Game Suggestions:

[uw06670]

I like that idea, except for the extra work it will be for me each turn. Then there should be a master switch to set the default/current defensive stance of units. And the Soviet player might have to fight against his own AI Stalin that keeps setting it to "last bullet" Then perhaps you as player can only change this for one corps per Front or something.

on a related note. Has the WitE team considered (to add realism) putting in objectives/doctrine that is out of the player's control? (optional of course) Such as the above no retreat rule or giving an Army Group a minimum objective to reach (taking Kiev by Turn X) that comes from an AI Hitler/Stalin? Failure to reach it could remove commanders (rather than just winning or losing battles). Success could give some benefit (extra supplies, a token unit).

Some of that might just be frustrating for most players and they would never turn it on, but curious what people think. For versus AI games especially, it would give you an additional challenge having to take orders from "that Amateur Corporal!"

[kipanderson]

Turn length and units, hex scale out of sync.. Option shorter turn length.

Hi,

Apologies if this is an option or has already been requested and turned down.

The issue that has always stopped me from buying this series of games is the turn length of one week. At 10km per hex and divisional manoeuvre units 24 hours should be turn length. In my very prejudice view .

As with many here I have read hundreds of military histories and with divisions and even brigades as the manoeuvre units the “in scale..” turn length when the commander should be able to adjust matters is 24 hours.

The unit size and hex scale are in sync, but the turn length is wildly too long.

One week is true, upper limit strategic stuff. 50km hex scale.

I confess I mainly, only currently play CM and the operational games with battalions as the standard manoeuvre units. But this scale would interest me, looks like a fantastic game, detail I love, but turn length needs to come all the way down to 24 hours.

No doubt will not happen,
But still great game I am sure for those who like it as it is,
All the best,
Kip.

[Mehring]

Think 2 turns per week would be a good compromise, but yes, shorter turns would kill off a lot of gamey manoeuvres.

[uw06670]

Perhaps to more easily achieve the compromise of having 2 turns per week, you could have the second turn be move and shoot only. So Week X Turn 1 you do logistics and such, and then get roughly half of your MPs. Then in Week X Turn 2 you get the remaining MPs to move and shoot again. Not perfect, but perhaps attainable without needing to adjust every other aspect of the game.

[Mehring]

Not sure such a division would work. In WitW the strategic air war is dysfunctional in part because of the weekly turns. You can't, with the current air directive options, create a realistic interceptor defence. One option would be to add designated interception zones in which various interceptor types would attempt to co ordinate their efforts intercepting attacks within that zone. Another would simply be to increase game turns per week in strategic/production areas of game, thus reducing the rock, paper, scissors effect of the current system. Both avenues together, would deliver the best results IMO.

[lhmg]

Great game but needs:

1) colors for the Corps level (red dot on all 2nd Corps units, white on 10th Corps, etc, etc for each Army color)

2) Video or youtube instructions, quicky 5 min on this is how you make RR repair units work, etc, etc

3) Different background music, marching songs, 40's era music, that one clip is too redundant and pretty harsh

Thanks for listeneing

[morvael]

You can set custom colors for corps. YOu can try to use various shades of base army color to keep them aligned.

[budd]

Don't know if this has been mentioned as i didn't read all the pages but its worth mentioning again. I've always had trouble with large operational games, i'm fine small to mid scenario's. I'm having fun with the road to scenario's and i must say the UI makes it easy to at least jump in and start pushing counters.Maybe someday i'll be able to work myself up to the full campaign. I start a scenario and i like to finish in one sitting, of course the larger, multi-year campaigns this isn't possible. What would help me and maybe other new players is some kind of commanders logbook, where you could type as you go. Sometimes real life gets in the way of your operational plans and it could be a awhile until you can get back into the game so having an ongoing log you could refer to when you get back to playing would be helpful. I've always wondered why this feature hasn't been implemented yet in your larger games. Probably be helpful for AAR's also.

[swkuh]

@**budd**

Agree, some way of annotating HQs with terse remarks to remind one of one's intentions.

"Commanders' logbooks" is an appealing feature.

[loki100]

aye. agree. So easy to forget what you were up to and why that division was heading in that direction.

