RE: WitE 2

RE: WitE 2 (Full Version)

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

Message

loki100 -> RE: WitE 2 (3/7/2016 7:31:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton quote: ORIGINAL: sillyflower Sigup: It may just be a matter of personal taste but my views are as they are and they are not unique to me. I agree about the WiTE logistics system and the need to improve, but I do not want to spend my gaming time faffing with supply dumps. I want to eat my cake without having to cook it first. Speaking of exploits Silly check this out, not going to take long to get to Berlin when Infantry divisions have 47 MP's or Moscow for that matter. ... It may start that scenario fully motorised. Remember that in WiTW you have the choice to allow a unit to retain its trucks or just use it for one turn. However, its a double edged sword. Once you start to outrun your supply those trucks will make that unit a liability and you may find you need to send it back to the rear for a few turns to rebuild its fuel stocks. So its not always a good idea to do this. In respect of the wider discussion above, I'll freely admit I like WiTW and its air/supply systems. I've developed a routine around the supply part (with the Allies). Start of turn, check if I can create any new depots (town on a repaired rail line not in a ZoC) ... use the supply mode filter and counters not shown. Every now and then think about downgrading some of the ones I built to the rear or scrapping them altogether. This matters more with the allies where you have the problem of supply via ports as opposed to what will be the norm in WiTE2. For the airgame, you can get incredibly fixated with the options. Not just playing around with loadouts but giving different plane types to different directives and altitudes etc. I read something from Helpless suggesting using the FW-190s at 1000 feet to hit airbases - apparently their high mobility makes this a valid tactic. But for the most part its pretty sensible, keep your fighter bombers and level bombers in different air groups, think about what you want to hit and so on. I tend to re-use directives once they are set up, and every now and then do a massive rethink. Not saying that those who don't like this are wrong, but its worth sticking with as once you get some basic ideas clear (both supply and the air game), its not that time demanding - I actually spend less time on the CR in WiTW than I do in WiTE

Peltonx -> RE: WitE 2 (3/7/2016 8:15:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton quote: ORIGINAL: sillyflower Sigup: It may just be a matter of personal taste but my views are as they are and they are not unique to me. I agree about the WiTE logistics system and the need to improve, but I do not want to spend my gaming time faffing with supply dumps. I want to eat my cake without having to cook it first. Speaking of exploits Silly check this out, not going to take long to get to Berlin when Infantry divisions have 47 MP's or Moscow for that matter. ... It may start that scenario fully motorised. Remember that in WiTW you have the choice to allow a unit to retain its trucks or just use it for one turn. However, its a double edged sword. Once you start to outrun your supply those trucks will make that unit a liability and you may find you need to send it back to the rear for a few turns to rebuild its fuel stocks. So its not always a good idea to do this. In respect of the wider discussion above, I'll freely admit I like WiTW and its air/supply systems. I've developed a routine around the supply part (with the Allies). Start of turn, check if I can create any new depots (town on a repaired rail line not in a ZoC) ... use the supply mode filter and counters not shown. Every now and then think about downgrading some of the ones I built to the rear or scrapping them altogether. This matters more with the allies where you have the problem of supply via ports as opposed to what will be the norm in WiTE2. For the airgame, you can get incredibly fixated with the options. Not just playing around with loadouts but giving different plane types to different directives and altitudes etc. I read something from Helpless suggesting using the FW-190s at 1000 feet to hit airbases - apparently their high mobility makes this a valid tactic. But for the most part its pretty sensible, keep your fighter bombers and level bombers in different air groups, think about what you want to hit and so on. I tend to re-use directives once they are set up, and every now and then do a massive rethink. Not saying that those who don't like this are wrong, but its worth sticking with as once you get some basic ideas clear (both supply and the air game), its not that time demanding - I actually spend less time on the CR in WiTW than I do in WiTE It doesn't and I thought motorized units could not attack as I attacked with it turn 1? It does have allot more options, but once you get a handle on them you can flip turns quickly. I think it will not take much longer to do 2.0 turns then 1.0 ONCE you get things set-up to your liking. The problem will be finding the right set-up. I be playing the AI for 4-6 months before playing a human. So your looking at probably 3x as long turns 1-2 but after that should be close to what we put into 1.0. I spend 90% of your time on logistics system as that effects everything WAY more then 1.0. Its day and night if you don't keep troops supplied-which is historical. Defending is way easyer then attacking at all levels so far for me. WitW has way more options in the air and on the ground and the same holds true for the logistics system.

