RE: WitE 2 (Full Version)

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



Message

Peltonx -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 2:13:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: smokindave34

I agree - I prefer the way it is handled in WITW regarding the minimum CV. A supply hit seems more appropriate than a VP hit. I had some massive VP hits in WITW because I was 1 CV short of my garrison requirements for a week.


As long as they address the rounding issue.

I did not care for the system.

If the area required 20 cv and you put 20 cv many times it was 19.8 or 19.9 and you think it was ok because you had 20.

The next turn you took a VP hit and you had 20 CV still.

Also because of unit ungrades/swapping ect unit CV could drop and again you were hit for a -20.

If they fix it I would be fine with that system, but the current WitW system would need to be fixed.

Even weather could change CV.

It was a pain in the butt, the current system require less thinking and hoping and praying.





Peltonx -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 2:19:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Northern Star


What happens with the Baltic rail lines?




AGN was really not an issue for German. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were standard line before Russia annexed them and had not
converted most of the line over at the time of invasion.So they had engines,rolling stock and usable rail lines in place before the invasion even started.
Also Germans were able to supplement the rail transportation network
with sea-borne transportation and to a lesser degree, vehicular transportation modes as a result of the excellent maritime and
road networks in existence in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Thus, fewer rail units would be needed in the north. As far as during
the winter of 41/42 went the Germans were able to finish most of their gauge conversion efforts to such a degree that it was still
possible to send supplies from Germany all the way to the Leningrad front on one track system. During these harsh winter months, the
German conversion and supply shipment efforts could not have been as successful as they were had it not been for the willing
assistance of former Estonian and Latvian railway personnel. They provided the Germans with invaluable service and technical
expertise; doing so primarily because they were just liberated from the holocaust of the first Soviet occupation and did not
wish to see the Soviets return any time soon.

Supplies and good roads were never and issue for AGN until they were at Leningrads door step.

4th PG took Porkhov on July 11th and the 1st supply train arrived July 18th. That's 40 hexes in in 4 game turns.

The current WitE model 1.0 that is 8 turns 40/5=8

Is WitE 2.0 going to model this more historically?

Also will the good road net works of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania be "good" unlike most of the Russian road systems.

The Donets is another area that had "good" roads compaired to the rest of Mother Russia.



RedLancer -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 6:57:08 AM)

Garrisons and Partisans - These have not been coded yet. It is likely it will be similar to WitW as an abstracted system but remember the WitW system catered for the need to maintain historic garrisons and not just partisan suppression. To help (if needed) we now have regions coded in the map data. Sensible thoughts appreciated but as always no promises.

Rail - the rules are different as we now have double rail lines. We also have the underlying road system too. One of the new systems is that not all captured rail hexes need repair. This element of uncertainty prevents too much templating of opening moves. This is one area we are actively looking at currently as at the moment we feel auto repair is too generous but that is testing for you.



Commanderski -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 12:25:06 PM)

Has the weather been modeled in yet and will it be similar to how it acts in WITW?



loki100 -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 1:00:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commanderski

Has the weather been modeled in yet and will it be similar to how it acts in WITW?


yes, it seems less variable than in WiTW but the effects are similar (in this respect it feels like a half-way house between playing WiTE with fixed weather and the more variable weather I feel you get in WiTW).

Notable that you get turns of rain with reduced combat/movement capacity but this does not reflect the binary mud/no mud of WiTE. Also the first turn with the autumn rains allows quite a lot of combat as it models how wet the sky is separate to how wet the ground is.

So if you get a turn with rain on dry ground, seem to lose about 20% of cv/mp compared to dry. But if you get a second week of rain (or heavy rain) then the impact is more substantial.



Peltonx -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 1:20:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Garrisons and Partisans - These have not been coded yet.
It is likely it will be similar to WitW as an abstracted system but remember the
WitW system catered for the need to maintain historic garrisons and not just partisan suppression.
To help (if needed) we now have regions coded in the map data. Sensible thoughts appreciated but as always no promises.

