Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005 From: UK Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Searry
I think it's absurd to think a game could be "realistic" in any way. The mountain divisions in the balkans are an obvious waste, just like Hitler pouring all his reinforcements in Tunisia when they couldn't even be supplied so the Luftwaffe transport force had to kill itself.
What sort of a gamer wants to make a choice where they kill half of their air transport fleet and still get the Italian-German African Army to surrender?
Doesn't make any sense to me.
Thank you so much for summarising the key conundrum in wargame design - the balance between constraining the Player to repeating history and allowing the flexibility of exploring what might have been. It is a truly challenging task but whilst you can please some of the players some of the time you cannot please all of them all of the time.
Hitler had many political concerns to contend with. What is apparently "right" from a military perspective isn't necessarily "right" from a political perspective, and vice versa. Many German generals who criticized some aspect of Hitler's orders weren't aware of all the considerations leading to those orders. They didn't have a full picture regarding global strategy. Many of these generals' opinions get handed down to wargamers and become dicta.
I'm not necessarily saying that your point above has no validity, but particularly with N. Africa things had become very political and some things were done on that account. And in a wargame, these political considerations are 100% suppressed.
I wonder if the new game will have a replay system, i haven't read the whole thread yet, but i asume it had been asked already. So what about replays for PBEM mode? Now it's being hard to follow in what sequence did enemy move, especially when when trying to track the Panzer Groups playing as the soviets. Also would be nice to have a posibility to see enemy movement, not only attacks and air strikes.
Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005 From: UK Status: offline
There is currently no replay mode and I'm not aware of plans to add it. With the games IGOUGO system it would require a large amount of additional data to be recorded and transferred.
Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001 From: Terra Status: offline
All that needs to be recorded are the unit movements that are visible to the player or movements in general, not sure why that would need a huge amount of data. Unit Z a moves from X to Y, done.
To dump the complicated approach of WitP was surely a benefit but along with it dumping the ability to grasp what happens in a turn is beyond my understanding. Games had that back in the 90's. Imagine WitP without the ability to follow what happens in that turn, the game would be unplayable. If all this ever leads to one big "War in Europe" game I hope it gets finally implemented.
Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005 From: UK Status: offline
You cannot compare WitE2 with WitP which is WEGO.
I'm also not one of the coders so I can't comment on the precise detail but the data structure has to be present to record what you request even if the size is not as huge as I might imagine.
In WITE2 there will be something to prevent the whermacht to enrole 2 millions of hiwis in the first year? I remind my compaigns always ending with Heer stronger at the end of first harsh winter because of tons of Hiwis added without decreasing the experience of german units, as probably should be. Thanks
Will leader rolls be changed so that players have an incentive to actually place better leaders in say Army HQs (For Germans) and Front HQs (for the Soviets)? The way rolls work right now, it is counterproductive to place Manstein anywhere higher than a Panzer Corps HQ.
In WITE2 there will be something to prevent the whermacht to enrole 2 millions of hiwis in the first year? I remind my compaigns always ending with Heer stronger at the end of first harsh winter because of tons of Hiwis added without decreasing the experience of german units, as probably should be. Thanks
Hiwis did not have combat roles so I do not see why that should affect the experience of a division.
Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005 From: UK Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: xhoel
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrBlizzard
In WITE2 there will be something to prevent the whermacht to enrole 2 millions of hiwis in the first year? I remind my compaigns always ending with Heer stronger at the end of first harsh winter because of tons of Hiwis added without decreasing the experience of german units, as probably should be. Thanks
Hiwis did not have combat roles so I do not see why that should affect the experience of a division.
I'll try and answer the recent flurry of questions over the weekend...
on Hiwis WitE2 handles things differently - in broad terms they are a type of manpower like South African troops are in WitW.
Will leader rolls be changed so that players have an incentive to actually place better leaders in say Army HQs (For Germans) and Front HQs (for the Soviets)? The way rolls work right now, it is counterproductive to place Manstein anywhere higher than a Panzer Corps HQ.
+1!!!!