RedLancer -> RE: WitE 2 (3/7/2016 8:31:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton Systems work the same RedLancer or is WitW logistics system completely different then 2.0? The essentials of rails, depots and trucks remain the same but the calculations will be different and in some areas have changed already.

RedLancer -> RE: WitE 2 (3/7/2016 8:47:32 PM)
On the discussion of motorising units - remember in WitW there are 4 levels of motorization. 0 - NOT MOTORIZED - No additional trucks. 1 - MOTORIZED - Trucks as standard. 2 - MOTORIZED (Temp 1 Turn). Unit has additional trucks but will hand them back to the pool after 1 turn. 3 - MOTORIZED (Temp Multiple Turns). Unit has additional trucks and will retain the trucks until de-motorized by a player. The precise impact of the motorization state that results is dependent on the TOE of the unit. These are: None - No motorization is possible. Supply Only - The supply elements can be motorized e.g. German Inf Div Non Infantry - All the non Infantry elements can be motorized e.g. British Infantry Division All - Fully motorized e.g. Panzer Division Rail - Can be moved by rail. For example a German Inf Div will only receive additional trucks for supply whilst a British Infantry Div can become Truck mounted. The level of Motorization will affect the supply numbers. So don't think you can motorize German Inf Divs to make them Motorized Inf Divs - you can't. The functionality was added to allow Allied Motorization to be replicated.

RedLancer -> RE: WitE 2 (3/7/2016 9:17:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sillyflower Sigup: It may just be a matter of personal taste but my views are as they are and they are not unique to me. I agree about the WiTE logistics system and the need to improve, but I do not want to spend my gaming time faffing with supply dumps. I want to eat my cake without having to cook it first. As Gary has to teach the AI to use depots, I can ask whether if it is possible to code a function to get the system to place depots for you (button push) but you'd probably need to still run your own rail repair.

Peltonx -> RE: WitE 2 (3/7/2016 10:00:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Red Lancer quote: ORIGINAL: sillyflower Sigup: It may just be a matter of personal taste but my views are as they are and they are not unique to me. I agree about the WiTE logistics system and the need to improve, but I do not want to spend my gaming time faffing with supply dumps. I want to eat my cake without having to cook it first. As Gary has to teach the AI to use depots, I can ask whether if it is possible to code a function to get the system to place depots for you (button push) but you'd probably need to still run your own rail repair. basicly work like 1.0 we have a few units to move ourselfs and the rest are basicly AI from the HQ's?

Michael T -> RE: WitE 2 (3/7/2016 10:22:42 PM)
quote: If you want WEGO, and assuming you are not already very rich, then my advice is to win the lottery and pay morvael to develop a game from scratch. That is my plan - unfortunately despite my best efforts I never seem to buy quite the right ticket. That is a team I would readily join.

