WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 7 - Amphibious Ops (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West



Message

RedLancer -> WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 7 - Amphibious Ops (10/24/2014 3:34:01 PM)

Just like with the use of airborne forces WitW has had a complete revamp of amphibious ops - not surprising when you consider their importance in the game. The cornerstone of amphib ops is the Amphibious HQ. This new unit type is the pivotal element in all aspects of planning and launching an invasion.

Firstly it provides the ability to target an invasion. This can only be done when the Amphib HQ is in a port. Just like with Airborne Ops once you have targetted a hex the preparation points begin to accumulate.

Of course an Amphib HQ is only one element of an invasion force. The invasion force is prepared by stacking units with the Amphib HQ. This means that up to two divisions can accompany each Amphib HQ (ships permitting). However the larger the units, the more of them and the smaller the Port the slower prep points will accumulate. In addition only Commando or Ranger Units and Naval Support Groups can be attached to the Amphib HQ to provide support during the invasion.

When sufficient prep pts have accumulated (50 for Amphib HQ and 30 for Combat Units) you can invade.

The invasion itself takes place automatically once you press the INVADE button on the Amphib HQ counter in the Unit Bar. The invasion itself takes place between your turn and your opponent's. The invasion assault looks to place your combat units in the targeted invasion hex with the Amphib HQ staying in an adjacent sea hex. An attached commandos will look to occupy an empty hex adjacent to the invasion hex. The only support units that take part are those attached to the assault units or the naval support groups attached to the Amphib HQ.

Once ashore your opponent has the chance to drive you back into the sea before you get to establish things further with follow up forces. When you get to your turn you will notice that the Amphib HQ has done three more things: firstly it has created a temporary port to allow you to unload units and freight; secondly it has created a depot to hold and distribute freight and finally created an air base for you to fly in air supporting units.

The screenshot shows Amphib HQ and its co-stacked units ready to invade Omaha from T1 of the 1944 (D-Day Start) Campaign.


[image]local://upfiles/18789/1B7F6BFF1886423C892170C02F130B81.jpg[/image]



AZKGungHo -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/24/2014 5:37:57 PM)

Very impressed with this so far but admit to being puzzled about the Amphib HQ setting up an airbase. Is that the same as an air field? Why not just fly the airforce from England as done historically until some airfields are captured? Or am I missing something here (pretty sure I am)?



RedLancer -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/24/2014 6:45:59 PM)

Certainly in Normandy the invading forces built their own airfields.



zakblood -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/24/2014 6:46:30 PM)

from what im seeing also so far it's looking very good, but the more i see, the harder it seems to be as well, this maybe it's downfall, information overload?

too much to do and see and control, more than a game it's a sim, even more so than WITE?



RedLancer -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/24/2014 7:34:27 PM)

I'm simply showing why Gary Grigsby’s War in the West 1943-45 is the most ambitious and detailed computer wargame on the Western Front of World War II ever made

I think I've only a few more big difference topics to cover - Weather, the EF Box and Garrisons.



bairdlander2 -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/24/2014 8:03:21 PM)

It takes more patience than WitE.My current game '43 campaign I have invaded Sicily successfully,but am having to wait for port capacity numbers to go up to to move more troops to Sicily.From my understanding supply moves first and whats left is used for troop transport???



marion61 -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/24/2014 8:50:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zakblood

from what im seeing also so far it's looking very good, but the more i see, the harder it seems to be as well, this maybe it's downfall, information overload?

too much to do and see and control, more than a game it's a sim, even more so than WITE?

quote:


www.marshianchronicles.com
www.usmcraiders.com


It may appear hard, but it really isn't. Once you set an invasion up for yourself you'll see. Just RTM before you do, so you don't overload the port with too many units. Supply in this game is the key, and it is done way better than WiTE. It's actually much simpler to use, and some of it's ease is due to interface changes.



zakblood -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/25/2014 7:37:02 AM)

glad to hear it, but it hasn't put me off as i'll buy it anyway, ty



Peltonx -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/25/2014 11:51:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zakblood

from what im seeing also so far it's looking very good, but the more i see, the harder it seems to be as well, this maybe it's downfall, information overload?

too much to do and see and control, more than a game it's a sim, even more so than WITE?


It is more "complex", but the scale or size of the forces is much smaller then WitE.
So once you get a handle on how things work play time per turn is much less then WitE.