With the Soviets I've started to use the different rear military districts as a rough and ready reminder. You don't usually need to use any of them to control armies in 1941 (on the assumption your opponent is busily shredding you to pieces), so what I do:

a) the good siberian arrivals I give to the Moscow MD (these are the units that arrive in 1941 at full strength);
b) if the unit is worth committing straight to combat (ie has ok morale and ok experience), I give to Volga MD;
c) if the unit is really rubbish and you don't want it anywhere near the Germans (and you get some <10 experience) ... Urals MD;
d) with the greater demands on your rail points, some units I just leave where they arrive (those weak tank divisions for example) till I have spare rail cap (usually the Nov mud turns) ... South Urals MD

Its not perfect, but it does help a bit to keep my rear area organised and if there is a gap in turns, at least I can sort of remember what I was up to. Remember that to move a unit from the MDs to a combat army costs no admin pts.

By late 1941, I do a big shuffle as by then, I often want Moscow and Volga MDs to hold combat armies.

[mikelisby]

ORIGINAL: morvael

You can set custom colors for corps. YOu can try to use various shades of base army color to keep them aligned.

That's a great idea, Morvael. Hadn't thought of that, to be honest. Problem is, I don't speak "RGB", so coming up with a shade of a color that looks like but isn't quite the same as the Army HQ is next to impossible for me without a preview function.

(Mostly I just use the Shift-Z hotkey so I can see at a glance who "belongs together", and that works fine. If only it would carry over from turn to turn, but that's really, really minor).

[morvael]

There is a lot of color pickers online. Play with them in your browser and then note down R, G and B components (each a value between 0 and 255).

[mikelisby]

Thanks, Morvael. Will do. Yet another cool feature of this game that I didn't know of until now [:)]

[Toidi]

Hey,

Change: include intercept / mobile intercept unit stance

In my opinion the easiest change to tackle the long turns / small scale of the hex would be to include a stance of the unit like 'intercept / intercept mobile'. That would mean that as long as there is enemy movement within the range of the unit mp from previous turn, there is a check (based e.g. on initiative of the leader) that the unit will move into the hex next to the moving enemy unit / mobile enemy unit (that is motorized / tank division). The hex should correspond to the direction the unit is coming from. For example, when the Axis tank division is moving eastwards, the unit from the north would end up in the hex NE or E to the unit, the unit from the south in the hex SE or E to the moving unit, the unit from the east in the hex east to the moving unit) The chance of the intercept would be the higher the closer the unit is. One may also think about failed intercepts (that is a unit which tries to move, but moved too late to intercept), but perhaps that is too much.

Adding such a change would be a major change and perhaps something to think about in the future games. It would greatly fix the issues arising from the turn length giving the game which is manageable in time, yet more realistic.

Kind regards
T.

ORIGINAL: uw06670

Perhaps to more easily achieve the compromise of having 2 turns per week, you could have the second turn be move and shoot only. So Week X Turn 1 you do logistics and such, and then get roughly half of your MPs. Then in Week X Turn 2 you get the remaining MPs to move and shoot again. Not perfect, but perhaps attainable without needing to adjust every other aspect of the game.

[morvael]

Some players would be afraid to give AI more control of their forces. They already say AI is sometimes choosing bad hexes to retreat to.

Then, there is also a question whether this couldn't be exploited by attacker drawing "interceptor" units by some weak attack, to open up alternate routes for a stronger push coming second. IRL those two attacks would happen mostly in parallel (with attacker's reserve units poised to exploit where the gap would be wider) and defenders would be able to assess which threat is greater.

Board games have those kinds of intercepts (or opposite - triggered withdrawals if enemy comes near), but they have the luxury to have both players available, even though in general they might be IGOYOUGO. Impossible in computer IGOYOUGO.

One of my simpler ideas, that do not involve automated movement, was to have a sticky ZOC to extend from such "interceptor" unit, based on unspent MP, that would in turn increase movement costs for units moving in such sticky ZOC zone, slowing them down (and preventing critically deep penetrations).

Of course WitE will not change its mechanics is such drastic way at this point.

[Toidi]

Hey Morvael,

Thanks for the comment - and I agree that for every solution there may be an exploit. Indeed, the parallel attacks would be a potential issue. The standard solution would be to divide the mps into batches, such that each player would have to use the first batch first, press continue, use the second batch etc. But that leads to a very different game to WitE.