Another thing is to reverse the application of distance penalties to leader rolls so the immediate HQ (Corps/Army) has to be closer than the higher HQ.
In WITE2 there will be something to prevent the whermacht to enrole 2 millions of hiwis in the first year? I remind my compaigns always ending with Heer stronger at the end of first harsh winter because of tons of Hiwis added without decreasing the experience of german units, as probably should be. Thanks
Hiwis did not have combat roles so I do not see why that should affect the experience of a division.
Hi, this is my thinking: Heer put best elements in fighting squads: younger, more fit. They put older and less fit men in support roles. when you move the latter in fighting roles you're moving cooks, drivers, ecc to roles where don't have experience to replace skilfull and more suitable men. Hiwis replaced support men moved to frontline, I don't see no particular problem in this. But I think in whole process you should have a deterioration in general performance and experience.
< Message edited by MrBlizzard -- 11/17/2018 2:07:48 PM >
Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005 From: UK Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: thedoctorking
quote:
ORIGINAL: xhoel
Will leader rolls be changed so that players have an incentive to actually place better leaders in say Army HQs (For Germans) and Front HQs (for the Soviets)? The way rolls work right now, it is counterproductive to place Manstein anywhere higher than a Panzer Corps HQ.
+1!!!!
Another thing is to reverse the application of distance penalties to leader rolls so the immediate HQ (Corps/Army) has to be closer than the higher HQ.
I haven't played WitE in a very long time so I have no idea about any changes since the code split from WitW. As far as I recall WitE2 has no changes from WitW but don't quote me on it.
Posts: 2932
Joined: 2/3/2005 From: France Status: offline
Hi, can't read the whole thread... too many pages. So will just indicate a few things that I'd like to see in WITE 2.
* More clear/important impact of terrain on combat, per type of units. I'd love if a stronghold in the montain with a few companies in it to be hard to take even by large/strong units. Something as strong as the swamp effect on tanks in WITE1 which is the only case I find really convincing. In fact. I'd like something similar to TOAW.
* better impact of structures (bridges, lack of bridge, cities, villages, forts, etc) on movemnent/combat
* More orders like fortify, entrench and other engeneering works. * More shortkeys like "next HQ". Generally speaking an improved system to better see units away from HQ. * on-map arty able to fight at long range (several hexes) ! (like in TOAW in fact) * better model for air bombing. Don't know if I'm doing something wrong but bombing an unit rarely has any effect ... (unlike bombing an airfield which has effect). * naval warfare in the black sea * improved bombing on production sites (I barely see any effect ... maybe my wrong doing ?) * impact of the western front
Will probably have other wishes ... but so far, that's it :-)
Hi, can't read the whole thread... too many pages. So will just indicate a few things that I'd like to see in WITE 2.
* More clear/important impact of terrain on combat, per type of units. I'd love if a stronghold in the montain with a few companies in it to be hard to take even by large/strong units. Something as strong as the swamp effect on tanks in WITE1 which is the only case I find really convincing. In fact. I'd like something similar to TOAW.
* better impact of structures (bridges, lack of bridge, cities, villages, forts, etc) on movemnent/combat
* More orders like fortify, entrench and other engeneering works. * More shortkeys like "next HQ". Generally speaking an improved system to better see units away from HQ. * on-map arty able to fight at long range (several hexes) ! (like in TOAW in fact) * better model for air bombing. Don't know if I'm doing something wrong but bombing an unit rarely has any effect ... (unlike bombing an airfield which has effect). * naval warfare in the black sea * improved bombing on production sites (I barely see any effect ... maybe my wrong doing ?) * impact of the western front
Will probably have other wishes ... but so far, that's it :-)
Air bombing of ground units doesn't destroy, but disrupts lots of enemy elements, sometimes the amounts can be HUGE, measured in thousands of men. Disrupted elements don't take a part in battle and CV calculation after, so the overall combat effectiveness and CV will drop down accordingly.
Will leader rolls be changed so that players have an incentive to actually place better leaders in say Army HQs (For Germans) and Front HQs (for the Soviets)? The way rolls work right now, it is counterproductive to place Manstein anywhere higher than a Panzer Corps HQ.
