RE: WitE 2

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: WitE 2

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 >> RE: WitE 2

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 8:11:23 AM

morvael

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

Remember you don't pay movement costs when attacking, so it's fair to pay them if you wish to enter target hex after battle. But what is problematic is that you'll pay in/out-ZOC movement costs, and these were usually rescinded in boardgames for the attackers moving into attacked hex.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 601

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 8:28:06 AM

RedLancer

Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Ok that's good.

But what about occupying the battle hex with the attacking units? Is that for free now?

No, you still pay a cost. There is currently only one big change between the WitE2 and WitW rules (which I believe are slightly different in costs to WitE).

The new big change is the rear area admin movement bonus. Units moving in rear areas in hexes that have not been captured in a turn, are not subject to air interdiction and not adjacent to the enemy, get a reduction in their movement cost depending on the road quality of the hexes. You'll always pay at least 1 MP/Hex. This rule is now possible as hexes have variable road quality. So the Smolensk-Moscow Highway is now in game.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 602

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 8:56:42 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

This question of occupying an attacked hex is not so critical for regular open ground. But becomes weird when crossing rivers. Often an attacker has enough MP to attack and dislodge the defender but does not have enough MP left to create a bridgehead. It's an area where the mechanics of the game don't quite work. They could be improved.

What about variable zoc costs? Small units, for example brigade/regiments create just as much friction as a whole corp of Mech units ATM. This should be addressed. I am not sure what possible excuse could be offered for this kind of thing....

_____________________________

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 603

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 9:50:00 AM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

There is a world of difference (up to a few days anyway) between getting a small bridgehead and moving 3 panzer divs into that bridgehead. If anything there should be extra costs due to the need for bridges to be put up etc. At the moment the attack can be done by units moving up and spending all their MPs (so at the end of the week in game turns) then units close by at the start, move through the bridgehead at the start of their turn ie the beginning of the week days before that bridgehead was made. All very Lewis Carroll.

A few games mitigate that problem with delay markers slowing units moving through a hex after it had been captured that turn, and I haven't seen a better solution.

As to friction/delay moving through a ZOC, IRL that will depend on many factors. They probably all boil down to 2 - the actual ability of the defenders to delay, and that ability as perceived by the attacker. The designated size of the defending unit is not going to be crucial per se. What matters is that unit's combat capability - defence value in our terms. A current USA armoured cav regt is going to be a lot harder to get past that a whole division of troops from many other countries.

< Message edited by sillyflower -- 6/14/2016 10:05:27 AM >

_____________________________

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?

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 604

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 10:34:41 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

No matter which way you look at it a security reg or a Inf brigade should not delay at the same rate as a whole stack of INF Corp or Tank units. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

Sure, specially trained recon units were adept at delay and subterfuge. Not so a bunch of half trained security troops.

It would be a huge improvement even if just non motorized INF type III/X zoc impediment MP costs were reduced.

I have say it. But is there any real drive to actually improve this game?

_____________________________

(in reply to sillyflower)

Post #: 605

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 11:56:06 AM

RedLancer

Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

No matter which way you look at it a security reg or a Inf brigade should not delay at the same rate as a whole stack of INF Corp or Tank units. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

Sure, specially trained recon units were adept at delay and subterfuge. Not so a bunch of half trained security troops.

It would be a huge improvement even if just non motorized INF type III/X zoc impediment MP costs were reduced.

I have say it. But is there any real drive to actually improve this game?

I think there are two issues at work here:

Moving Unit Costs As I understand the rules on ZOC (and here I am talking WitW as I haven't played WitE in many months) Regts and Brigades play a +1 cost to enter an enemy hex or move ZOC to ZOC. The key bit to my mind is that they are entering the hex. Because of their relative lack of combat power they advance more hesitantly. This rule is not seeking to abstract congestion as in friendly hexes the additional cost is not paid. This seems fair to me.