uw06670 -> RE: WitE 2 (3/7/2016 10:26:00 PM)
Just to throw my two cents in. I'm more in Silly's camp that others. Adding to the ability to micromanage things is nice for those that wish it (assuming its balanced/not exploitable) but I would also prefer to see these types of things be an option that you can turn off or on. Red Lancer mentioned having an semi-automated way of placing depots, which seems like the right direction IMO. Not sure where 2.0 will land in terms of production/assignment of ground units. I've heard some want to be able to control these things to the point of say building Pz IV F2 in 1941 (just to point out a German fantasy). As fun as that could be, I think allowing this level of change would be difficult to balance. The Soviets already have good tanks in 41. What do you give them to counter? Improve their command and control/organization? Increase the number of T-34 and KV factories pre-war? In the "what if" world of things, instead of selecting which TDs get built when at what factory, I think a more abstract but still impactful and fun concept would be to allow emphasis to be placed on one of several options at war's outset. The old DOS game Clash of Steel (still one of my favorites) had a similar concept, but might have been overpowered. For example Germany might have these options: 1) Heavy Tanks (earlier/more Tiger's) 2) Luftwaffe (higher output of aircraft, a "Ural" bomber, etc.) 3) Assault Guns (have the Panzer snobs embrace the cheap little TDs) 4) Motorized Army (horses are for farms) 5) Historic Each would have an impact on some other facet of production (except Historic). Also could reduce Admin point accumulation. I think those types of options (and Soviet similar) make for interesting changes allowing different strategies and might be easier to balance than allowing AFV micromanagement.

Peltonx -> RE: WitE 2 (3/8/2016 2:40:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Michael T quote: If you want WEGO, and assuming you are not already very rich, then my advice is to win the lottery and pay morvael to develop a game from scratch. That is my plan - unfortunately despite my best efforts I never seem to buy quite the right ticket. That is a team I would readily join. morveal a genius yet humble unlike others that are close minded and full of themselves.

Peltonx -> 75th anniversary of Barbarossa (3/8/2016 4:01:33 AM)
Hmm June 22nd 1941 June 22nd 2016 75th You guys going to make that?

loki100 -> RE: WitE 2 (3/8/2016 8:14:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: uw06670 Just to throw my two cents in. I'm more in Silly's camp that others. Adding to the ability to micromanage things is nice for those that wish it (assuming its balanced/not exploitable) but I would also prefer to see these types of things be an option that you can turn off or on. Red Lancer mentioned having an semi-automated way of placing depots, which seems like the right direction IMO. Not sure where 2.0 will land in terms of production/assignment of ground units. I've heard some want to be able to control these things to the point of say building Pz IV F2 in 1941 (just to point out a German fantasy). As fun as that could be, I think allowing this level of change would be difficult to balance. The Soviets already have good tanks in 41. What do you give them to counter? Improve their command and control/organization? Increase the number of T-34 and KV factories pre-war? In the "what if" world of things, instead of selecting which TDs get built when at what factory, I think a more abstract but still impactful and fun concept would be to allow emphasis to be placed on one of several options at war's outset. The old DOS game Clash of Steel (still one of my favorites) had a similar concept, but might have been overpowered. For example Germany might have these options: 1) Heavy Tanks (earlier/more Tiger's) 2) Luftwaffe (higher output of aircraft, a "Ural" bomber, etc.) 3) Assault Guns (have the Panzer snobs embrace the cheap little TDs) 4) Motorized Army (horses are for farms) 5) Historic Each would have an impact on some other facet of production (except Historic). Also could reduce Admin point accumulation. I think those types of options (and Soviet similar) make for interesting changes allowing different strategies and might be easier to balance than allowing AFV micromanagement. You could create this in a scenario, but it reads like a German fantasy scenario to me. In WiTW there is one scenario (4th Supreme Command?) that assumes most of the Axis units escaped from N Africa and far better streamlining of the production system. It produces a great game for the Allies vs AI, it is horribly unbalanced if you play the Axis vs AI or in PBEM. But its based on a pretty realistic set of assumptions. As to #4, and where is the fuel (and indeed the trucks) going to come from? There was a very good reason why the Germans relied so heavily on horses (as did everyone else apart from the Anglo-American armies).

