Even though I bought WitE I only dabbled in it; the amount of time required to play and amount of counters put me off. However I always thought that instead of taking on the whole German side or Soviet side in the grand campaign, it would be more my playstyle just to control a subset of units, maybe an army or Army Group and letting the AI play the other units on my side. Maybe some objectives could be given to my command based on the overall ambitions of the sides AI.
I'm sure this facility was present in the GG's Pac War game but maybe my memory is getting confused...
ORIGINAL: Kharkov However I always thought that instead of taking on the whole German side or Soviet side in the grand campaign, it would be more my playstyle just to control a subset of units, maybe an army or Army Group and letting the AI play the other units on my side.
That would actually be great. Imagine to hand over the control of the adjacent Heeresgruppe to a buddy in Multiplayer. Imagine 3+ guys sharing the work, each one doing an army or Heeresgruppe or the Air force. And the enemy players doing the same. What a great Multiplayer experience that would be
I think WitW Torch expansion allows 2 players per side, one doing air, the other doing land. Unfortunately no way to divide land forces between more players.
yep, that is why we can only hope for future projects like WITE2 to maybe offer something like that. Personally I would prefer sharing land forces so much more than splitting into dedicated players for land and air.
Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005 From: UK Status: offline
Separating OOB command is very difficult.
I'm wondering whether increased MP would be possible/worthwhile not by separating Army Group / Front control but the role of Commander / Chief of Staff / Logistics. Someone does all the OOB tidying and coord, one person is only able to move the counters and then the expert does the logistics.
Even though I bought WitE I only dabbled in it; the amount of time required to play and amount of counters put me off. However I always thought that instead of taking on the whole German side or Soviet side in the grand campaign, it would be more my playstyle just to control a subset of units, maybe an army or Army Group and letting the AI play the other units on my side. Maybe some objectives could be given to my command based on the overall ambitions of the sides AI.
I'm sure this facility was present in the GG's Pac War game but maybe my memory is getting confused...
I often think this when i'm playing both WITE and WITW. Sometimes I would love to be able to take control of an army or army group and leave the rest to the AI. I would even like to designate a theatre to the AI, such as Italy in WITW.
In Decisive Campaigns The Blitzkrieg From Warsaw To Paris the player can control just an army in some of the scenarios while the AI controls the rest. I would love to see this feature implemented in WITE 2.0.
Regardless, I'm looking forward to the new game and will be buying it on day one of release.
_____________________________
War In The East 2 Beta Tester and War In The West Operation Torch Beta Tester XXXCorps
Along with downgrading at-start Russian leadership and increasing its promotion opportunities, what about introducing leadership penalties for all command transfers? A method that occurred to me is to reduce all leadership modifiers from the new HQ to, say, '3' and increase them each turn, perhaps automatically in increments or, better, by leadership admin modified die roll. That would allow efficient admin HQs to assimilate new subordinates more rapidly than others. If a unit has been transferred up/down a command chain it will still receive HHQ leadership unchanged, if from another AG/Front, assimilation of the new unit will be more difficult or potentially give higher temporary penalties.
This method would allow for a base benefit of a HQ while effectively reducing supplies, mp, combat and other abilities for a variable assimilation period.
_____________________________
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.” -Leon Trotsky
Good reading. LOTS I could say but I will keep it to a few.
Even bad ideas can provide insight so here are a few of mine.
Will take the right palette to paint the different combats that took place on the Eastern Front. Provide the palette, not premixed colors.
Was it the 1st winter that hurt the Germans so bad? Or was it "pressing on" through mud and slush (a unit's track/wheels/horses/men spread out over a 100 miles), exhausted, under-supplied, that set the Germans up for defeat, even in a "normal" winter - if such a thing exists.
One beauty of this series is that combat elements do the fighting. Get all the game elementals right and the molecules will fall into their place.
En passant Combat, the I go/you go Land War needs what was done to the Air War.
< Message edited by KWG -- 10/26/2015 7:43:22 PM >
_____________________________
"A word was said - a mare is standing by the fence."
Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002 From: Alabama, USA Status: offline
The Germans were completely and utterly spent when the winter blizzard hit. IMO the game system is not assessing nearly enough disabled losses as it should. THe design decision was to use the blizzard to arbitrarily move manpower out of units and into the German disabled pools to get their CVs low enough to allow the Soviets to attack in the winter of 41.
Trey
quote:
ORIGINAL: KWG
Good reading. LOTS I could say but I will keep it to a few.
Even bad ideas can provide insight so here are a few of mine.
Will take the right palette to paint the different combats that took place on the Eastern Front. Provide the palette, not premixed colors.
Was it the 1st winter that hurt the Germans so bad? Or was it "pressing on" through mud and slush (a unit's track/wheels/horses/men spread out over a 100 miles), exhausted, under-supplied, that set the Germans up for defeat, even in a "normal" winter - if such a thing exists.
