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 2.0 OOB?

 
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 2.0 OOB? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/11/2016 1:16:55 AM   
Icier


Posts: 564
Joined: 7/15/2014
From: a sunny beach nsw
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe



3. "Free Production" or having units arrive fully kitted is now out. Now, units arrive without equipment when they were officially established and must rely on the production system to equip them. The 501st Heavy Panzer Company, for example, arrives in February 1942 without any tanks in the Axis Reserves box. The intent is to make the Axis and Soviet Strategic Reserves box a way to "store" units off the map to allow for priority refits. The production system has been re-calibrated to allow for historical production.

4. The Soviet system is going to be similar to what WitE did but they will have a historical OOB through 1941. Their new units will also arrive as shells without equipment. To give you a taste of what a true historical Soviet OOB would look like through 1941, I have added the following historical units to the Soviet Strategic Box in 1941 only that didn't exist in WITE:



Trey


I think going with Trey re-calibration along with Michael's request that they stick with the historical OOB would get us much closer to real thing.

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 31
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/11/2016 12:12:26 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		I don't save emails, unfortunately.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Icier)
Post #: 32
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/11/2016 6:42:17 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

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

ORIGINAL: morvael

The problem with Soviet historical OOB is that it was very loss-driven and different formations may die/survive each time in the game, whereas German OOB is mostly static with very few units lost until 1945 when it no longer matters. So I would think custom/auto building but up to historical limits for given quarter of year would be the best compromise.


That would seem to be the best idea to me. I would also add a refinement for Germany too. Since OOB changes are generally to mitigate shortages or keep the unit count up when manpower declines, I would enforce the order and content of OOB changes but let the German player choose when to implement them. This would probably be streamed by unit type, so you cold select successive infantry ones but not do Panzer ones at all (as a hypothetical illustration). This allows correction for the actual state of the game rather than more enforcement of things out of player control. I am not sure this is necessary with Sov as so much of it is by unit type...

You would probably have to have a minimum interval between selecting OOB changes (say 6months).


_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 33
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/11/2016 7:26:47 PM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline 		We focus a lot on historical vs non for soviet forces, but for me it would be a bigger improvement to allow more flexibility for the Axis. MT's point was that one side can optimize more than the other, which is a totally fair point. But doesn't it make sense to allow both to optimize? Really, the Axis most likely won't be able to build new armor divs, but if they play really well and have low losses, why not? At least be able to have flexibility over support units at least, the ability to raise a few more Tiger Bns if you are playing well would be helpful. It is also possible to react to a Sov player that is more focused than historical, ie if they go crazy with armor, you can raise more AT bns, but if they try to save trucks and so focus on inf, you can raise Art bns. MT is right that it is kind of weird to have very exacting historical accuracy for one side, but allow the other to react to the flow of the game.

(in reply to swkuh)
Post #: 34
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/11/2016 10:18:35 PM   
Michael T


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

MT is right that it is kind of weird to have very exacting historical accuracy for one side, but allow the other to react to the flow of the game.



This aspect is being overlooked by some.

_____________________________


(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 35
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/12/2016 11:15:02 AM   
MechFO

 

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

ORIGINAL: el hefe
First of all, as per WITE, units are not disbanded on their historical dates unless the units were merged into new units.


In general, great stuff and another big step(s) forward.

I don't understand the above point though, since that was normally due combat losses or to reconstitute other units.

Both cases seem to be already handled by other mechanics.

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 36
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/12/2016 11:23:11 AM   
MechFO

 

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

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

We focus a lot on historical vs non for soviet forces, but for me it would be a bigger improvement to allow more flexibility for the Axis. MT's point was that one side can optimize more than the other, which is a totally fair point. But doesn't it make sense to allow both to optimize? Really, the Axis most likely won't be able to build new armor divs, but if they play really well and have low losses, why not? At least be able to have flexibility over support units at least, the ability to raise a few more Tiger Bns if you are playing well would be helpful. It is also possible to react to a Sov player that is more focused than historical, ie if they go crazy with armor, you can raise more AT bns, but if they try to save trucks and so focus on inf, you can raise Art bns. MT is right that it is kind of weird to have very exacting historical accuracy for one side, but allow the other to react to the flow of the game.


Indeed, however one must also pay attention to not overloading the abstract production system. An extra tiger bn IMO wouldn't be a problem, because there is a finite number of tigers.

With artillery etc. the case is much less clear cut and this working would depend on the devs getting the Armament points just right, which is very difficult to do, since there are no easy controlling metrics.

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 37
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/12/2016 11:46:13 AM   
MechFO

 

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

ORIGINAL: morvael

The problem with Soviet historical OOB is that it was very loss-driven and different formations may die/survive each time in the game, whereas German OOB is mostly static with very few units lost until 1945 when it no longer matters. So I would think custom/auto building but up to historical limits for given quarter of year would be the best compromise.