I am not the brightest light bulb in the room and I was able to play vs the AI withen a few hrs as Germany.

Best way to learn these monster games is play the short scenarios first vs AI, then work your way up campaign.

Just doing that took me almost a year playing WitE, WitW will not take nearly that long.

While your doing that read the AAR's and forums as you will pick up more and more little things about the system.





Duck Doc -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/25/2014 1:01:37 PM)

How do follow-on forces work? Is it the same?

How are attached naval assets handled?

Will the AI or a human Axis player be able to rush forces to the invasion area with, for example, a Normandy landing by the Allies?

Thanks,



RedLancer -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/25/2014 1:13:55 PM)


quote:


How do follow-on forces work? Is it the same?

No - you need to move them in normal shipping mode. The limiting factors are port capacity, available shipping and space on the beaches.

quote:


How are attached naval assets handled?

The only naval assets are the naval support groups attached to the Amphib HQs and automatically fire in support of combat in adjacent hexes.

quote:


Will the AI or a human Axis player be able to rush forces to the invasion area with, for example, a Normandy landing by the Allies?

Yes - the Allies need to destroy railyards and impose air interdiction to make reinforcement difficult and costly. The Axis turn between invasion and the next Allied turn is important in sealing up an invasion.



Zorch -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/25/2014 1:17:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I'm simply showing why Gary Grigsby’s War in the West 1943-45 is the most ambitious and detailed computer wargame on the Western Front of World War II ever made

I think I've only a few more big difference topics to cover - Weather, the EF Box and Garrisons.

The new stuff takes WitW a step beyond WitE.
Is 'GG's War in Europe' the next step after WitW, just like SPI did back in the day?



Balou -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/25/2014 3:16:10 PM)

What about preparation (points?) on the Axis side. I mean every Axis leader knew about an imminent Allied invasion and we also knew about fortifications, mining, etc. In other words, will there be such a thing as Axis preparation?



Numdydar -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/25/2014 3:35:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I'm simply showing why Gary Grigsby�s War in the West 1943-45 is the most ambitious and detailed computer wargame on the Western Front of World War II ever made

I think I've only a few more big difference topics to cover - Weather, the EF Box and Garrisons.

The new stuff takes WitW a step beyond WitE.
Is 'GG's War in Europe' the next step after WitW, just like SPI did back in the day?


Not quite although I hope to live long enough (and the 2by3 team as well [:D]) to see that day [:)]

WitE 2.0 is next to get it into the same system. Then Africa/Med 1941. After that (and depending on sales of course) the start of the war. THEN we may have some over 'linking' game that ties all the above together to give us what we REALLY want [&o]



Zorch -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/25/2014 4:41:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I'm simply showing why Gary Grigsby�s War in the West 1943-45 is the most ambitious and detailed computer wargame on the Western Front of World War II ever made

I think I've only a few more big difference topics to cover - Weather, the EF Box and Garrisons.

The new stuff takes WitW a step beyond WitE.
Is 'GG's War in Europe' the next step after WitW, just like SPI did back in the day?


Not quite although I hope to live long enough (and the 2by3 team as well [:D]) to see that day [:)]

WitE 2.0 is next to get it into the same system. Then Africa/Med 1941. After that (and depending on sales of course) the start of the war. THEN we may have some over 'linking' game that ties all the above together to give us what we REALLY want [&o]

And after that...a link to War in the Pacific! With full USA and GB production rules! No more mandatory withdrawals from one theater to another!
Coming to a PC near you in 2025 or so.



warshipbuilder -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/25/2014 6:33:27 PM)

Lonely voice in the wilderness here. I would like to see a 1940-45 strategic-tactical air war game. BTR&ED on steroids so to speak. Also a similar treatment for the naval side of things in the Atlantic. I have always been a dreamer.



Joel Billings -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/25/2014 6:49:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Balou

What about preparation (points?) on the Axis side. I mean every Axis leader knew about an imminent Allied invasion and we also knew about fortifications, mining, etc. In other words, will there be such a thing as Axis preparation?


There are garrison requirements for the Axis that need to be met putting some limitations on German deployments. Aside from that, you can spend your admin points if you want to build fort units which will allow you to build a more formidable Atlantic Wall ring of fortifications.



