Realism of mud, blizzard and supply features (Full Version)

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



Message

Dunkelheit87 -> Realism of mud, blizzard and supply features (12/13/2016 10:48:52 AM)

Sorry for triviality, but I want (once again) raise the topic about realism of the famous features of WITE - mud, blizzard and supply. Three simple historical considerations may lead one to believe that they are made rather to balance gameplay:

1. The real Army Group Center during the "mud turns" actually advanced to 100-150 km eastwards across the whole front. Why is it not possible in the game?

2. The failure of the Operation Typhoon is connected not simply with "General Frost", but with fanaticism of offensive orders. Why then Red Army can inflict significant defeats the Axis during the blizzard turns all over the front even if they adapted a "dig-in" strategy?

3. The real Panzergruppe Guderian accomplished a strategic manoeuvre from Smolensk to Kiev and then back to Orel and Tula, partially in mud and snow. It can be said that it was made owing to AGC supply problems which obstructed the Moscow offensive, but actually and in the game this require a big amount of supplies. Why is such manoeuvre not possible in the game?

All these considerations can left the impression that the real Red Army was doomed to defeat if the Axis has adopted a "dig-in" strategy in 1941 and this is not (always) so only in the game. Correct me if neccessary.



Lobster -> RE: Realism of mud, blizzard and supply features (12/13/2016 12:42:10 PM)

You are correct. It is about game balance and playability. History was thrown out the window.



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Realism of mud, blizzard and supply features (12/13/2016 1:09:50 PM)

WITE has binary mechanics in many areas. According to morveal this was intended because the developers had boardgames in mind. I dont understand where the fascination for boardgame mechanics comes from but they still developed an absolutely outstanding game.
1) Agree. Mud is OP. It models Rasputitsa very well, but there were also times with "a little bit rasputitsa" and " a little bit clear weather" and in the game its either clear or full mud.
2) Agree too. Lets assume Barbarossa goes the same way like in history until mid november. Germany decides to abort Typhoon and to stockpile supplies and build fall back lines. Than the Soviets can counterattack, but only with limited gains and the Germans do not suffer the huge retreat losses and losses to overused transport, resulting in a stronger 1942 attack.
3) Because it is not possible to prioritize supplies, so you cannot starve the rest of the front (expecially infantry) to deliver fuel to the panzers.

Without mechanics to force the game into a certain direction smart Soviet players will not lose many men in pockets. The smart German player answers with a hindsight-winter strategy, keeping his army intact. In 1942 Germans might be able to win a little bit ground, but finally they stop because the loss ratio does favour the Soviets.
1942-late 1945 the front slowly moves west. The Germans keep a straight fortified frontline (like in Peltons AARs), the Soviets advance with enormous losses, but can't exploit any breakthroughs due to German mobile reserves kept intact by the smart German player.
In history both sides played not optimized, but players will do. So without artificial mechanics the game becomes boring.

Regarding 2)
In the WITE 2 thread Red Lancer wrote, that the blizzard weakness of Germany will not be hardcoded, but be a result of transport shortages which limit the amount of supplies and reinforcements coming to the front, bleeding the spearheads out until they are ripe for a counterattack.



morvael -> RE: Realism of mud, blizzard and supply features (12/13/2016 1:13:48 PM)

And in WitE2 it will be possible to prioritize certain formations over others on a regular basis (supply priority instead of manual HQ build up).



Dunkelheit87 -> RE: Realism of mud, blizzard and supply features (12/13/2016 2:02:45 PM)

quote:

So without artificial mechanics the game becomes boring.

I naively thought that if realism and hardcore are different things and if wargames are simulators they must be "boring".



RedLancer -> RE: Realism of mud, blizzard and supply features (12/13/2016 7:20:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

In the WITE 2 thread Red Lancer wrote, that the blizzard weakness of Germany will not be hardcoded, but be a result of transport shortages which limit the amount of supplies and reinforcements coming to the front, bleeding the spearheads out until they are ripe for a counterattack.


I'm not sure what I wrote but it would have been something like the current position. The final set up has not yet been decided and only some rules have been coded. The current rules do effect supply but there is already a frostbite rule to add additional damage. A morale loss is not yet hardcoded.



TheOne -> RE: Realism of mud, blizzard and supply features (12/14/2016 9:05:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

And in WitE2 it will be possible to prioritize certain formations over others on a regular basis
(supply priority instead of manual HQ build up).


If this is like WitW then it would be much more historical then 1.0

From what I have heard and from reading WitW AAR's attacking is possible, but limited where as WitE 1.0 it simply is not.



Dunkelheit87 -> RE: Realism of mud, blizzard and supply features (3/30/2021 9:53:09 PM)

Hi. I have a simple question. Were the issues raised 4.5 years ago in this thread somehow addressed and improved in the newly released WitE2?



loki100 -> RE: Realism of mud, blizzard and supply features (3/31/2021 11:35:36 AM)

maybe better to ask/read in the WiTE2 forum - there is a lot of information in the form of complete game AARs, partial AARs, posts on major features as well as answers to specific questions



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.15625