its original owner for example, but mainly its about fixing problems with the game. For example, the current issue being wroked on is how to properly handle units which are out of supply for a significant amount of time.

I recommend saving these ideas for the full remake Matrix is allegedly considering.

Originally posted by Guardsman:

Similarly, leaders should be able to influence the outcome of a battle. A unit which has beed forced to retreat or even shattered might be "saved" by a good leader.

This already occurs, see pg. 21 in the manual.

Originally posted by PzB:
A really usefull improvement would be to let good leader reinforce battles that are on the edge.
The way it works now, a battle where you already got a 50-1 odds will see reinforcement divisions and flak units added to the tally.
A truly good leader would now when to commit reserves and when to save them for later.

Arnaud likes this idea, but wants to know what combat ratio you guys consider to be "on the edge". Ya'll thrash this out and I'll give him the result.

My concern is for attacks against cities and swamps. Fights here can result in a defender holding on at incredible odds. In those cases I'd want the reinforcements to go in unless the odds are totally riduculous. So what do you think?

How about a defender committing reserves in two cases:

1. When the situation would raise the probability of holding onto a critical position, such as an objective or a strategic position such as a hex that if lost would result in units being cut off.

2. When the situation would increase the probability of making the attacker pay a higher price in loses to take the position.

Originally posted by VictorH:
How about a defender committing reserves in two cases:

1. When the situation would raise the probability of holding onto a critical position, such as an objective or a strategic position such as a hex that if lost would result in units being cut off.

How do you define a critical position? Remember, this is a function that would occur automatically during combat, without human player involvement. If we ask for something complicated, Arnaud may not be able to code it in a reasonable amount of time, making it unlikely to ever get done. It has to be relatively simple.

2. When the situation would increase the probability of making the attacker pay a higher price in loses to take the position.

Doesn't adding to the defense in the middle of a combat always raise the probability of the attacker paying a higher price?


Some of ya'll should set up some examples of typical "hopeless" situations and find out what the average odds ratio those combats end up having. Then try those same situations out in major cities and swamps, and see if the average "hopeless" combat ratio still applies in those locations.

Perhaps, we should simply ignore combats in major cities and swamps, and have the function work only for clear, forest, and small cities terrain? After all, defenders in entrenched positions in those terrain types are capable of really hurting an attacker even at high odds against them. A good leader may want to reinforce such a combat regardless of actual odds. Does that make sense?

Sorry, folks. Arnaud looked at this idea of automatically returning units back to the HQ after reinforcement during combat, and decided its too complicated to implement. It was a nice idea, though.

Hello Ed,

By critical position I meant a position that if lost would result in loss of supply for a large number of units. Also, I meant a position that if lost would allow mechanized units the ability to exploit and surround(a variation on loss of supply) a group of units.

Perhaps, we should simply ignore combats in major cities and swamps, and have the function work only for clear, forest, and small cities terrain? After all, defenders in entrenched positions in those terrain types are capable of really hurting an attacker even at high odds against them. A good leader may want to reinforce such a combat regardless of actual odds. Does that make sense?

Yes, I think so! Leave swamp/city as is, but mabye try to do something to prevent reinforcements being sent to sure wins at least. (I'd consider any odds above 15 as sure wins?)

Also is it possible to prevent small FLaK units being sent as reinforcements? I'm tired of having to hunt em all down after a turn to return em to the HQ's. Also it is quite annoying when a Armored div is sent out when it's placed in a HQ to grow. (I know I can move it further back, but that means more time to get it ahead again )

Otherwise you're doing a excellent job!



------------------
M-Kane

I think that's a good idea. There should be some way to mark a unit as non-transferrable in the case of reserves.