Numdydar -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/26/2014 5:48:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warshipbuilder

Lonely voice in the wilderness here. I would like to see a 1940-45 strategic-tactical air war game. BTR&ED on steroids so to speak. Also a similar treatment for the naval side of things in the Atlantic. I have always been a dreamer.


Well compared to the PTO, the ETO would be very boring. Convoy A goes there and comes back. Or wait a sub is near change course and send some DDs after it or a plane. Resume course minus any losses.

Even in the Med it would not be a whole lot better. Allies stay away from any LBAs and the Axis stay away from any Allied naval forces. Then the Allies get air superiority and all the Italian navy is sunk.

It would definitely not be a game that I would want to play [:)]

Now combining that with the land war, like HoI or WiF, then we are talking [:)]



warshipbuilder -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/26/2014 3:49:44 PM)

quote:

Well compared to the PTO, the ETO would be very boring. Convoy A goes there and comes back. Or wait a sub is near change course and send some DDs after it or a plane. Resume course minus any losses.

Even in the Med it would not be a whole lot better. Allies stay away from any LBAs and the Axis stay away from any Allied naval forces. Then the Allies get air superiority and all the Italian navy is sunk.


I respectfully disagree. Suppose you had to decide how many escorts to assign to a convoy, how many do you have available, how many are you building. What happens if you don't get those 50 destroyers from the USA? Oh good grief I now have to find escorts for Russian convoys. How fast is the Type 271 radar being built? What ships do I give them to? See depending on the level of detail, I think it could be a lot of fun. Then again I am a micromanagement freak.

BUT if anybody is LISTENING and or CARES, what I would really like is nice complex strategic-tactical comprehensive air war game.

Is there a wish list forum somewhere I can go and rant and p in to the wind?



dukewacoan -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/27/2014 3:47:43 PM)

Can you really get more complex than Eagle Day To Bombing The Reich?



warshipbuilder -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/27/2014 6:09:05 PM)

I don't find it all that complex. The biggest problem is that it is broken and needs fixing. Unfortunately at this late stage in it's life I don't imagine that it will ever happen. That is why I would like to see a new game that covers the war end to end. EDBTR Volume 2. Fill in the missing 41-43 time period, add an editor, and fix the broken parts. Also don't make so that it is strictly an offense vs defense game. That is a big problem if you are playing the bad guys, you just wait for the allied bombers and then try to start shooting them down. The LW still had teeth. Can you spell baby blitz or Bodenplatte? I think the allied player should have the added worry that some KG just might show up in the sky over as his nice fat bomb laden aircraft are taxiing along an airfield. Aren't drug induced fantasies fun?[X(]



wodin -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (10/31/2014 4:45:27 AM)

Gary needs to go and make a monster tactical game and put aside this Grand Strat nonsense:)

Looking good though. I'm also very impressed with Decisive Campaigns 3 progress, unique features that will add so much to the immersion. Something I usually have trouble with when playing games at this scale.



Dili -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (11/7/2014 5:22:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar


quote:

ORIGINAL: warshipbuilder

Lonely voice in the wilderness here. I would like to see a 1940-45 strategic-tactical air war game. BTR&ED on steroids so to speak. Also a similar treatment for the naval side of things in the Atlantic. I have always been a dreamer.



Even in the Med it would not be a whole lot better. Allies stay away from any LBAs and the Axis stay away from any Allied naval forces. Then the Allies get air superiority and all the Italian navy is sunk.

It would definitely not be a game that I would want to play [:)]

Now combining that with the land war, like HoI or WiF, then we are talking [:)]



I disagree, first you can't stay away from LBA in Med, the Naval/Air Battles occur in a relatively closed area.

Obviously the problem with Med is two fold:

1-Needs Sea, Land , Air and Special Forces well developed. No computer wargame ever achieved that.

2-Not American, German centric. More Italy - British/Commonwealth.

Of course the point 1 is what makes it much more interesting. Also Countries like Greece, Yugoslavia.
Expansions like Spain and Turkey.
Another expansion to the War in East Africa.

But the future doesn't look promising that a game like that will appear. It starts first in the concepts and since most people don't know about War in the Med. There is nothing.
So we have a game like this that start with least interesting period: Husky invasion and the slug match op the Italian boot without consideration for strategies like what about invading Sardegna/Corse instead of Sicily what if going up trough Greece Yugoslavia to Vienna.