However, setting limited number of units to the intercept stance, with most just staying as it is currently (stand & fight stance), would certainly change the game. The player would decide whether to set the unit to intercept or not - and what kind of units to intercept. So, of course, ai may make mistakes (same as the real guys on the field, war is chaos), but it would be up to the player to choose whether to intercept or not. A bit like in real life - you set the orders, but the reality verify how the orders are followed on the battlefield.

Myself, I would certainly set some of the more mobile units in the back to intercept, leaving most in the current no-intercept stance.

I believe that having an option to set the units in the intercept stance would have an effect of limiting deep penetrations if set up right by the player. Surely, you may disagree.

Anyway, keep on doing the good job for the game! [&o]

T.

PS. I consider it a skill to attack in such a way that the units withdraw into positions convenient for me - and that is also something happening in reality. If unit withdraws and thinks the enemy is behind, the unit will withdraw into direction where hopefully no enemy is (yet)... Sure, it may be wrong when one is able to see the big picture, but such a big picture is rarely available even on the modern battlefield (maybe the best armies can do it now, but battle is still unpredictable and I would not count on fresh recruits to execute strategy too well) not to mention historical battlefield of WWII.

T.

[morvael]

People would also cry for the option to customize, just like air missions in WitW - you can go with just selecting targets and the AI will do the rest, but then you may want to set who files, what loadout is used, what altitude and the actual path to target. The same would be required of intercepts - trigger only on units entering manually selected hexes, trigger only on specific units (motorized), etc.

If I would be willing to give AI more control of my units, I'd prefer to fully go the WEGO way, which solves TONS of problems that IGOYOUGO games have, starting with parallel actions, simulating confusion on the battlefield, and sub-optimal actions of lower level of command). I'd certainly want to play WEGO version of WitE.

[swkuh]

Anticipating next update (.05?) surely, but mostly 2.0.

Most useful (& possibly simple) improvements from my perspective:

Some variability "surprises" for initial set-ups, both sides.
Commanders' Logbooks.
Alternative map & icon "looks," see forum mods thread for authors & possibilities.
HQ aggregate CV valuation for attached units & support assignments.
Navigate from "unit" identifier in HQ lists to the map location.
Greater costs & time delays for support unit assignments, especially between GHQ, AGs, & Armies. In general, game seems to not respect GHQ, AG, & Army command & control "difficulties."
Ability to clean up PBEM games list (abandoned games awaiting opponent's move, really old challenges.)

[Toidi]

ORIGINAL: morvael

If I would be willing to give AI more control of my units, I'd prefer to fully go the WEGO way, which solves TONS of problems that IGOYOUGO games have, starting with parallel actions, simulating confusion on the battlefield, and sub-optimal actions of lower level of command). I'd certainly want to play WEGO version of WitE.

Hey,

I was thinking that WEGO would be the best way for a long time. However, now I think that designing WitE as WEGO would be very very tough. It would require all the sophisticated AI of IGOYOUGO with all the bells and whistles (reaction to enemy just being one of these), and than much more.

WEGO in a sense is like real time strategy which is paused now and than (and the time between pauses would be rather long in case of WitE) - where you can give orders only during the pauses. I cannot really think about any RTS which would be able to work like that without major hiccups. Even the Paradox games using the Clausewitz engine would come short - even though they are not really an RTS. There are reasons why WEGO games are very niche, even compared to turn based hex based strategy games - designing an RTS is so much easier as all the shortcomings of the AI can be corrected by the player in quasi real time (and the shortcomings are usually plenty which is why the actions per minute are so important in the RTS).

Of course, to make WEGO work, we can shorten the time between the orders. So, having WEGO in WitE with a day-long period between the orders is probably doable without any major design problems, but in such case current design would also work very well. The whole wonder of WitE design is that it allows to play through the whole war in the east in full detail with a real opponent without spending few years exchanging emails. Achieving that in WEGO way would be very tough. However, if you can do it... go for it [&o]

Apologies for slight off-topic.

Regards,
T.

[imberbe]

I just have a Historical suggestion: Put in later Scenarios in Army Group North (axis) the Narwa Army!!!!