WitE 2

[lastkozak]

It is wonderful, that WITE2 will be created and as a result updated to the new technical methods of WITW1. I too love the idea of being able to interconnect both WITW1 with WITE2, although I have yet to hear that indeed this is the case, from a designer (such raises a lot of issues, of people wishing to create a unique strategy; War in Europe from SPI, had that flexibility; invade Italy and take the desert from them the moment Italy activates).

There are a lot of rumours on the forum, and I am unsure if their statements are paraphrased things they were told by those involved in the development of WITE2, or just their assumptions. However, it seems more and more people are sitting in anticipation, and no longer playing WITE1, and speaking of WITE1 as if it is an old program from a Commodore 64![:-]

I can understand the need to hear from potential buyers of this new game, and create a dialogue so that people will know why it was designed the way it was, hear what things the designers should contemplate from their buyers, and the need to create hype. It would seem however, that such could result in a decrease in enthusiasm for playing WITE1, and purchasing the game.

All that said, and from what I have read on the forum, there are always going to be people who think this should be done, or this should be allowed to happen, or that is not historical, or that is way too gamey! Myself, I often see both sides to many of these discussions, and often feel that perhaps such changes could be left to the players, by having more options to choose before playing a game.

As an example; extra victory points if the Soviets or Germans try to waste units/lives, making some move, airborne and or amphib, that has no hope of doing anything other than running around and ripping up a few rail lines, or damaging a city. I know there are many more such tweaks; the invasion of Hungary, what right mind Slav would invade Hungary when they know they are isolated etc.; however the invasion of Hungary in 1941, reminds the axis to clean up behind their lines, and do not leave the opportunity open for the Soviets to do such. Again an opportunity for players to click on or off on an option; however if Soviets soldiers went into the mountains to avoid capture, could they then become partisans, where the soviet player can click to make them turn into such, or disband them in Hungary and it is assumed the troops have all deserted, but the Germans get no VPs for their loss.

Obviously many things are probably harder to do. Not sure if there has been a Topic created, to have a proper discussion of different possibilities. As I mentioned above if the games become a WIE game, I would love to play it, from the perspective of the generals, stuck following the Schickle-groobers' insane strategies, but also from the perspective that I am the Schickle-groober, and decide what gets done, what gets built, when to go to total war, and how many tanks to build versus Infantry etc.. I do suppose adding those aspects would probably result in a release date of 2025-2030?

[thedoctorking]

I understand that in the current game, destroyed USSR units can turn into partisan cadres. This shouldn't be up to the player to decide, though. It depends on the unit's cadre and on luck and should be a random event.

[lastkozak]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

I understand that in the current game, destroyed USSR units can turn into partisan cadres. This shouldn't be up to the player to decide, though. It depends on the unit's cadre and on luck and should be a random event.

Yes, I saw that in the rule book, but it does not say how that works; if you lose a lot of units, one should have more partisans, but I have never noticed any difference in the game I play!

I am not so sure the Soviet player should not have that option, since the soviets set up many of the partisan units, supplied them and directed them when they could. The Soviet player should have the option of disbanding units in a foreign country in rough rural areas, as most likely then soldiers did all desert.

As for disbanding and forming a partisan unit; perhaps a control factor on morale; that is I could see a guard unit, going native in the woods with no real second thoughts, or an airborne cadre, whereas a bunch of recruits with pitty ass morale, would probably tell the commissar where he can put that hammer and sickle(thereby resulting in an execution)! Thus even poor morale troops would obey, but probably not be as effective.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I don't think any of us has the time to write a diary otherwise we'll be adding another year to development. We are making progress on a number of fronts as Joel wrote not so long ago. One recent change that might interest people is that we have increased the cost to move through Heavy Woods (Forest) depending on the road value of the hex. This mainly effects the terrain approaching Leningrad and north of V Luki. This means we have to show roads a bit better. Here's a screenshot I just happened to have close to hand but we still have a bit more work to do. Hope you like the new look swamps too.

I just wanted to commend the team for including some roads in WitE2. Even at this scale I feel like they are material to the simulation. Note that games like GMT's "Ukraine '43" are at the same ground scale and also include the road net. To me, they make a big difference in terms of moving military units vice pushing counters. So kudos for that (now watch them be dropped from the design after all).