Mehring -> RE: WitE 2 (3/8/2016 9:42:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton morveal a genius yet humble unlike others that are close minded and full of themselves. I misunderestimated your self-awareness, Pelton.

morvael -> RE: WitE 2 (3/8/2016 10:00:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton yet humble You're not helping my humbleness [:D]

sillyflower -> RE: WitE 2 (3/8/2016 10:44:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Red Lancer quote: ORIGINAL: sillyflower Sigup: It may just be a matter of personal taste but my views are as they are and they are not unique to me. I agree about the WiTE logistics system and the need to improve, but I do not want to spend my gaming time faffing with supply dumps. I want to eat my cake without having to cook it first. As Gary has to teach the AI to use depots, I can ask whether if it is possible to code a function to get the system to place depots for you (button push) but you'd probably need to still run your own rail repair. Many thanks RL. RR repair system at the moment seems to be an excellent balance between player/AI control, and I don't recall anyone else on the forum suggesting improvements. 1 advantage of the current supply system is that there has been 5 (?) years of bug and exploit hunting. Keeping something similar to the current system and focussing relentlessly on remaining exploits seems to me both efficient ito design time and more likely to succeed in being harder to break than a new(ish) system. 5 years of WiTE 2 living with supply exploits is a slightly depressing thought.

SigUp -> RE: WitE 2 (3/8/2016 11:23:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sillyflower 1 advantage of the current supply system is that there has been 5 (?) years of bug and exploit hunting. Keeping something similar to the current system and focussing relentlessly on remaining exploits seems to me both efficient ito design time and more likely to succeed in being harder to break than a new(ish) system. 5 years of WiTE 2 living with supply exploits is a slightly depressing thought. They are building upon the system of WitW so there is already a certain experience available in regard to possible explots. And building upon that system is a good thing. The WitE supply system is broken beyond repair with its failure to account for capacity. I always get headaches seeing those ball-tactics where like 40% of the Wehrmacht is in perfect supply using a single rail line.

LiquidSky -> RE: WitE 2 (3/8/2016 11:25:37 AM)
The new supply system is not going to be a very complicated thing. It wont require a lot of micromanagement. You can only build a depot (which costs 1 admin point in WiTW) in a named location on a functioning rail line. You are already advancing your railheads manually by moving a counter. This is far more micromanagement then building depots. Since you are already focused on your rail lines. When it reaches a town, you can build a depot on it (turn after it is converted). This will occur, at most once for every RR engineer you are pushing forward. But odds are you will build these depots in larger centers like Minsk, Smolensk...Kiev. Because the size of the depot is related to the size of the rail yard. A rail line can only push so much freight down it. Freight is Supply/Fuel/Trucks/Replacements.....the whole enchilada. And if you use that line to rail units....that will subtract from the amount of freight that will move along it. Units will be supplied by depots. It costs truck movement points from the depot to get to the hex adjacent to the unit. So at the most, you can supply a unit 50 hexes away from you depot....at an increasing amount of trucks (including wear on said trucks, and fuel used by those trucks) There are some ways of controlling this flow using supply priority at the HQ/Unit level, and you can do the same at the Depot level, although I doubt that will be a problem. The rail lines themselves should be the bottleneck. Note: this is all from War in the West, and they may have changed things for the Eastern War. There are no HQ buildups in War in the West. Supply is easy to track and watch and at its simplest level requires you to only build a depot in a town every few turns in the beginning of the game down a rail line. The amount of trucks is something to keep an eye on, and will require some thought as to balance between freight movement and motorizing land units. Compared to the problems of invading a continent....repairing ports, building new depots and pushing through France...Russia will be a breeze for logistics.

uw06670 -> RE: WitE 2 (3/8/2016 7:37:59 PM)
quote: As to #4, and where is the fuel (and indeed the trucks) going to come from? There was a very good reason why the Germans relied so heavily on horses (as did everyone else apart from the Anglo-American armies). I was just throwing together a list of examples, not necessarily saying those would be the right ones to put into the game without more thought :-) My intent also was that the Axis could choose just ONE of those options, not each one with an on/off switch. And there would have to be a cost to balance the benefits. Or like the WitW example you gave, perhaps it is predicated on something similar.

821Bobo -> RE: WitE 2 (3/9/2016 1:17:28 PM)
I am curious do you have approximate date when we can expect WitE 2? WitE was released late 2010, WitW late 2014. WitE 2 2018 or definitely earlier?