Rail - the rules are different as we now have double rail lines.
We also have the underlying road system too. One of the new systems is that not all captured rail hexes need repair.
This element of uncertainty prevents too much templating of opening moves. This is one area we are actively looking at
currently as at the moment we feel auto repair is too generous but that is testing for you.


The WitW system would work with a few tweaks.

Doing some research,

Niemen river to Leningrad (double track)

•Bug river to Orsha to Moscow (double track)

•Bug river to Kremenchug to the Donets basin (double track)

•San river to Odessa (double track)

The four above named trunk-lines were intersected by only six major north-south running trunk lines:


•Koeningsberg to Kremenchug (double track)

•Riga to Orsha to Kharkov to the Donets basin (double track)

•Odessa to Orsha to Leningrad (double track)

•Sevastopol to Kharkov to Moscow to Archanglesk (double track)

•Leningrad to Moscow to the Donets to the Caucasus (double track)

•Leningrad to Moscow to the Caucasus (double track)

Converting DT was not any slower then single track as Germans per war plans put extra importance on this lines.

Looking up historical track rates, but they range from 10 to 12 miles per day which were much faster in Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania area as most of the track was standard which is why supplys from Germany were at the front in just 27 days 400 miles from start line.
+ the Europian port/road systems.

Seeing logistics is everything with WitW I like to see WitE 2.0 be as historical as possible logisticly.

AGC:Looks like the only area that was bad logisticly in Russia was the center as there were few good rail lines (not built on sand)
causing bottle necks.

AGN: The north was never an issue as per good port/road system and not much rail conversion required/ rolling stock/engines and personal.

AGS: short distance from Romanian / good roads in Donets / ports.

Still tring to find article I had sent to MT a few months back, thought I sent it to 2by3 also. Was very good gave all the +/- and historical conversion rates.






morvael -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 2:19:17 PM)

I think AGS has hard time logistically, very poor rail system through Romania, so you need to follow the line from Lvov.



Peltonx -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 2:36:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think AGS has hard time logistically, very poor rail system through Romania,
so you need to follow the line from Lvov.


I am still digging in this area, but I see nothing that says the Romanian system was "poor" compaired to Russian
system. It was better over all then Russia's

Russian system was still WW 1 ish other then near Leningrad, Moscow and Baltic States ( paved roads also ) and Donets area. Roads in the south were better then north/center basicly because they were earyer to maintain because of weather.

Still digging on Romanian system and supply issues, hard to see why there were any as front lines were close to border for months because of hard Russian fighting. Logistics was not a big deal until after Kiev pocket fell and the dash for Rostov started.



821Bobo -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 2:56:35 PM)

The RR system in Romania could have been overall better than in Soviet union but did they have any west-east double track? Also I really doubt that they had any double track crossing Carpathian mountains and every transport from Germany have to cross Carpaths. Going via Lvov is more logical.



morvael -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 3:47:59 PM)

Guess Lvov was easily connected to Germany via multiple lines built in occupied Poland (it turned out the Germans built too much). I guess routing via allied but independent countries was much less efficient, especially that Hungary and Romania were hostile to each other. Remember, those goods had to come from Germany proper, and shortest and highest capacity route was straight east.



RedLancer -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 5:07:09 PM)

I'd be interested in any details on rail conversion rates. In game there must be a differential between the cost of double and single repair with a unit of the same strength but what that will finally be is still up for debate. Goranw is our resident map expert and we think we have captured all the double rails but any info anyone has can be compared to our sources.

Road values are interesting. The road quality for the hex accounts for both the amount of roads in the hex and the resistance of the roads to weather. A major highway or autobahn alone is probably enough to bump a hex to good, but so could lots of decent paved roads that are running through the hex. At the end of the day it's a judgement call I've had to make based on the info I can find.

The bottom line on the map is that with the new tile based system we can keep amending the map almost to the finish and also after release.