One beauty of this series is that combat elements do the fighting. Get all the game elementals right and the molecules will fall into their place.
En passant, the I go, you go Land War needs what was done to the Air War.
_____________________________
"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"
WiTE Scenario Designer WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer
The Germans were completely and utterly spent when the winter blizzard hit. IMO the game system is not assessing nearly enough disabled losses as it should.
And that's the flip to Pelton's argument. Both sides too often quickly end up with OOBs wildly in excess of the historical, even with intense fighting. Loss calculation needs addressing badly. When I was was playing Russian a lot, some patches ago,I used to have to cycle troops to and from front all the time to keep them at strength (which I suspect drew on an exaggerated manpower pool). Is this still the case?
< Message edited by Mehring -- 10/26/2015 8:57:05 PM >
_____________________________
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.” -Leon Trotsky
It was only because they didn't refill at front, not because resources were lacking. With I go you go turns it was putting withdrawing side at severe disadvantage. Advancing side was free to refill, then they advanced and blocked the same for withdrawing side.
Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010 From: Back in Blighty Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rongor
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kharkov However I always thought that instead of taking on the whole German side or Soviet side in the grand campaign, it would be more my playstyle just to control a subset of units, maybe an army or Army Group and letting the AI play the other units on my side.
That would actually be great. Imagine to hand over the control of the adjacent Heeresgruppe to a buddy in Multiplayer. Imagine 3+ guys sharing the work, each one doing an army or Heeresgruppe or the Air force. And the enemy players doing the same. What a great Multiplayer experience that would be
You can do this already in multiplayer as long as you use the PBEM system not the servers. Most of my games have involved playing Russians jointly with Belphegor who lives 7 time zones away. We split the map in half. I did most of the strategic stuff such as factory evac, allocating reinforcements and buying new units, and he took the airforce. It was more flexible in real life but that was more or less the plan. Only once did we play multiple opponents tho' and the disappeared in Jan '42
_____________________________
web exchange
Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi
Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?
Is it true that in both WitW and WitE replacements move straight from the pool to the units in one turn, as freight?
Maybe there should be more than one type freight, and all should move along the supply chain per the physical world. Priority levels could be given to each type of freight.
Combat losses Played some Red Thunder this summer. Sometimes the challenge was not the 30 mins of combat, but in the 1hr of regrouping getting - to the friendly wounded soldiers and disabled vehicles.
Some things I noticed:
Whether on offense/defense/meeting enagement
1- One side overwhelms the other - Advances or stops advance 2- Advancing side "spent and licking wounds" - Advances at cost 3- Both sides "spent and licking wounds" - Advances or stops advance 4- Both sides light/moderate losses - Cautious advance or cautious withdraw
< Message edited by KWG -- 10/28/2015 5:52:19 PM >
_____________________________
"A word was said - a mare is standing by the fence."
Reduce Russian Airborne HQ command capacity to 4. Disband them when their subordinate brigades are either destroyed/re-assigned out of the corps HQ or consolidated as guards divisions. These HQs are used in a really gamey way by some players.
_____________________________
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.” -Leon Trotsky
I know this has been mentioned elsewhere but I was wondering if a unit renaming ability was to be introduced. Also both sides I think, should have the ability to create historical units. Between renaming and the ability to create new units, anomalies such as the non-exhaustive examples below should be accounted for-
From 1942 scenario there is a Latvian SS motorised brigade which never appears in 1941 scenario, the Russians have AA DD airbases. In 1943 Axis have several Field Training Infantry Divisions, an Aunus Finnish army HQ, Russians have an SAK Airbase. In 44 scenario AGN has a Narva Detachment Army HQ which I don't recall in the 1941 game at any time, also numerous air HQs have been renamed/redesignated.
I'm personally not in favour of automatic location designations such as Voronezh Front. Perhaps such new units could have their historical names appear as default with a renaming option. As for non-locational designations, they might be implemented automatically. Perhaps the various ad hoc units and HQs created by the Axis could be listed, along with an AP cost to build them and any situational prerequisites.
_____________________________
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.” -Leon Trotsky
picking up on this, and I realise this is purely flavour. Being able to rename Soviet fronts would be nice, to reflect their location during the period to late 43 when they were named geographically and then after the renumbering to Baltic/Bielorussian/Ukrainian.
Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002 From: Alabama, USA Status: offline
Good points. Some of this will be fixed with the standardized unit list that I am developing to make sure that units are consistent from campaign to campaign. Renaming of units is problematic because the AI uses those names to formulate its strategy. Another good point about the situational HQs and I am not sure what we are going to do about that. The field training divisions offer another dilemma because they were training units whose primary purpose was to provide trained replacements for the field army but they also ended up fighting.
