Combat Delay MP cost in Hex?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Combat Delay MP cost in Hex?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Combat Delay MP cost in Hex?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Combat Delay MP cost in Hex? - 2/9/2015 6:25:48 PM

PaulWRoberts

Posts: 897
Joined: 4/22/2001
Status: offline

A question comparing WITW to WITE:

One thing we see in WITW is a Combat Delay cost in MP for hexes that have seen fighting during the turn. This limits the unrealistic exploitation effect of having one unit spend all its Movement Points clearing a hex so a fresh unit can use all of its movement points to pass through and go way beyond.

I've been away from WITE for many patch cycles. Was anything similar ever added to WITE?

Post #: 1

RE: Combat Delay MP cost in Hex? - 2/9/2015 7:37:09 PM

von altair

Posts: 316
Joined: 4/27/2004
Status: offline

Don't you think, that it is way more easier to move through an cleared enemy front?
Than for example trying to move through it while its manned by a whole enemy mech division?

Lets assume 4 German infantry divisions makes breakthrough in an enemy front (this happened a lot
than infantry did this for panzers) while Panzer division rests, eats meal and drinks coffee.
Then Radio message comes and says, we have a breakthrough! Move ahead! Why should that Panzer
division suffer penalty?

There are other more severe problems in wite (air war).

< Message edited by von altair -- 2/9/2015 8:38:00 PM >

_____________________________

"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"

"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"

-Axel Oxenstierna

(in reply to PaulWRoberts)

Post #: 2

RE: Combat Delay MP cost in Hex? - 2/9/2015 7:59:23 PM

PaulWRoberts

Posts: 897
Joined: 4/22/2001
Status: offline

Let's say the infantry division spends all of its movement points clearing a hex. This represents about a week's worth of combat effort. We can say the hex was finally cleared of enemies on Friday or Saturday.

If I then pick a completely fresh panzer division and send it careening through the cleared space and way beyond, it's using its own whole week's worth of effort as if the space were already clear on Monday.

I know WITE doesn't model things on a day-by-basis, but it seems to me that a combat MP penalty in the hex helps mitigate this kind of gamey and unrealistic exploitation.

(in reply to von altair)

Post #: 3

RE: Combat Delay MP cost in Hex? - 2/9/2015 9:36:10 PM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

Paul, you are absolutely correct. It is difficult for many gamers to understand that MP really have a relationship to time. It would definitely improve the system to impose something like what you are talking about, I would actually like to see a cost to enter a 'combat' hex equal to the proportion of MP used by the attacking unit to clear the hex. What I mean is, if an infantry unit uses 80% of its MP to force the defender out, then that represents 80% of the turn, and any unit that wants to transit the hex must lose 80% of its MP to account for the wait. The system we have now is not a good representation, and it is one of the features that highlight the problem with IGO-UGO games. But Grigsby is an old-school gamer at heart, his computer games are complex board games and some of the old school stuff is still there (like hexes or finite turns).

(in reply to PaulWRoberts)

Post #: 4

RE: Combat Delay MP cost in Hex? - 2/9/2015 10:39:35 PM

PaulWRoberts

Posts: 897
Joined: 4/22/2001
Status: offline

Well, since a MP delay for combat hexes is now standard in WITW, I imagine we'll see it in WITE2. I was just wondering if perhaps something similar had already arrived in one of the patches (which really do seem to have added a lot to WITE).

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 5

RE: Combat Delay MP cost in Hex? - 2/10/2015 2:03:48 AM

timmyab

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

It needs to be done, but it'll be wite 2 before we see it I guess. It would change the balance of the game dramatically.

(in reply to PaulWRoberts)

Post #: 6

RE: Combat Delay MP cost in Hex? - 2/10/2015 3:40:03 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Another reason not to buy War in the West, I guess.

In week-long turns in an I-go-U-go system, many abstractions over time and space need to be implemented.
War in the East does a fine job of this.
There is enough black-box bullcrap in the combat engine. I don't need this game to overcomplicate movement any further than the fact that I never know exactly how many MPs I'm going to get in a turn and the penalty for movement incurred by morale of units.

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 7

RE: Combat Delay MP cost in Hex? - 2/10/2015 12:09:46 PM

PaulWRoberts

Posts: 897
Joined: 4/22/2001
Status: offline

The Combat Delay cost is displayed on the map.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 8

RE: Combat Delay MP cost in Hex? - 2/11/2015 10:03:04 AM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

I think we discussed this option on dev forum. It is doable, but it was feared it would change the game too much and we don't have resources to rebalance scenarios.

I totally agree WitE is a mix of most basic hex and counter paper wargames mechanics in some aspects with some of the most detailed mechanics available in PC wargames in the others. Also, the scale chosen (weekly turns) exacerbates the issues stemming from IGOYOUGO mechanics (too long time to act/move without reaction).

(in reply to PaulWRoberts)

Post #: 9