MechFO -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 5:57:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I'd be interested in any details on rail conversion rates. In game there must be a differential between the cost of double and single repair with a unit of the same strength but what that will finally be is still up for debate. Goranw is our resident map expert and we think we have captured all the double rails but any info anyone has can be compared to our sources.



http://www.allworldwars.com/Comments-on-Russian-Roads-and-Higways-by-Max-Bork.html



RedLancer -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 6:10:50 PM)

Thanks - this is exactly the sort of thing I've been looking for.



Peltonx -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 7:01:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 821Bobo

The RR system in Romania could have been overall better than in Soviet union but did they have any west-east double track? Also I really doubt that they had any double track crossing Carpathian mountains and every transport from Germany have to cross Carpaths. Going via Lvov is more logical.


I think the myth of Romania having a poor railway system is something that started here.

Romania had allot of 2x track and modern rolling stock and engines.

Remember they were the 7th largest producer of oil in the world in 1941 with almost all if it rolling into Europe.

2x answered

This event was significant for Romanian railways because it meant that the large Arad rolling stock and steel factory, previously located on Austro-Hungarian territory, was now part of Romania, and was consequently used to produce a wide range of rolling stock and locomotives for CFR.

During this time, various railways were "doubled"— that is, double tracks were introduced on routes to permit a greater flow of traffic. The first line to be doubled was the Bucharest–Ploiești–Câmpina line, where doubling was completed in 1912. In the period between the wars, various other lines were doubled, including:
Constanța–Cernavodă (1931)
Adjud–Tecuci (1933)
Teiuş–Apahida (1940)
Câmpina–Brașov (1941)
Buzău–Mărășești (1942)

They were tied to the European railnet work long before 1940



Peltonx -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 7:08:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Thanks - this is exactly the sort of thing I've been looking for.


I personally like to go back to the 2011 WitE forums and see what people were talking about back then-so the data's been around for a long time.

http://www.matrixgames.com/FORUMS/printable.asp?m=2937444&mpage=1

Then if you take the time to read the furoms you find this link

http://allworldwars.com/Comments-on-Russian-Roads-and-Higways-by-Max-Bork.html

This was a study done by USA which is one of the links I have been using.

Baltic state had paved roads most rail lines were standard, and the engines/rolling stock and personal were more then happy to help.

Its historical fact 400 miles of rail was connected to the front in just 27 days.

and

Romania's rail network was modern and tied to Europe with 2x rail lines using modern engines and rolling stock.





821Bobo -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 7:43:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I think the myth of Romania having a poor railway system is something that started here.

Romania had allot of 2x track and modern rolling stock and engines.

Remember they were the 7th largest producer of oil in the world in 1941 with almost all if it rolling into Europe.

2x answered

This event was significant for Romanian railways because it meant that the large Arad rolling stock and steel factory, previously located on Austro-Hungarian territory, was now part of Romania, and was consequently used to produce a wide range of rolling stock and locomotives for CFR.

During this time, various railways were "doubled"— that is, double tracks were introduced on routes to permit a greater flow of traffic. The first line to be doubled was the Bucharest–Ploiești–Câmpina line, where doubling was completed in 1912. In the period between the wars, various other lines were doubled, including:
Constanța–Cernavodă (1931)
Adjud–Tecuci (1933)
Teiuş–Apahida (1940)
Câmpina–Brașov (1941)
Buzău–Mărășești (1942)

They were tied to the European railnet work long before 1940



The only relevant from this list is Câmpina–Brașov because thats the one crossing Carpathian mountains. However Arad - Sibiu - Brasov was still single track. I am not saying Romania was backward country but there has not been any double track from west to east.



RedLancer -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 8:07:18 PM)

I've made a couple of changes but most of Romania was already accurate.