Trey
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mehring
I know this has been mentioned elsewhere but I was wondering if a unit renaming ability was to be introduced. Also both sides I think, should have the ability to create historical units. Between renaming and the ability to create new units, anomalies such as the non-exhaustive examples below should be accounted for-
From 1942 scenario there is a Latvian SS motorised brigade which never appears in 1941 scenario, the Russians have AA DD airbases. In 1943 Axis have several Field Training Infantry Divisions, an Aunus Finnish army HQ, Russians have an SAK Airbase. In 44 scenario AGN has a Narva Detachment Army HQ which I don't recall in the 1941 game at any time, also numerous air HQs have been renamed/redesignated.
I'm personally not in favour of automatic location designations such as Voronezh Front. Perhaps such new units could have their historical names appear as default with a renaming option. As for non-locational designations, they might be implemented automatically. Perhaps the various ad hoc units and HQs created by the Axis could be listed, along with an AP cost to build them and any situational prerequisites.
_____________________________
"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"
WiTE Scenario Designer WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer
Hmmm... have always thought "renaming" would be a nice feature to suggest, but maybe its too costly when there are many other desired features.
Some suggestions:
commentary lines in HQ & unit displays, jump to unit on map from displays with unit lists, aggregate CVs for HQs to reflect subordinated CVs, Commanders' Reports to show OOB structure w/CVs or new summary OOB w/CVs report.
Reintroduce leader loss. Now at late 1942 and I haven't lost a single officer, don't think my Russian opponent has lost too many either in spite of numerous pocketed HQs. I don't think pandering to player whinging cos they lost their favourite commander is a good enough reason to immortalise the officer corps. At least, please give us a game option to make them human.
_____________________________
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.” -Leon Trotsky
Russian player designates cities to be evacuated and it takes X weeks to fully complete, or at least, to evacuate the not old and sick. During this time, a reduction according to population size is made to rail capacity and the eagerly awaited hex supply/movement throughput capacity along local high infrastructure (quasi road) hexes. If a captured city is not so designated, its population stays in place if surrounded and captured; a very high proportion of population remains if captured while un-surrounded.
_____________________________
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.” -Leon Trotsky
Think you have just been lucky on the rolls. All they did was reduce the % chance of officers being casualties which makes sense from the absurd loss rate it was previously from my understanding.
Corps/Army commanders didnt really become KIA all that often when think of the overall amount of commanders on the battlefield in this game. Usually only in catastrophic situations did corps/army commanders become losses or fluke accidents/bad luck. Not sure what the % is at current but I have lost commanders on the Soviet side for sure in me and Peltons game.
Now at late 1942 and I haven't lost a single officer, don't think my Russian opponent has lost too many either in spite of numerous pocketed HQs.
The old system was silly. I don't want to see games anymore were players do bombing runs on HQs to kill leaders. Ideally, you could have a slider for this game function to adjust the likelihood that leaders get killed. Also, it would be nice if the dismissal of leaders would actually be related to performance. My impression is that this is all totally random.
Revisiting WitE 2 suggestions, expanding unit stances? This would help raise losses and might enhance representation of national characteristics.
How about-
Defence- per hex Delay- low morale threshold for retreat, no entrenching past level 1. Mot/Mech/Cav units receive bonus to retreat undamaged heavy equipment w/o loss chances. Default- Normal morale threshold for retreat. Determined. Modified by unit morale, defenders will take high losses before breaking, with increased rout/shatter risk if threshold is crossed. Entrenching bonus. Soviets might get an early war morale bonus defending cities.
Attack-
Assault Preparation- Supply priority, somewhat like current HQ buildup with movement penalty. Unit stance. Reserve- As is- Unit stance. Determined Attack- Higher morale threshold before attack called off. All units in an attack Default- Normal attack, no bonus/penalty. All units in an attack Scout/probe- Hasty attack option. All units in single attacking hex
So that would be three new stances.
Also, has the ability to convert adjacent hexes/exert ZOC according to actual unit size and composition rather than size designation been considered? Apart from the obvious absurdity of weak and depleted "divisions" having more such power than stronger brigades and regiments, I've often wondered about the value of ACs and other light recon vehicles. I assume they have little combat ability but they could and I think should add to these unit capabilities
_____________________________
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.” -Leon Trotsky
I always like the old europa game series theory that for units to exercise a Zoc required at least a regiment of artillery. So usually only divisions had Zoc's unless you also had smaller units deployed with independent artillery regiments if I remember right.
I have to say I'm really enjoying your avatar pictures of Hitler. The one with the dolphin jumping thru the hoop while Hitler is giving his speech was great!
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: WitE 2 
RE: WitE 2 - 
RE: WitE 2 - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread