WitE 2

[Mamluke]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I'm guessing the Garrison Theater Box will resemble the garrison requirements that are currently present in WitW?

Not really like WitW - it is even simpler as the units are moved off map to a Garrison Box where you need sufficient CV to suppress partisan activity.

Do we still need to Garrison Soviet city hexes with on map units or is it no longer necessary?

[RedLancer]

There in no need in WitE2 to garrison anywhere on the map which includes specific cities.

[daretti]

Will it be possible to fight also on the Western Front?

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: daretti

Will it be possible to fight also on the Western Front?

Not directly. WitE2 abstracts the combat in other theatres into Theatre Boxes (TBs). The units are not On Map

The Axis TBs are: Western Europe, Norway, Italy, North Africa, Balkans, Axis Reserve, Soviet Garrison and Finland.
The Soviet TBs are: Northern Front, Transcaucasus, Soviet Reserves and Far East.

[daretti]

that is, you will not be able to fight directly but you can decide which units to come east from west or send back to the west?

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: daretti

that is, you will not be able to fight directly but you can decide which units to come east from west or send back to the west?

Yes - and the events system links to this too - so when an event like D-Day happens the factors in the Western Front Box change and you'll need either to react accordingly or accept the price of not doing so.

[Mamluke]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

ORIGINAL: daretti

that is, you will not be able to fight directly but you can decide which units to come east from west or send back to the west?

Yes - and the events system links to this too - so when an event like D-Day happens the factors in the Western Front Box change and you'll need either to react accordingly or accept the price of not doing so.

what could be the price for not reacting to something like D-Day? losing Victory points?
or perhaps, later on some divisions can be taken away from the Axis with out the influence of the player?

[RedLancer]

We are still deep in alpha so the usual caveats apply...

The current event triggers increased combat in the TB. This means the player needs to commit more troops or start losing...

[Joel Billings]

Lack of required troops can cause loss of VPs, loss of Admin points, and/or speed up in future events in the same theater. Events can change level of combat in a Theater Box (TB), which impacts losses to the units in that TB. So if you don't garrison Western Europe adequately, D-Day will likely come sooner, and once D-day happens, combat and losses dramatically increase. Similar things going on in Italy and North Africa. We expect to have 2 ways to play the game, one where TBs are not under player control and movement of units between fronts is also not under player control. The other where players have limited control (limited in that you can't transfer units out if you fall under a minimum in the TB, and it will cost some APs to change a unit's transfer schedule). Still in alpha so still working on a lot of the details, but that's the basic outline.

[Mamluke]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Lack of required troops can cause loss of VPs, loss of Admin points, and/or speed up in future events in the same theater. Events can change level of combat in a Theater Box (TB), which impacts losses to the units in that TB. So if you don't garrison Western Europe adequately, D-Day will likely come sooner, and once D-day happens, combat and losses dramatically increase. Similar things going on in Italy and North Africa. We expect to have 2 ways to play the game, one where TBs are not under player control and movement of units between fronts is also not under player control. The other where players have limited control (limited in that you can't transfer units out if you fall under a minimum in the TB, and it will cost some APs to change a unit's transfer schedule). Still in alpha so still working on a lot of the details, but that's the basic outline.

Alright! you guys seam to be going in the right direction!

Not to harsh of a penalty and still allows some flexibility. hope the limited control becomes the better option.

PS: have you though of a way to avoid the Axis player of for example: striping all Mountain units from other theaters in exchange for Infantry divisions?

I heard that in WITW, most Axis player would get the Mountain divisions station in the Balkans Theater box (and maybe remove most from the Eastern front?) to get a great advantage in Italy.

[Gripen]

This is all looking great so far, loving the event stuff

[RedLancer]

PS: have you though of a way to avoid the Axis player of for example: striping all Mountain units from other theaters in exchange for Infantry divisions?

I heard that in WITW, most Axis player would get the Mountain divisions station in the Balkans Theater box (and maybe remove most from the Eastern front?) to get a great advantage in Italy.

Is this gamey? What's wrong with using the best troops in the right place?

[Searry]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

PS: have you though of a way to avoid the Axis player of for example: striping all Mountain units from other theaters in exchange for Infantry divisions?

I heard that in WITW, most Axis player would get the Mountain divisions station in the Balkans Theater box (and maybe remove most from the Eastern front?) to get a great advantage in Italy.

Is this gamey? What's wrong with using the best troops in the right place?

This is only with the EF box on which gives Axis more ways to fight the war in a way which could make more sense vs history.

[Skydream2016]

I think it s gamey because if game didnt simulate whole Europe you will take best unit to your possesion but if game simulate it like in HOI i dont belive you will not distribute it more like orginal OKW did. so if you are in charge in Italy every mountain unit will be in italy if you are in soviet union every mountain will be on eastern front beacause you know bonus is aplied only with speccific terrain or weather but for side fronts its aplied only basic CV or i am not right?
Its also not realistic because there was some rivaliry between theaters and it was almost impossible to have all elite unit stacioned under one specific theatre.