+1!!!!
Another thing is to reverse the application of distance penalties to leader rolls so the immediate HQ (Corps/Army) has to be closer than the higher HQ.
I haven't played WitE in a very long time so I have no idea about any changes since the code split from WitW. As far as I recall WitE2 has no changes from WitW but don't quote me on it.
Currently, and, I believe, right from the beginning, range penalties for leader rolls do not apply to the immediately higher headquarters, but do apply to subsequent HQ's in the chain of command. This leads to the ridiculous result that all your army HQs (or Corps for the Germans) can be back in Siberia (or Munich) and work just fine (from the point of view of leader rolls) while the Front/Army and STAVKA/Army Group/OKH HQ's work best if they are within three hexes of the front.
And because of this fact, most players realize quickly that there is no point in putting good generals in those higher HQ's (because they will almost always suffer from range penalties that negate the leaders' abilities). So Manstein and Model and Rokossovsky and Zhukov and Konev, and anybody else you've ever heard of, will stay at the Army/Corps command level and never get promoted. The only reason you'll have anybody good at the Front/Army/Group level is if they have a good morale level (which is not affected by range penalties - for reasons not clear to me).
And because of this fact, most players realize quickly that there is no point in putting good generals in those higher HQ's (because they will almost always suffer from range penalties that negate the leaders' abilities). So Manstein and Model and Rokossovsky and Zhukov and Konev, and anybody else you've ever heard of, will stay at the Army/Corps command level and never get promoted. The only reason you'll have anybody good at the Front/Army/Group level is if they have a good morale level (which is not affected by range penalties - for reasons not clear to me).
And even if they have good morale, generally Russian Front and German Army HQ's get overloaded and with the penalty for too many CU's in your HQ, those high morale levels don't have any effect either. Worst thing is to have Zhukov in command of a front that has 125 CU over a capacity of 72. You're wasting him as a potential army commander (Front commanders can't be demoted to Army command) and you're wasting him as a front commander since the overload reduces his effective morale to about 2.
And even if they have good morale, generally Russian Front and German Army HQ's get overloaded and with the penalty for too many CU's in your HQ, those high morale levels don't have any effect either. Worst thing is to have Zhukov in command of a front that has 125 CU over a capacity of 72. You're wasting him as a potential army commander (Front commanders can't be demoted to Army command) and you're wasting him as a front commander since the overload reduces his effective morale to about 2.
Actually this point on morale is incorrect. I actually believed this and the manual says that. But KenchiSulla actually tested it and found out that morale is not affected by CU overload either. This was astonishing to me when I found that out. But strictly speaking the manual should say morale is neither affected by CU overload or by distance either.
You can do your own partial test by reassigning units and seeing the effect it has to morale percentage in supply details - it does not change!
< Message edited by Telemecus -- 11/22/2018 10:00:25 PM >
And even if they have good morale, generally Russian Front and German Army HQ's get overloaded and with the penalty for too many CU's in your HQ, those high morale levels don't have any effect either. Worst thing is to have Zhukov in command of a front that has 125 CU over a capacity of 72. You're wasting him as a potential army commander (Front commanders can't be demoted to Army command) and you're wasting him as a front commander since the overload reduces his effective morale to about 2.
Actually this point on morale is incorrect. I actually believed this and the manual says that. But KenchiSulla actually tested it and found out that morale is not affected by CU overload either. This was astonishing to me when I found that out. But strictly speaking the manual should say morale is neither affected by CU overload or by distance either.
You can do your own partial test by reassigning units and seeing the effect it has to morale percentage in supply details - it does not change!
But morale is morale - approach of commander to his duty, his motivation, should it really change when HQ have been overloaded?
I think the issue of overloading is that the commander and his staff don't have the time to devote to encouraging/threatening/overseeing all their subordinates. Maybe it makes sense that a leader's contribution to the morale of his subordinates is more about public relations than individual attention, but let me illustrate an alternative point of view with a film
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> 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