How players compare wite 1 and 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

How players compare wite 1 and 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 2 >> How players compare wite 1 and 2 ?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

How players compare wite 1 and 2 ? - 1/9/2022 7:07:07 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

I am reading this amazing AAR: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465&mpage=1&key=

And i wonder how do you (players that played both versions) compare wite 2 to wite 1?

I did not play wite 1 but it looks like in some aspects it was way more realistic than wite 2, from a readers point of view.

Axis were able to use panzer divions to actually attack and not pray that there will be no Soviet tank/mechanized reserve activation as it is destroying AFVs with an ease.
Recon missions can be used in the ground phase which is super cool, and wite 2 is a huge step back in that term.

Logistics looks way to good in wite 1 for an Axis, but in wite 2 Soviets have more than enough supply everywhere.

Also there was no CPP that is halved in any kind of attack, and without it units are pretty bad, and with a nerf to 4 assault armies and 10 capacity for a HQ it makes a huge pain in the, khm khm, head to regain them.
For a non assault division you need 4 turns, if I count correctly, to go from 0 CPP to 100, if it is not moving! Full month of preparation and half of this points will be blown away in the next attack even if there will be enemy with a real CV of 1 on the edge of shattering.

Rumanians are not routing whenever wind is blowing into their direction from Soviet Union.

People were counting heavy industry fabrics, some armament points.
Does it really matter in wite 2 if Axis take cities like D, Z towns, Stalino way ahead of schedule? Or it is the same situation as with oil?

Somebody told wite 2 is not an industry simulator, but still we have extremely complicated logistic system that looks simply only on a paper. So half of a game is actually supply moving simulator, if you are playing as an Axis.

Was wite 1 a more balanced game?

< Message edited by Stamb -- 1/9/2022 7:36:06 PM >

_____________________________

Axis Bias mod Fanboy
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5144537

Post #: 1

RE: How players compare wite 1 and 2 ? - 1/9/2022 10:16:14 PM

RedJohn

Posts: 517
Joined: 9/20/2019
Status: offline

More balanced in some ways I think, less so in others. Panzers for example were unstoppable death machines that feared nothing, and casualties in battles for both sides were insanely small for the most part. Now, we can see significant axis casualties - in that respect I think it's more balanced, even if I do support further tweaking to reduce german AFV losses.

I vehemently disagree with the changes to the industry system, it was a legitimately huge factor for pressuring the Soviets to defend forward in indefensible positions solely to protect industry. Running away meant forever losing said industry. Compare this to 2, where as far as I'm aware the only consequence of losing historically lost cities earlier than normal is factories being damaged more. But the industry itself is automatically evacced. It is only when losing non-historically lost cities that industry loss is permanent.

Logistics is a joke for the Soviets and a non-factor for most of the game.

I cannot comment on the air war as I mostly ignore it.

On the whole though I think it's a better game than 1, yes, and obviously the team is frequently updating things and changing how things work so we've got that to look forward to. But as far as balance goes, I believe Wite1 probably offers greater balance, even if to do so it grants the axis supernatural abilities.

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 2

RE: How players compare wite 1 and 2 ? - 1/9/2022 10:35:11 PM

mikael333

Posts: 66
Joined: 4/10/2021
Status: offline

The thing I like most about 2 is that it can be played by a slightly more casual player like me. The fact that you can mostly automate the air war and do not need to move air bases around on the map, the fact that logistics and depot creation can mostly be automated and the fact, that partisans are abstracted, contribute to this. It also helps that you can change command without having to spend AP. I also find the interface more accessable. E.g. you can easily see command capacity and when it is overloaded. In 1 I never dared to play the grand campaign, but now I do. Of course the experience with 1 also helps.

(in reply to RedJohn)

Post #: 3

RE: How players compare wite 1 and 2 ? - 1/10/2022 12:32:04 AM

carlkay58

Posts: 8650
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline

As a long term playtester that helped playtest WitE, WitW, and WitE2 I have the following comments that you can take with as many grains of salt as you wish.

1. Logistics are totally different and much more realistic. The player on the offensive has a hard task trying to keep their supply line up and running well enough to continue the offensive. Not to say that the defensive side still has some troubles and concerns. The changes in this system tends to make the players limit their offensives to smaller areas and have to decide where to emphasize and build supply nets.

2. Panzer/tank attrition in WWII (and still today too) was horrendous. Just moving from point A to point B could see huge numbers of AFVs breakdown and require repair. If there was road connecting points A and B then the amount of breakdowns would be reduced, but combat and the Soviet terrain meant that most AFVs were NOT advancing on roads. Read David Stahel's recent books from the Axis side to see how quickly AFVs vanish in combat units. Unsupported panzer/tank units will not last long - they require infantry units to help support them. These units will need to be pulled back to repair damaged elements and recover. This will slow the tempo of play to better match the historical tempo.

3. CPP is a great innovation which will require pulling units out of the front line to refit/recover in the rear before continuing combat operations. This is historical but also slows down the tempo of play.

4. The change in Soviet industry being moved eastward was for simplification. The earlier it has to be evacuated the more damage it will incur so the longer before it is available to the Soviets again. The idea is that just because you captured the one Soviet factory that produced this piece of equipment does not mean that the Soviets would no longer produce that item. The Soviets would have to build a new factory from scratch. So you have two elements in the Soviet Factories that evacuated - the delay it will take for the personnel and equipment to be ready to start to work and the damage (or missing pieces) that have to be repaired/replaced for the factory to come back up and running. The earlier it has to be evacuated the longer the delay and the higher the damage. The later it is evacuated the lower the delay and the lower the damage. The change from WitE1 and WitE2 is that this no longer has to be performed by the Soviet player but it is automated in comparison to the historical time table.

5. The overall changes mentioned in parts 1, 2, and 3 is that the tempo of the game is slowed down. Both sides have to plan their offensives in advance and it takes effort to continue the offensive. The Axis will not be able to keep up a whole theater offensive any longer past about September - October 41. The Soviets will have problems in their 41 Winter counter attack to maintain a large offensive for very long. 42 will see the Axis have to decide where they want to attack and to build up their supplies and prepare their forces accordingly. WitE1 allowed players to fight along the entire front for most of the war - very non-historical.

(in reply to mikael333)

Post #: 4