[image]local://upfiles/18789/E55A6F80CD38422481CECAEC527171FE.jpg[/image]



morvael -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 8:47:24 PM)

I think that
-Bessarabia would be the weakest link in the chain
-Ploesti nexus would be overloaded, guess it was used to ship oil to Germany and that was its major task
-No good rail from Brasov north
-Coordinating shipments via Hungary/Slovakia and Romania would be really difficult (three separate rail organizations)
-The length of that route would tie up many more trains
-Already supplying two Romanian and one German army means there is not much capacity of a single double rail line to spare (one double per army is ideal)



Peltonx -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 10:18:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think that
-Bessarabia would be the weakest link in the chain


-Ploesti nexus would be overloaded, guess it was used to ship oil to Germany and that was its major task

-No good rail from Brasov north

-Coordinating shipments via Hungary/Slovakia and Romania would be really difficult (three separate rail organizations)
-The length of that route would tie up many more trains
-Already supplying two Romanian and one German army means there is not much capacity of a single double rail line to spare (one double per army is ideal)



I agree with your points over all, just making the point that Romanian rail system was not useless or worse then Russia's.

If you read up on the who controlled the rail systems, Germany did.
But your point is a good one, but not and end all.

Germany was not stupid in the study I sent to MT it was clear that
Germany knew before invading they had HUGE issues they faced logisticly in the center.

AGN was never and issue and historically it never was logisticly. Ports/raods/not many lines to convert/rolling stock/engines/standard support system and willing workers.

AGS had a big advantage over AGC-ports, still a bitch but not as hopeless as AGC.

AGC was the bitch which is why 41/42 winter was a hit for AGC and not the other 2 AG's

Each area is its own logistical problem, to make all 3 the same is not historical.












Peltonx -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 10:20:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I've made a couple of changes but most of Romania was already accurate.

[image]local://upfiles/18789/E55A6F80CD38422481CECAEC527171FE.jpg[/image]


+1 good job [sm=character0272.gif]



Michael T -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 10:42:05 PM)

I do like the look of that map. And I totally agree that rail conversion rates in WITE 1.0 are way below historical rates. There is a lot of myth surrounding Germany's supposed lack of rail smarts. Do people really think the most professional army in the world had no plan to supply itself properly? Sure they had logistical problems, like all did. But some around here think the Germans were totally incompetent at logistics. It's good that this aspect is being looked at objectively.




Icier -> RE: WitE 2 (7/4/2016 11:23:57 PM)

check out this post by the German railways... its what I would call a definitively description
of the German/Russian rail system.

Deutsche Reichsbahn - The German State Railway in WWII
www.feldgrau.com/dreichsbahn.html



Flaviusx -> RE: WitE 2 (7/5/2016 1:40:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I do like the look of that map. And I totally agree that rail conversion rates in WITE 1.0 are way below historical rates. There is a lot of myth surrounding Germany's supposed lack of rail smarts. Do people really think the most professional army in the world had no plan to supply itself properly? Sure they had logistical problems, like all did. But some around here think the Germans were totally incompetent at logistics. It's good that this aspect is being looked at objectively.




Yes, actually. Their handling of logistics was abysmal and they never got those rail lines to deliver anything like their theoretical capacity. There's a lot more going on here than just track conversion.

I strongly recommend you read anything by David Stehel, since I know you refuse to read Glantz. He lays it all out in detail. And it's not a happy story.

Basically you need to get up to speed with the state of the art in military history. It has progressed from your essentially Cold War era views of the conflict. Which are getting more and more dated.



Michael T -> RE: WitE 2 (7/5/2016 2:11:00 AM)

I don't agree with your new age take at all. The fact is this. After 100 or so books are written on any subject, a new writer needs to conjure up something new to sell books. It's been happening for a while now. Not just on the Eastern war but also other fronts, notably the Pacific.

quote:

Basically you need to get up to speed with the state of the art in military history


Maybe you need to adopt a more impartial view of things and not be so accepting of writers who need to come up with something new just make a buck?




darbycmcd -> RE: WitE 2 (7/5/2016 5:24:44 AM)

MT, it is interesting that you are so opposed to Glantz, who was considered one of the best current academic writers of East Front operations right now. I admit though it has been a while since I was following the field. Can you point out a couple errors he makes, either in fact or in analysis, that you used to come to your position? What specific things makes you think he is wrong, other than he has a 'bias', which of course is true in the sense that he is approaching a topic from a particular perspective, every researcher does that.
Also, given that we live in a time when many people believe in chemtrails and we have anti-vaxxers, the argument that 'lots of people think so' just isn't very compelling.