Exerting a ZOC The second issue is should all units, regardless of size, be able to exert an equitable level of ZOC? At the moment any enemy combat unit exerts a ZOC. In the perfect game it shouldn't be so binary but were this to be changed how is it going to be implemented? What rules would there be in this brave new world? What happens when two Regts are co-stacked?

The added level of complexity is similar to proposed changes in the stacking rules. There are of course much better ways and less abstracted systems but at some point the line has to be drawn.

We are working on delivering the very best game we can and it takes quite a lot of drive to spend hours every night after a full day at work improving things.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 606

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 12:26:11 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

I am sure a programmer with any talent at all could implement such a change in about 5 minutes.

I use regiments to highlight the issue. In real game terms you could split zoc costs in to any number of categories. But for simplicity's sake lets keep at two or three for this debate.

You would base the zoc costs on the amount of troops and AFV's in a hex.

A) 5000 or less

B) 5001 to 10000

C) 10001 and greater.

Each AFV might equal 10 men.

These are just examples. I am sure those in the know could come up with better numbers and formula.

But I will leave that one alone now. I raised it. That's all I can do.

What about the first blizzard? Are there plans to re work it?

EDIT: Just to be clear. I just want to see WITE 2.0 as a real improvement over WITE 1.0
That is the motivation.

< Message edited by Michael T -- 6/14/2016 12:35:18 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 607

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 12:43:02 PM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

No matter which way you look at it a security reg or a Inf brigade should not delay at the same rate as a whole stack of INF Corp or Tank units. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

Indeed, which is why I took DV as the measure rather than a headcount. To answer RL's point re stacking, it should be based on the DV of the stack. Perhaps there could then be 3 levels of ZOC - weak, medium and high. I have no idea how easy/difficult this would be so I shall stop.

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 608

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 6:27:33 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am sure a programmer with any talent at all could implement such a change in about 5 minutes.

I use regiments to highlight the issue. In real game terms you could split zoc costs in to any number of categories. But for simplicity's sake lets keep at two or three for this debate.

You would base the zoc costs on the amount of troops and AFV's in a hex.

A) 5000 or less

B) 5001 to 10000

C) 10001 and greater.

Each AFV might equal 10 men.

These are just examples. I am sure those in the know could come up with better numbers and formula.

But I will leave that one alone now. I raised it. That's all I can do.

What about the first blizzard? Are there plans to re work it?

EDIT: Just to be clear. I just want to see WITE 2.0 as a real improvement over WITE 1.0
That is the motivation.

So an HQ has better ZOC than an armoured cavalry regiment? I know, you meant combat units. But what about supply? A completely out of supply division has better ZOC than an perfectly in supply regiment? OK, so use CV? But a fresh parachute division and a slightly tired armoured brigade might have similar CV. But should have huge ZOC differences (no mobility, only field art).

Do I need to go on? I would love ZOCs to be more scientific, but designing such a system would be a game in itself. Also, why stop at ZOCs? Stacking is equally abstracted. 3 regiments fill a hex, but one supersized div, with max attachments extra tanks, extra infantry regiments don't. Want to see an apparently crowded hex, put 3 big HQs on one hex... over 200000 men easy! I know - the HQ is abstracted and isn't all in the hex, representing a capability in an area. The ZOC system isn't really broken... Nor for that matter is the WiTW combat delay, or movement point system. No more broekn than having hexes to start with Yes, to force a unit to retreat but not have the MP to advance is slightly hard to rationalise, but how would you fix it? Charge MP to attack? But how many? A really big attack could take days, so you could say it should take 5 or 10 infantry MP. But it might only take 2 hrs so it should be 1MP (or less). How are you going to do it? Many games have 'movement phases' and 'combat phases'. I think we are better off than that...

Have you played WitW? The supply system alone will be a HUGE benefit. The logistics becomes the king, as it should be. You will be far less bothered by MP costs of advancing after combat... to start with you will be wondering how anyone manages to win a combat at all! The air system is also hugely improved.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 609

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 7:13:48 PM

latosusi

Posts: 327
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: London/Kuopio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

These battle delay MP I have heard of, I assume the units who participated in the attack are not hit with that extra cost?