I don't know if the road graphics are final or not, but one recommendation: Redo the road tiles that have a large singular "bump" or "hump" in the path of the road: It creates a "wallpaper pattern" effect when more than one such tile is placed consecutively. For example, see the East-West dashed road under the blue "Dnepr" label in the screenshot. Small and more regular deviations in the straight path of a road work much better and do not give rise to the obvious wallpaper tiling effect. And I assume that disguising the tiling of terrain effects IS something we want to avoid as much as possible.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

One recent change that might interest people is that we have increased the cost to move through Heavy Woods (Forest) depending on the road value of the hex. This mainly effects the terrain approaching Leningrad and north of V Luki.

I can attest to the fact that heavy woods is downright brutal to try and get through. Mind you that is without even an enemy unit to further impede that movement. Proper planning ahead is a must when confronted with Heavy Woods in the wake of your offensive operations.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: SparkleyTits

The landbridge is also looking like a much more deadly obstacle in the right hands now [X(]

Others on the forums had different opinions than mine but I have found that the Land Bridge not to be the "deadly obstacle" as in WITE 1.0. Why? Because the Germans aren't limited to an extreme North route for their RR or extreme south route. They can actually project threat now in the middle with their RR and opens up many avenues of advance(i.e. through Kiev and Bryansk for instance). Time will tell though if I am wrong or not.

Plus the map, to me, has been superbly done with detail. I love it

[MagicMissile]

Hello,
So it´s been 2 months any small update? Can´t wait for it to be done. Patience is a virtue I know but it´s hard


/MM

[RedLancer]

The big reason we've not posted is that we have all been busy. There is still a fair bit to do before we get to beta but we have recently added the new campaign victory conditions and been refining the new events system.

Here's a brief explanation of the new victory rules but as always these have yet to be balanced so are very likely to change so please don’t ask me questions on the nitty gritty details.....

In game some locations are marked as victory locations and each of these places is given a base victory point value that you score on capturing it. You can also gain bonus points by capturing locations earlier than history. The earlier the better. If you are late you score less. Bonus points are never lost, but the base points are lost when the city is lost. Cities never ever taken by the Axis get maximum bonus points if captured.

Still with me? Now it gets a bit more complex.

We have also added the concept of strategic initiative which sets who scores the points. Just like history at some point the initiative will change if an early victory hasn’t occurred. There is an Axis High Water Mark score calculated against history. Initiative will switch to the Soviets between 1 Oct 1942 and 1st July 1943 if the German score is 10% or more below the Axis HWM and will certainly do so on 1st July 1943. Once initiative switches, it never switches back. At the time that the initiative changes, the Axis score is frozen, and the Soviets begin to score points (in the same way the Germans have been scoring).

To put it another way all points in the early part of the game are scored by the Germans. Any positive scoring by the Soviets become negative German points, and any negative Soviet points become positive German points. Later in the war when initiative changes, only the Soviets score points and any Axis points are given as inverse points to the Soviets.

Soviet capture bonuses can be earned when the Axis have initiative if the Soviets recapture a city. When the initiative switchover occurs, Soviet cities never taken by the Germans are considered recaptured by the Soviets at the time of the Initiative switchover for determining Soviet bonus points (further encouraging Soviet player to reach switchover early, and German to delay switchover if possible).

Finally a sudden victory check is made on the first turn of every quarter with the player with initiative gaining a sudden Decisive Victory if their current point score exceeds the points required at that time.

Finally I attach a screenshot which shows location points and the bonus points available on that turn if captured.

[Capitaine]

Sounds very good Red Lancer. Thanks a lot for the update. Really looking forward to this.

[mktours]

Thanks for briefing the new game. Is it possible to add engineer units or engineer points which could build bridges over big rivers? In Wite 1.0, the mechanized troops cross the big river in a very unrealistic way, I would like to see that players could build big bridges over big rivers at suitable crossing sites, while severely increase the cross Mp cost for mechanize units & logistics if there is no bridge or the bridge is damaged & destroyed. This could also be a automatic process, if some historical crossing sites being given a bridge facility, which could be damaged, destroyed, repaired, built, by assigned engineers points to, either manually by players or automatically by AI.
The bridge system would make the game much more realistic than Wite 1.0, I think.
In 1.0, the tank troops could cross the Dnepr River at any hex, that is unrealistic, the tanks could only cross at particular locations of the river and have to rely on the help from engineers. I really hope this bug could get fixed in 2.0.
Regarding engineer points, we could add some engineer SU under the command of HQ, which could be automatically assign to suitable crossing sites of big & small river after the site have been captured and under friendly control, and then they will build & repair the bridge facility at the hex in the logistic phase.