RedLancer -> RE: WitE 2 (3/9/2016 4:34:52 PM)
We never release information on time or cost. That is Matrix's responsibility as the publisher.

Peltonx -> RE: WitE 2 (3/9/2016 10:10:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 821Bobo I am curious do you have approximate date when we can expect WitE 2? WitE was released late 2010, WitW late 2014. WitE 2 2018 or definitely earlier? 2.0 is closer to WitW, WitW was a total rebuild so I guess less then 4 years. Red has stated there is new stuff, but not a complete rebuild like logistics and air systems we saw with WitW

Rodimstev -> RE: WitE 2 (3/11/2016 7:37:38 AM)
hy all, i have not yet read all post, but for WITE 2.0, it is necessary to change the air model production. For the moment, the system each turn build new squadrons as same you have several squadrons with a few planes. it is not the reality. the first thing for all air army is to send new planes et new pilots in existing squadrons. kinds regards Rodim

RedLancer -> RE: WitE 2 (3/11/2016 9:44:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rodimstev hy all, i have not yet read all post, but for WITE 2.0, it is necessary to change the air model production. For the moment, the system each turn build new squadrons as same you have several squadrons with a few planes. it is not the reality. the first thing for all air army is to send new planes et new pilots in existing squadrons. kinds regards Rodim The whole air system is completely new and developed from WitW.

Peltonx -> RE: WitE 2 (3/12/2016 2:52:27 AM)
Key thing to remember is its all about TRUCKS more so with 2.0 then 1.0 or WitW Just a stupid guess from a moron [8D]

drkarl143 -> RE: WitE 2 (3/12/2016 9:05:48 AM)
Pelton, i have to say something: you are my favourite member of this forum... you are very ironic, maybe even sarcastic, but you are pretty much the only one who knows what hes talking about, wether its WitE/WitW/history, etc. Keep it up man im a big fan of you ;) And man the stuff youve been banned for... im really sorry for you^^ (thats all im gonna say cause i dont wanna be banned too^^)

RedLancer -> RE: WitE 2 (3/12/2016 9:07:42 AM)
I agree that trucks are very important but the number of trucks you need depends on distance to units, depot location, depot capacity, supply priority and rail throughput (which is all the more important now we have double and single rails).

robinsa -> RE: WitE 2 (3/12/2016 3:07:40 PM)
I think it has has said before but I would like to see the players to be able to influence, if not the type of TOE directly, the type of equipment being used in the TOE. For example, if I need more modern equipement in an area of fighting I should be able to divert it there more specifically while letting some other unit use captured equipment for example.

821Bobo -> RE: WitE 2 (3/17/2016 10:52:25 AM)
Will be the mechanics for routed units changed in WitE2? It's not uncommon to see routed units from NW Front in marshes or even ending in the Lvov pocket on T1 for example. That's quite unrealistic. Is there any reason why for routed units should not apply the same retreat rules as for normal retreat? Just bouncing to routed units to the next hex.

RedLancer -> RE: WitE 2 (3/17/2016 9:43:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 821Bobo Will be the mechanics for routed units changed in WitE2? It's not uncommon to see routed units from NW Front in marshes or even ending in the Lvov pocket on T1 for example. That's quite unrealistic. Is there any reason why for routed units should not apply the same retreat rules as for normal retreat? Just bouncing to routed units to the next hex. No changes planned but I'm not seeing super jumps in my testing. Could I ask whether you have any info on Slovakian air and divisional insignia? If there are any I'd like to add them to the game. Thanks.

chaos45 -> RE: WitE 2 (3/18/2016 1:52:24 AM)
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=108&art_id=456 Has a symbol at the top of the page dont know if its the actual divisional symbol or not but the FoW crowd does some solid research at times.

Michael T -> RE: WitE 2 (3/18/2016 2:54:26 AM)
Is the air system going to be dumbed down a bit? I really like the sound of the logistical system. But really so much fiddling with the air (ala WITW) is not ideal. Also what of the combat model?

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.1875