And why if the attacker has won the battle should he have to pay MP to occupy the hex (other than zoc costs) he has just fought a battle in?

I guess what I am getting at here is why can't the attacker advance for free (other than zoc costs) in to a just cleared hex he has won. This aspect has always made me wonder about WITE. As almost every other game I have played has an advance after combat that is virtually free for the attacker.

That would be nice if you get good attack results (routed/shattered etc.)

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 610

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 7:16:39 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

...
I have say it. But is there any real drive to actually improve this game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am sure a programmer with any talent at all could implement such a change in about 5 minutes.

...

whow, you really are going all out to make friends and influence people.

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 611

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 8:26:52 PM

RedLancer

Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

Please don't make this thread adversarial and personal. Michael T, as always, raises challenging questions and any desire to improve the game is good. Questioning the art of the possible is welcome, personal attacks whether slights or insults are not as some have discovered to their cost.

Both with stacking limits and ZOC there is always a yet more refined approach that can be taken. The sticking point is the time and ease of coding any changes as Joel eruditely pointed out with regard to stacking.

As Joel is away I'll make my comments on ZOCs so no-one misconstrues silence as acceptance or avoiding the question. For ZOC a hex is either enemy, contested or friendly. As this affects MPs and the minimum cost variable for movement is a single whole integer any change between those three states would require a complete reset of MP numbers. Such a change is so large that it is well towards the not a hope end of the likelihood spectrum. Coding the threshold for influence of an enemy on adjacent hexes might be more possible but at the moment all enemy units influence adjacent hexes so any change is also a fundamental design shift. The current design choice is an abstraction but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

The same approach of making a choice applies to what units should be in game. In may instances German police units played a role in combat but adding them for the reasons raised by Metatron in perhaps a step too far. Choosing where to draw the line rests with the designer and always open to the vagaries differing opinions.

As for the question on blizzard rules I hope to return some harmony to this thread. Loki100 has highlighted extremely accurately in a number of posts how different WitE2 is already. The first winter rules have yet to be added. The rules, when created, will need to set gameplay and history within the new basic game framework and I am sure they will. This time we have the added benefit of hindsight with how the rules should be set.

< Message edited by Red Lancer -- 6/14/2016 8:31:07 PM >

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 612

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 9:50:37 PM

Banori

Posts: 24
Joined: 5/8/2012
From: Berlin Germany
Status: offline

that�s a good idea

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 613

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 9:55:15 PM

Banori

Posts: 24
Joined: 5/8/2012
From: Berlin Germany
Status: offline

i think it�s a good idea

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

Here's an idea for WITE2

Attacking an enemy unit can reduce the MP's of that enemy unit in it's phasing turn.
I would make the reduction in the number of MPs dependent on final CV ratio.

For a start this would give Soviet players a good incentive to attack German units in 41 and 42.
It's also realistic generally. If units are engaged during their non-phasing turn why should they have as much capability to move as a unit that wasn't engaged. It doesn't make sense. Holding and spoiling attacks are a common feature of any battlefield.

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 614

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 10:24:49 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

@HMSWARSPITE - your argument makes no sense at all to me. Even the most rudimentary change to the zoc rules would be an improvement. You are happy with the zoc rules? Fine. But don't muddy the water with silly arguments about all this supposed added complexity a change would entail.

HQ's don't have zoc's. No need to say anymore on that point.

Who said it was broken? I said it can be improved. Spend some time thinking about what some good improvements would be rather than counting toothbrushes.

As for WITW, I was at one point a tester. Short lived as it turned out. But I did help make one or two small improvements. But in the end arguing with people like yourself wore me down and I gave up.

_____________________________

(in reply to Banori)

Post #: 615

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 10:44:12 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

@John, even if you simply said we are going to half the zoc costs that reg/brigades impose upon units moving thru them it would be a big improvement over the current rule.

