RE: Stepping away... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2



Message

GibsonPete -> RE: Stepping away... (10/29/2021 2:45:51 AM)

Et tu, Brute? MarkShot are you serious. Care to explain.[&:]



panzer51 -> RE: Stepping away... (10/29/2021 2:47:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete

Et tu, Brute? MarkShot are you serious. Care to explain.[&:]


read at the bottom of his post



MarkShot -> RE: Stepping away... (10/29/2021 7:26:22 AM)

Yep, I was being sarcastic. :)

I come and go. For me I am enjoying WITW, and every time I learn stuff like last night how to transfer squadron right in the middle AD creation, and how to see their range from transfer.

If you look at the change log of WITW, you know that WITE-2 is a toddler. It's going to take some time for it to mature. I respect you guys who PBEM or read historical sources and share your scholarship. Myself, I have a student's understanding of WWII.

I used to beta 10+ years for the grog-ish Panther Games. But the skill I brought was software engineering. So, I read. There is little I can offer regarding rail capacity, air loses, ranged tank outcomes, the strength of each sides officer corps. I trust the community and 2by3 will get it just perfect.

So, rather than make nuisance of myself. I continue to play and learn with WITW.



loki100 -> RE: Stepping away... (10/29/2021 7:47:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer51

...

yet as an Axis player you have forced unit withdrawals for no apparent reason. Interestingly, very few Soviet units are withdrawn for rebuilding.




actually its a bit of a mix for the Axis and not always that realistic. While the bulk of the retraining from mot division to PzrGr formation does indeed require redeployment to France you'll notice a whole load of pretty major role changes happen on the map - feasibly while still in combat.

guess the Soviets didn't repurpose combat formations that often in the war? Hence the lack of withdrawals for this pupose. As you play you will notice it happens where a given formation undergoes a radical TOE change - some are flagged in the player's notes but others become obvious with actual play experience

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer51

The problem is that industry moves no matter what you do so you don't have to worry about it and can walk back. There is no political price to pay.



WAD, been part of the WiTE2 design since it was first created. All part of reducing pointless micro games, similar to how the entire partisan war is now treated compared to WiTE1.

As explained above, these moves claim rail transport and impose rail usage - and take time to come back on line.



panzer51 -> RE: Stepping away... (10/29/2021 2:12:06 PM)

quote:

WAD, been part of the WiTE2 design since it was first created. All part of reducing pointless micro games, similar to how the entire partisan war is now treated compared to WiTE1.


Poor design choice IMHO. Makes Soviet play predictable and ahistorical. There should be a hard choice for a Soviet player. By the way some delays for industry reemergence are way too short.



Denniss -> RE: Stepping away... (10/29/2021 3:34:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer51
By the way some delays for industry reemergence are way too short.
Do you have some examples?



loki100 -> RE: Stepping away... (10/29/2021 3:58:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer51

quote:

WAD, been part of the WiTE2 design since it was first created. All part of reducing pointless micro games, similar to how the entire partisan war is now treated compared to WiTE1.


Poor design choice IMHO. Makes Soviet play predictable and ahistorical. There should be a hard choice for a Soviet player. By the way some delays for industry reemergence are way too short.



actually I personally think its a great change, it removes what was a pretty tedious aspect of #1. Was so relieved to be told I could forget all about when I first started to test WiTE2.

Now I agree that too rapid a retreat by the Soviets should have more penalties than it does but I really don't think fussing about factory evac is the tool to be honest. If a factory has to move earlier than planned the Soviets lose 2 things, some in-situ production and it takes longer to come back on line.

I'd also like to see the impact of the new combat routines on 1941, I think that removes many of the problems now that relative unit experience has more of a role. That makes allowing the Germans to reach beyond the Dnepr and Smolensk too early a far more dangerous gambit - but as ever, I'd like some empirical data on this as it seems few AARs have started since 01.15. But I have seen the impact in late 42 and it seems to return the game to the situation where the Red Army is vulnerable even if not pocketed to catastrophic losses.



panzer51 -> RE: Stepping away... (10/29/2021 4:22:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss


quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer51
By the way some delays for industry reemergence are way too short.
Do you have some examples?


Yeah I will post them later when I'm at home so I can check my files.



panzer51 -> RE: Stepping away... (10/30/2021 1:10:35 AM)

quote:

guess the Soviets didn't repurpose combat formations that often in the war? Hence the lack of withdrawals for this pupose.


Not really. Soviets withdrew their airgroups for rebuilding all the time. For example, 63 BAP withdrew on September 24, 1941. Only returned on October 23, 1942. Is it in the game? Nope.



loki100 -> RE: Stepping away... (10/30/2021 7:39:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer51

quote:

guess the Soviets didn't repurpose combat formations that often in the war? Hence the lack of withdrawals for this pupose.


Not really. Soviets withdrew their airgroups for rebuilding all the time. For example, 63 BAP withdrew on September 24, 1941. Only returned on October 23, 1942. Is it in the game? Nope.


apologies - hadn't realised you had shifted the analysis to the changing air OOB.