German historic OOB was very much loss/event driven as well. And the above is incorrect, many units were attrited to shells as early as 42/43 and then rebuilt with bn/regiments that were forming or stripped from other units.

This is why I have a problem with the focus on "historic" OOB in a game with such a wide scope, covering such a long period.

Historic OOB was driven by resource availability and events on the ground. Less losses or more resources or different priorities automatically would have led to different "historic" OOB's. Also both sides handled their units in a different manner, Germans at least tried to keep their shells to a certain % of strength, the Soviets only did this very selectively. How to account for both approaches? I think the shell system should help a lot, but it puts a big burden on the economic/production system.

IMO the actual root of the problem is that the production system needs a crutch (by virtue of incomplete and unresearchable information), and historic OOB's are as much a useful guideline as any other, but use it as a guideline, not as gospel.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 7/12/2016 11:49:49 AM >

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 38
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/12/2016 11:50:16 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		The road from adjustable OOB leads to adjustable production leads to adjustable technology. I think this is more what Hearts of Iron series is about, but for this game the designers choose a different way. I do like building my own army, so I miss this part.

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 39
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/13/2016 7:56:36 PM   
RKhan


Posts: 315
Joined: 1/17/2016
From: My Secret Bunker
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

The road from adjustable OOB leads to adjustable production leads to adjustable technology. I think this is more what Hearts of Iron series is about, but for this game the designers choose a different way. I do like building my own army, so I miss this part.


Not necessarily, and I am glad this is not Hearts of Iron.

I agree with those who say both sides ought to have more options to customise. But I think a free build OOB would be easy to implement as a set up option. Just remove the reinforcement schedule and give each side more AP to compensate. Production will still ultimately limit and constrain what can be built.

This would of course work better for the Soviets as they simply build more units.

< Message edited by RKhan -- 7/13/2016 8:06:58 PM >

_____________________________

RKhan

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 40
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/15/2016 9:29:20 PM   
sillyflower


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

ORIGINAL: RKhan

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

The road from adjustable OOB leads to adjustable production leads to adjustable technology. I think this is more what Hearts of Iron series is about, but for this game the designers choose a different way. I do like building my own army, so I miss this part.


Not necessarily, and I am glad this is not Hearts of Iron.


I agree with RKhan on both counts. The Russian OOB is very adjustable but player has no influence over production or technology; other than by moving factories to stop them producing.

As others have said, historical OOBs, which include TOEs, were driven by events. Same issue as national morale in a way. The multiple changes to Russian inf TOEs drive me mad especially in '42 when my rifle squads suddenly shrink when I have plenty of men and arms points.

< Message edited by sillyflower -- 7/15/2016 9:32:50 PM >

_____________________________

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 RKhan)
Post #: 41
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/16/2016 1:15:53 AM   
Icier


Posts: 564
Joined: 7/15/2014
From: a sunny beach nsw
Status: offline 		More a question for morvael...as the Germans OOB is more or less finalised..how hard would it be to put some limits on the Soviets in the next patch, say something like Wikipedia list.

(in reply to swkuh)
Post #: 42
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 7/18/2016 10:59:39 PM   
SeriousCatNZ

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 8/18/2013
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Status: offline 		One thing that should limit the Soviet player is that the Soviet supply situation was highly constrained, so whilst they could field a vast number of troops they could supply very few of them for combat. This led to the Soviets mainly using their rifle divisions as holding troops, whilst the precious and scarce supply they did have was given to their best units, such as Guards, cavalry, and armour.

In WITE it's too easy for a competent Soviet player to hold the Germans because they don't suffer from historical supply constraints. Even though the Soviets are evacuating much of their heavy industry eastwards the Soviets still have way too much supply. (To be fair, the Germans also have way too much supply and can afford to attack everywhere, which is complete fantasy.)

(in reply to Icier)
Post #: 43
RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? - 10/12/2016 10:24:29 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe
2. The rename function allows units to rename and change OBs many times throughout their life without requiring the unit to withdraw from the front and a fresh (and fully equipped) unit replacing it as a reinforcement. Now, we can properly simulate units being upgraded seamlessly. An example of this is the 373rd Wallonian Infantry Battalion that begins in the Western Theater Box. On Turn 104 (Summer 43), it upgrades to the 5th SS Walloonian Motorized Brigade and on Turn 174 (Fall 44), it upgrades to the 28th SS Wall. Grenadier Division.


This will be extremely helpful to build my full 41-45 Russian OOB (especially if it will also apply to support units). Further, if a Disband Unit option could be added in the editor, then it would be golden!

< Message edited by Schmart -- 10/12/2016 10:25:33 PM >

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 44
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: WITE 2.0 OOB? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.703