Michael T -> RE: WitE 2 (7/5/2016 5:39:45 AM)

Considered best by who I would ask. Other than his publishers and Red fanbois?

I read one of his books a few years back. IMO it was biased. I am not about to go back and mark out it's failings. I have better things to do.

On the other hand, a book recommended by Flavio, written by Erickson, I found to be very good, and impartial even though it was written from the Soviet perspective.



Flaviusx -> RE: WitE 2 (7/5/2016 5:57:18 AM)

Erickson is very good but somewhat dated at this point. Still, surprising how much of his work stands the test of time. He had to work without access to the kind of records that only became available post Cold War.

Glantz and Stahel are not in it "to make a buck." They're both pretty severely academic historians writing on what is now a fairly esoteric topic. (so was Erickson, for that matter.) Nobody is making big bucks writing the kind of deep operational histories they are writing. It's very niche stuff. Glantz in particular doesn't even have a very good writing style. (Stahel is the more readable.)

I just don't see how you can simply ignore this recent scholarship.

Stahel writes from the German POV, btw. But without illusions. He is indeed far harder on the Germans than Glantz ever was.

So far as German logistics go, it really comes down to this: they were not planning on a long war. The idea was to beat the Red Army entirely west of the Dnepr and then mop things up. They did pretty amazing considering, but in the end material factors were decisive.



Michael T -> RE: WitE 2 (7/5/2016 6:13:30 AM)

I agree they planned for a short war. But they did plan to capture Moscow, Leningrad, Rostov and beyond. So why would anyone think they did not plan to send and supply their armies that far east?

Anyway I digress. I don't rate Glantz. I prefer other authors. Simple as that. I form my views based on a wide range of books. Not just one author. I will leave it at that.



RedLancer -> RE: WitE 2 (7/5/2016 7:21:03 AM)

I've already translated the data on Baltic rail conversion into game metrics and shared with Joel. We are already pretty close in with what we are seeing with the new rail conversion rules.

Reading this excellent discussion two things come to the fore.

Firstly I need data for the non Baltic area so if any one has that info please share and we can check that against the system.

Secondly please remember that with the new logistic rules rail conversion is only half the problem. You also need to create depots. Depots built on locations with larger railyards are much more capable. It's not rail capacity that is the limiting factor it's depot capacity. This is where the new system can be made to be much more historical as the end points of the rails are not equal. Excessive rail usage (i.e congestion) means that freight delivery costs more and therefore you get less but a Depot is still limited by its maximum capacity. Testers are learning to capture key railyards and not just convert the rails closest to the major targets like Moscow and Leningrad. For the Soviets holding these locations for an extra turn is well worth it.



Flaviusx -> RE: WitE 2 (7/5/2016 8:42:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I agree they planned for a short war. But they did plan to capture Moscow, Leningrad, Rostov and beyond. So why would anyone think they did not plan to send and supply their armies that far east?

Anyway I digress. I don't rate Glantz. I prefer other authors. Simple as that. I form my views based on a wide range of books. Not just one author. I will leave it at that.


As I said: the plan was to beat the Red Army west of the Dnepr and then mop up.

They didn't anticipate the ability of the Soviet Union to mobilize tens of millions of people and hundreds of divisions. They figured on knocking out a couple hundred divisions and taking a victory lap. (That was the numbers they estimated they had to beat before the war.) The war would effectively be over in a few weeks.

So there wouldn't be any need to supply heavy combat to take these objectives. This is even mentioned in Halder's diary. The front was supposed to broken well before they reached places like Leningrad or Moscow.

The plan rested on the shakiest of assumptions.



Page: <<   < prev  28 29 [30] 31 32   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7382813