The current zoc rules and over run rules in combination make creating screens of ants (either in front or behind) a very effective defense. However it's totally unrealistic as many have pointed out. We see carpets of brigades 4 and five lines deep. An impenetrable mass of ants due to non existent over run rules and very sticky zocs for said ants.

To over come this horrible tactic the devs need to either drastically reduce zoc costs for units moving past ants or make them much more prone to being over run.

And to be honest I doubt you would find one (non biased) player who would not agree this is a major failing of the current game.

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 616

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 10:50:44 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

double post for some reason

< Message edited by loki100 -- 6/14/2016 10:55:05 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 617

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 10:51:57 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

...
The current zoc rules and over run rules in combination make creating screens of ants (either in front or behind) a very effective defense. However it's totally unrealistic as many have pointed out. We see carpets of brigades 4 and five lines deep. An impenetrable mass of ants due to non existent over run rules and very sticky zocs for said ants.

To over come this horrible tactic the devs need to either drastically reduce zoc costs for units moving past ants or make them much more prone to being over run.

And to be honest I doubt you would find one (non biased) player who would not agree this is a major failing of the current game.

there is of course more than one way to solve this particular problem?

there are less brigade size units on the map than in WiTE and there are often better uses for the ones that *could* be on the map than creating a sea of reserve lines. As in WiTW they can be attached to HQs and sometimes to units. In both modes you'll see the logic for why the Soviets had so many independent brigades in the early shock armies - something that makes absolutely no sense in WiTE but will really give a Shock Army built around rifle divisions extra combat punch (in the short term).

< Message edited by loki100 -- 6/14/2016 10:56:02 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 618

RE: WitE 2 - 6/14/2016 11:42:08 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

In my experience, players, if given the chance will have as many on map units as they can. Because the ants create friction as equally well as larger formations. I realize there will be less ants in WITE 2.0. As there are no on map tank brigades. A big improvement.

However as long as the player can put them on the map he will. Because there will always be circumstances when belts of sticky ants will serve a purpose. But that purpose (a carpet of ants) is not in any way realistic in the effect they have.

If you can say that a carpet of ants is not possible anymore then bravo, case solved. Let's move on. But since the Soviet as far as I know will still have many dozens of INF brigades, security regiments, AT brigades etc then the potential for carpets is still there.

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 619

RE: WitE 2 - 6/15/2016 3:52:57 AM

Ketza

Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

Fire in the East somewhat dealt with the ant problem by giving artillery units a combat rating of 0 unless they were stacking with a like number of combat units for mutual support. They also had zero impact on zoc costs unless they were supported. Would love to see something like that in WITE2

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 620

RE: WitE 2 - 6/15/2016 4:37:43 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Good to see you around Ketza. If only PC War game programmers had a deeper/richer board game pedigree. Many of these debates would be moot as the devs would already be familiar with the problems we describe. I think that's half the battle. Getting the programmers to understand where their programs are lacking and how these problems impact on playing the game.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 621

RE: WitE 2 - 6/15/2016 8:31:19 AM

morvael

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

V for Victory also had variable ZOC strength, due to limitations of 1990's computers it was in range 0-15 (so as to use only one byte per hex for two ZOC strengths). I think it's wise to have more gradual effects in computer war games, now that we have much more computational power. Binary ZOCs and other binary rules (and small integers that's hard to tweak since even 1pt change means huge change, like MP) are so "paper-boardgamey" and they should have no place in PC games. But it's a real problem if you would like to change one of the base rules in a mature engine. So much things to rework, so much things could break.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 622

RE: WitE 2 - 6/15/2016 9:42:25 AM

zakblood

Posts: 22687
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline

i loved V 4 victory in it's day and played it to death, also loved Arnhem and Desert Rat, ah good old days and fun

Bob Smith

Arnhem (CCS)
Desert Rats (CCS)
Vulcan (CCS)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by zakblood -- 6/15/2016 9:46:21 AM >

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 623

RE: WitE 2 - 6/15/2016 9:44:24 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Stalingrad was great, the original Avalon Hill precursor was great, way ahead of its time.