But in real world i think it can be tragic for germans if they dont have mountain units for example in Yougoslavia, Arctic front or in Italy..

[TheLysander]

ORIGINAL: Skydream2016

I think it s gamey because if game didnt simulate whole Europe you will take best unit to your possesion but if game simulate it like in HOI i dont belive you will not distribute it more like orginal OKW did. so if you are in charge in Italy every mountain unit will be in italy if you are in soviet union every mountain will be on eastern front beacause you know bonus is aplied only with speccific terrain or weather but for side fronts its aplied only basic CV or i am not right?
Its also not realistic because there was some rivaliry between theaters and it was almost impossible to have all elite unit stacioned under one specific theatre.

But in real world i think it can be tragic for germans if they dont have mountain units for example in Yougoslavia, Arctic front or in Italy..

I suppose that is a fair enough statement. However you need to think of it from the dev's point of view, how do you balance that then? You could limit the number of mountain divisions in a certain theatre, yet then you would also have to limit other units to avoid stacking using the same logic...

I believe that its not necessarily gamey, its a player who is acting as OKW using the best resources he has available for a given theater and seeing as how he also knows that the ET will not be won and that in 43 there isn't much need for specialised mountain warfare why not bring over the mountain divisions and put them in their optimal combat environment?

[Skydream2016]

ORIGINAL: TheLysander

ORIGINAL: Skydream2016

I think it s gamey because if game didnt simulate whole Europe you will take best unit to your possesion but if game simulate it like in HOI i dont belive you will not distribute it more like orginal OKW did. so if you are in charge in Italy every mountain unit will be in italy if you are in soviet union every mountain will be on eastern front beacause you know bonus is aplied only with speccific terrain or weather but for side fronts its aplied only basic CV or i am not right?
Its also not realistic because there was some rivaliry between theaters and it was almost impossible to have all elite unit stacioned under one specific theatre.

But in real world i think it can be tragic for germans if they dont have mountain units for example in Yougoslavia, Arctic front or in Italy..

I suppose that is a fair enough statement. However you need to think of it from the dev's point of view, how do you balance that then? You could limit the number of mountain divisions in a certain theatre, yet then you would also have to limit other units to avoid stacking using the same logic...

I believe that its not necessarily gamey, its a player who is acting as OKW using the best resources he has available for a given theater and seeing as how he also knows that the ET will not be won and that in 43 there isn't much need for specialised mountain warfare why not bring over the mountain divisions and put them in their optimal combat environment?

i think its possible to give more CV value (so they are more effective as garrison or fighting force there) for mountain divison in specific unactive theatres (Arctic!, balcan,norway, maybe italy). and its also possible to pay more AP fore move "historicaly" local based mountain divisions like Handschar (it can be used also for other well known local based divisions). I dont want to offend nobody but only dont want unrealistic "simulation" of 2ww when in WITW are all (10 or how many they had mountain divisions) in italy and similar situation when you are change in east..its sounds to me gamey and unrealistic if thats no AP more expensive and i also thinks arctic or balkan is nearly impossible without no one of them in real history...

[MarauderPL]

Yeah, the specialized division should give more garrison points than the plain ID in specific theatres. Just like a PzDiv will probably be worth more than a Inf Div. There could be some kind of diminishing returns implemented in this regard, but it up to the devs to do so.

[MrBlizzard]

Very nice fortress screen and events.[:)]

I agree with last posts.
It's understandable that a player would try to bring the best units to the theater he's actively playing (leaving the worst ones in other theater boxes).
But this would be very ahistoric. In France and in the West there should be at least some panzers to have mobile troops available.
And some mountain divisions in the theaters with mountains or polar climate.
One solution could be much more cost for moving these units out and/or a minimum of them to compulsory deploy (maybe varying them by years, the menace of an invasion in France was not the same in 1942 vs 1944)

[RedLancer]

The ideal solution is what you all suggest. However in the big scheme it's not currently a high priority as this is yet more rules and code. The current system is based on CV. It's not that bad.

- If you play against the AI then it's tied to history and the AI opponent can do what they like in the privacy of their own home.

- For H2H then there are always house rules. Not perfect but we are looking at only 14 Mountain Divisions whose influence is not pivotal.

[Searry]

I think it's absurd to think a game could be "realistic" in any way. The mountain divisions in the balkans are an obvious waste, just like Hitler pouring all his reinforcements in Tunisia when they couldn't even be supplied so the Luftwaffe transport force had to kill itself.

What sort of a gamer wants to make a choice where they kill half of their air transport fleet and still get the Italian-German African Army to surrender?

Doesn't make any sense to me.