Have a look at the reinforcement chart for the Soviets, from late 41 to mid/late 42 there is endless churn of air groups and AOG as the VVS re-organised, so I think that is modelled?



RFalvo69 -> RE: Stepping away... (10/30/2021 9:21:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IslandInland

It always makes laugh when a frequenter of a forum posts they are leaving said forum.



So, when I posted that I left the Matrix World in Flames forum I made you laugh?



panzer51 -> RE: Stepping away... (10/30/2021 3:06:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer51

quote:

guess the Soviets didn't repurpose combat formations that often in the war? Hence the lack of withdrawals for this pupose.


Not really. Soviets withdrew their airgroups for rebuilding all the time. For example, 63 BAP withdrew on September 24, 1941. Only returned on October 23, 1942. Is it in the game? Nope.


apologies - hadn't realised you had shifted the analysis to the changing air OOB.

Have a look at the reinforcement chart for the Soviets, from late 41 to mid/late 42 there is endless churn of air groups and AOG as the VVS re-organised, so I think that is modelled?

I see no difference, the group was not at the front lines for over a year, shouldn't it be removed? The groups you're talking about were all new, sometimes formed from one squadron of an existing group, or simply their personnel. The old groups continued on but sometimes were disbanded.



loki100 -> RE: Stepping away... (10/30/2021 3:20:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer51

...
I see no difference, the group was not at the front lines for over a year, shouldn't it be removed? The groups you're talking about were all new, sometimes formed from one squadron of an existing group, or simply their personnel. The old groups continued on but sometimes were disbanded.


this maybe an unfair question as I realise you are keen to see bias and errors. But .. have you played the Soviets in the game? Across 1942 and into 1943, the VVS is constantly evolving as commands are removed, repurposed and returned.

So since that is in the game (it really is), I'm really confused as to what point you are trying to make.

I mean the Soviets see plenty of ground units removed and redesignated, just that mostly this follows the flow of 1941/2 rather than scripted redeployments to other fronts or to retrain on new equipment. As far as I know, from 1942 onwards the Soviets didn't tend to redesignate existing formations as something else? There is no equivalent of taking a motorised division and training as a PzrGr formation or from PzrGr to Pzr (most of which I believe happen in situ on the map)



panzer51 -> RE: Stepping away... (10/30/2021 3:37:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer51

...
I see no difference, the group was not at the front lines for over a year, shouldn't it be removed? The groups you're talking about were all new, sometimes formed from one squadron of an existing group, or simply their personnel. The old groups continued on but sometimes were disbanded.


this maybe an unfair question as I realise you are keen to see bias and errors. But .. have you played the Soviets in the game? Across 1942 and into 1943, the VVS is constantly evolving as commands are removed, repurposed and returned.

So since that is in the game (it really is), I'm really confused as to what point you are trying to make.

I mean the Soviets see plenty of ground units removed and redesignated, just that mostly this follows the flow of 1941/2 rather than scripted redeployments to other fronts or to retrain on new equipment. As far as I know, from 1942 onwards the Soviets didn't tend to redesignate existing formations as something else? There is no equivalent of taking a motorised division and training as a PzrGr formation or from PzrGr to Pzr (most of which I believe happen in situ on the map)


I'm reworking Soviet and Romanian airforce as well as ground troops. I don't see bias anywhere but I see incorrect TOEs and missing withdrawals and disbanding of Soviet airgroups. I see German groups being withdrawn all the time and I understand the repositioning.

However, retraining from I-16 to MiG, Yak or LaGG wasn't something that could've been accomplished in a couple of weeks, those planes handled completely differently and that's why groups were withdrawn from front lines for months.
So, yes I believe if the group is to be rebuilt with completely new planes, this only can be done in reserve with a delay.



GibsonPete -> RE: Stepping away... (10/31/2021 2:17:48 AM)

I agree on the TO&E's but understand the decisions made by the Development team to not add or delete organizations. In 42 the Rumanians formed Tank hunter teams from the platoon HQ runners. It was part of the TO&E but is not represented in game. Why? Platoon HQ are not represented. The Germans had a "trained marksman" at the platoon level with a scoped rifle. Does that count as a sniper? Don't know. Would it make a dramatic difference? Doubt it. The German rifle grenades were introduced in 42 but do not appear until 43. I am certain others could provide other examples but it comes down to developers balancing how important an item is overall to the game.

Rebuilding an Air Group by sending it to the reserve. Do you want that to apply to both sides? Swapping 109's with 190's means I must send the Air group to the reserve?



IslandInland -> RE: Stepping away... (11/2/2021 10:27:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69


quote:

ORIGINAL: IslandInland

It always makes laugh when a frequenter of a forum posts they are leaving said forum.



So, when I posted that I left the Matrix World in Flames forum I made you laugh?


No. I didn't read that particular post.

I only laugh at the ones I read. Tree falling in a forest making a sound etc.

Although all the drama queens in all the Matrix forums combined certainly do generate a din all of their own.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6875