Dili -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (11/7/2014 5:33:25 PM)

This is a Mediterranean calendar:

10 June 1940 War Starts: Countries in War: Italy vs France + UK
25 June France surrenders
September 1940 - Italian invasion of Egypt
28 October Italian invasion of Greece
6 April 1941 German attack against Yugoslavia.
21 May German attack against Crete
8 June British attack against Vichy in Levant
Mid 42 cancelled Sea-Air Invasion of Malta
Mid 42 arrive first USAAFE forces in Egypt.
November 1942 Torch invasion of Vichy North Africa - Axis invade Corse Island and Southern France taking a rich booty in merchant ships.




HMSWarspite -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (11/8/2014 9:17:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar


quote:

ORIGINAL: warshipbuilder

Lonely voice in the wilderness here. I would like to see a 1940-45 strategic-tactical air war game. BTR&ED on steroids so to speak. Also a similar treatment for the naval side of things in the Atlantic. I have always been a dreamer.


...
So we have a game like this that start with least interesting period: Husky invasion and the slug match op the Italian boot without consideration for strategies like what about invading Sardegna/Corse instead of Sicily what if going up trough Greece Yugoslavia to Vienna.




I am interested to find out whether Italy had to be a slug fest. In strategic terms, Italy was a major Ge success. I want to see if fluid and imaginative landings and manoeuver can change that...



Dili -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (11/9/2014 5:34:08 PM)

More Salernos and Anzio's?
Italy has a mountainous interior so you go either to the Adriatic coast roads or Tyrrhenian coast roads otherwise it is Anzio type landings in either coast . Maybe a Market Garden could be pulled of in some places, around Rome for example. But the geography is not like France or Soviet Union for mass armored movements. In Italy the units spread out along the roads. Bottlenecks and traffic problems are much worse.

Then the Vesuvius might also erupt [:)]



mariandavid -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (11/10/2014 2:49:14 PM)

Red Lancer: I am puzzled by the phrase ""In addition only Commando or Ranger Units and Naval Support Groups can be attached to the Amphib HQ to provide support during the invasion."" Not sure about the US but as far as the CW was concerned what was much more important was the endless variety of tanks - ARK,AVRE, DD, Crocodile, Centaur - that landed with or before the infantry. Are these not available for an amphib attack?



RedLancer -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 6 - Amphibious Ops (11/10/2014 4:12:35 PM)

Yes - most of the equipments you mention are available but they have to be in units attached directly to the landing units.

During the invasion although landing units prepare and deploy by being stacked with the Amphib HQs they retain their normal HQs like VII Corps. However if you have attached SUs to VII Corps they won't participate in the landing combat.

It's difficult to explain so ask if you still don't understand what I'm tryng to say.



Dangun -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 7 - Amphibious Ops (11/19/2014 8:48:52 AM)

I am disappointed.

While the scale is smaller than WiTE, WiTW looks more complicated with new turn phases and mechanisms.
No doubt some of the mechanisms will be broken just as they were dor WiTE.

It is as though Gary Grisby discovered the capabilities of a PC and DREW EXACTLY THE WRONG CONCLUSION.
PC games are good because they simplify enabling larger scale simulations. But WiTW seems to exaggerate what was wrong WiTE - drowning the player in too may, overly complex, ahistorical, and frankly boring mechanisms.

I was hoping to buy WiTW, as an improvement over WiTE.
But senseless detail has been added, not removed. Yuck!



sh0nyu -> RE: WitW: The Big Differences from WitE - Part 7 - Amphibious Ops (11/19/2014 11:07:20 AM)

But Dangun: if you just replay WWII THAT would be boring.... WitW gives the player the possibility do plan the operations his way. It is necessary to have all these tables, calculations and "complex (...) mechanisms". Since I already did staff duty within the german armed forces I can say: It IS boring sometimes. But every bit of it has to be done - I think Gary and his staff are working to develop a game mechanism which is as detailed as possible and as "real" as possible.

Ok, perhaps the team should script some of Hitler's most genious military decisions [:D].

I think WitW will be great! The more detailed air operations and amphibious invasions will be highlights of a master piece [8D]

Perhaps I should build a second little shrine for WitW - so I install a WitE shrine in the eastern corner of my home and one for WitW in the western corner....Just kidding, somebody told about losing his wife to this hobby [8|]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.90625