_____________________________

(in reply to zakblood)

Post #: 624

RE: WitE 2 - 6/15/2016 3:00:19 PM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

In my experience, players, if given the chance will have as many on map units as they can. Because the ants create friction as equally well as larger formations. I realize there will be less ants in WITE 2.0. As there are no on map tank brigades. A big improvement.

However as long as the player can put them on the map he will. Because there will always be circumstances when belts of sticky ants will serve a purpose. But that purpose (a carpet of ants) is not in any way realistic in the effect they have.

If you can say that a carpet of ants is not possible anymore then bravo, case solved. Let's move on. But since the Soviet as far as I know will still have many dozens of INF brigades, security regiments, AT brigades etc then the potential for carpets is still there.

Since WitE/WitW are supposed to be divisional scale games, why not just impose an absolute [low] limit on the number of brigade-sized units a side can deploy? Sort of like a countermix limit in a board wargame? Then, in a very appropriate situation a brigade unit can be deployed, but a wide-ranging use of brigades would not be possible. I'm not sure what the limit would be because I've never played a full campaign game of WitE and wouldn't use the tactic anyway, but I'm thinking like a dozen brigades wouldn't be amiss.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 625

RE: WitE 2 - 6/15/2016 3:12:47 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

In my experience, players, if given the chance will have as many on map units as they can. Because the ants create friction as equally well as larger formations. I realize there will be less ants in WITE 2.0. As there are no on map tank brigades. A big improvement.

However as long as the player can put them on the map he will. Because there will always be circumstances when belts of sticky ants will serve a purpose. But that purpose (a carpet of ants) is not in any way realistic in the effect they have.

If you can say that a carpet of ants is not possible anymore then bravo, case solved. Let's move on. But since the Soviet as far as I know will still have many dozens of INF brigades, security regiments, AT brigades etc then the potential for carpets is still there.

Since WitE/WitW are supposed to be divisional scale games, why not just impose an absolute [low] limit on the number of brigade-sized units a side can deploy? Sort of like a countermix limit in a board wargame? Then, in a very appropriate situation a brigade unit can be deployed, but a wide-ranging use of brigades would not be possible. I'm not sure what the limit would be because I've never played a full campaign game of WitE and wouldn't use the tactic anyway, but I'm thinking like a dozen brigades wouldn't be amiss.

Would be completely arbitrary with no way of balancing or judging what is "reasonable" based historical background. This will lead to endless vitriolic discussion.

(in reply to Capitaine)

Post #: 626

RE: WitE 2 - 6/15/2016 3:19:45 PM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

In my experience, players, if given the chance will have as many on map units as they can. Because the ants create friction as equally well as larger formations. I realize there will be less ants in WITE 2.0. As there are no on map tank brigades. A big improvement.

However as long as the player can put them on the map he will. Because there will always be circumstances when belts of sticky ants will serve a purpose. But that purpose (a carpet of ants) is not in any way realistic in the effect they have.

If you can say that a carpet of ants is not possible anymore then bravo, case solved. Let's move on. But since the Soviet as far as I know will still have many dozens of INF brigades, security regiments, AT brigades etc then the potential for carpets is still there.

Since WitE/WitW are supposed to be divisional scale games, why not just impose an absolute [low] limit on the number of brigade-sized units a side can deploy? Sort of like a countermix limit in a board wargame? Then, in a very appropriate situation a brigade unit can be deployed, but a wide-ranging use of brigades would not be possible. I'm not sure what the limit would be because I've never played a full campaign game of WitE and wouldn't use the tactic anyway, but I'm thinking like a dozen brigades wouldn't be amiss.

Would be completely arbitrary with no way of balancing or judging what is "reasonable" based historical background. This will lead to endless vitriolic discussion.

Yes, in a division level game I have no problem with an arbitrary limit on breakdown brigades allowed. I think it's a playability issue, not an historical or realism issue. If you allow breakdown brigades in all cases, it effectively becomes a brigade level game if a player so desires. Again, I have no problem with an arbitrary rule. It's still a game. (I would not include brigades that are part of the normal OOB; only those that are produced by breaking down divisions.)