[RedLancer]

That is not a decision in my gift but I very much doubt it given the scale of the game (unit size and turn time), the additional data required to set suitable crossing points, the risk of adding more bugs and the ability to teach the AI the rules too. What you ask sounds simple but would be a huge challenge to add.

[MagicMissile]

Thanks a lot for the update. Understand of course that you are busy. Good luck! Looking forward too it and any information you want to share with us.

/MM

[mktours]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

That is not a decision in my gift but I very much doubt it given the scale of the game (unit size and turn time), the additional data required to set suitable crossing points, the risk of adding more bugs and the ability to teach the AI the rules too. What you ask sounds simple but would be a huge challenge to add.

Thanks for the reply! That will be a big pity if the 2.0 could not address the crossing big river issue, as a strategy war game, securing the big river crossing sites is a critical factor to be considered by the players. In history, when Germany troops retreated to the back of Dnepr River in 1943, they had to go for 4-5 crossing site, while in Wite 1.0, they could cross it at any hex? How could this be possible? It is simply no realistic.

In 1.0, a Panzer D could cross a big river at any place, and only cost 6Mp, that is 1/8 of 1 week, less than 1 day, how could this be possible? That ruins the entire strategy thinking. In WW2, big river crossing matters hugely in war. It should not be a tiny issue.


In the map you posted in post 1446, we could see that at Orsha, there is a rail road crossing, which could be assigned a 10 point bridge facility, at other sites, there are some minus road crossing, which could be assigned as a ferry crossing, could be used as a no so efficient crossing, but still possible for Panzer D to cross ( at a higher Mp cost than crossing through a bridge), at other places, it should not be possible for tanks to cross, that is what reality is and what history is.

It is the same as crossing a mountain, if the game already could assign mountain Pass rules, it could design big river crossing site rules, just like Tigers could not pass the mountain hex except for through mountain Pass, they should not cross the big river except for through river crossing sites.

[beender]

I too read something about five crossings on the Dnieper in Manstein's memoirs. I agree that it appears treating the crossing in a similar way to mountain pass is feasible, technically?

[Michael T]

I really like the sound of the new Victory Conditions, especially the sudden death aspects. Some old timers/vets may recall the forum battles I fought to get sudden death in to the game.
A fight worth fighting it appears.

I am curious about two other aspects. Not wanting to debate old issues again, just curious about what to expect.

1. My old whipping horse, zocs. Any fundamental changes from the existing status in WITE? By that I mean a single regiment in a hex has the same zoc effect on enemy movement as a hex with 3 Divisions.

2. Routing? Is it essentially the same? That is the teleporting aspect.

Am I still on your beta list John?

[EwaldvonKleist]

I like your old AARs, it would be very interesting to see what you can squeeze out of WitE 2 logistics!

[Michael T]

Did you ever try out DC3 Barbarossa? Plenty of juice in that games logistics as well. I have a few AAR's in that folder too. I recall capturing Gorki in 1941 in one AAR v my old mate Flavius.

WITE 2.0 will be a lot of fun I suspect.

[EwaldvonKleist]

I have it and had a few looks on it but you cannot playing two complex games at the same time is too much. Will probably try it if I ever burn out with WitE.
But I have read your DC:B aars as well.

The chances are very good that the WitE 2 logistical system will be plausible, the WitE 1 system does an okish job overall but its design is a bit weird.

[RedLancer]

This is certainly not the finished article but gives you an idea of some of the things we have been working on and one of the directions in which we are going...spring in the west and winter in the east.

[Icier]

I noticed that you haven't done any beta testing on the game as yet which if anything like the original could take up to another
12 months.I have a suggestion which is really way out there, but could help, is that you skip the testing & instead release
a limited number of games for a reduced charge with the understanding that its purely a test game and that comments on its
performance/ bugs be posted on a forum page.


Remember the feed back you guys got within the first couple of months when WITE was released & the number of bugs found
that wasn't found with all the beta testing.