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 627

RE: WitE 2 - 6/15/2016 3:20:50 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

My personal take is:

The ability to exert ZOC in reality is based on a combination of CV and mobility.

To exert it you need at least a small mobile, or a large immobile formation. As such I would think ZOC can best be expressed as a function of CV and MP. This arguably ignores one of the most important means of exerting influence, artillery, but short of Morvaels Alt-CV calc being generally implemented I don't see a "quick" and "easy" way of including it. This should be mitigated by WITE units having real unit templates, so there should be few edge cases.

Ideally every hex would consider all influencing units. This would allow for thin delaying screens and dense defensive belts.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 6/15/2016 3:28:29 PM >

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 628

RE: WitE 2 - 6/15/2016 4:09:07 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

In my experience, players, if given the chance will have as many on map units as they can. Because the ants create friction as equally well as larger formations. I realize there will be less ants in WITE 2.0. As there are no on map tank brigades. A big improvement.

However as long as the player can put them on the map he will. Because there will always be circumstances when belts of sticky ants will serve a purpose. But that purpose (a carpet of ants) is not in any way realistic in the effect they have.

If you can say that a carpet of ants is not possible anymore then bravo, case solved. Let's move on. But since the Soviet as far as I know will still have many dozens of INF brigades, security regiments, AT brigades etc then the potential for carpets is still there.

Since WitE/WitW are supposed to be divisional scale games, why not just impose an absolute [low] limit on the number of brigade-sized units a side can deploy? Sort of like a countermix limit in a board wargame? Then, in a very appropriate situation a brigade unit can be deployed, but a wide-ranging use of brigades would not be possible. I'm not sure what the limit would be because I've never played a full campaign game of WitE and wouldn't use the tactic anyway, but I'm thinking like a dozen brigades wouldn't be amiss.

problem is there are two types of on-map 'brigades' in the game. One is a conventional division (or later game Soviet tank or mech corps) split off into individual parts. This is popular with some axis players as it improves the chances of reserve reactions and is mainly an option open to the axis side.

Both sides also deployed some formations which were independent brigades. The Axis-Allied armies used a lot of these and so do the late game Germans. The Soviets at the end of 1941 were awash in them. They were a purely pragmatic solution - they had real problems of competent command at the divisional level so it broke those formations down. It was also a bit easier to raise combat units at the brigade level from specialist sources.

In WiTE2, the Soviet tank brigades are now completely off map. This is good as it'll see the creation of mixed cavalry and armour formations and then the surviving brigades will become the basis of the 1942 Tank Corps.

The various variants of the rifle brigades can be on-map (as in WiTE); merged into a rifle division to bring it up to strength (and lost forever), attached to an army as a support unit (and allocated to combat on that basis) or attached to a division as support unit (and effectively part of the unit till you re-assign). Anti-Tank brigades are similar - I can see a use for them now and you could build a Kursk style infantry-AT defensive set up using these tricks.

MichaelT is ignoring the real gains to these three options - understandable as I don't think he has really played WiTW. What you can do is to create an army built around say 6-8 rifle divisions. Each gets an attached rifle brigade and then you can more rifle brigades in the HQ (this is close to real OOB of the early shock armies). I reckon you could stack about 12 cv (offensive), plus the likelihood of support units plus the new rules that reward combat preparation. That crashing into an over-extended German line is going to be very bad news for the Axis - but of course comes out being weak elsewhere.

He might be right in the end but I think he's being a bit dismissive of the ways that the game is evolving to be honest.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 6/15/2016 4:12:25 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Capitaine)

Post #: 629

Re: WITE 2 - 6/15/2016 6:26:44 PM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

The end of the world dynamic.
This situation comes up from time to time. Because the map ends, there are odd supply dynamics. And of course, Soviet units cannot move further south.

Is this dynamic fixed in WITE2? Would also be nice to extend north.