Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: War in the East Q&A

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: War in the East Q&A Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/19/2010 12:09:24 PM   
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

-Are losses "scaled" compared to the unit size of the attacking and defending stacks and units?

In TOAW and in some cases in PzC, an attack by a huge amount of units against a single unit could in some cases result in a negligible amount of casualties for the defender and a high amount of casualties for the attacker. It was one of the TOAW things that I didn't like, next to how half a week worth of bombardment caused about 24 casualties (3 squads) and a few guys with a headache.

Will 10 to 1 attacks be likely to crush the defender, or will they cause 20% casualties at every combat phase or the like?

-If a broken up unit (regiments of a division) evaporates, what happens?

Yes, that is an important point, in TOAW an attack of say, 1000 squads vs 50 squads, you could have a result in which the attacker lost 6% and the defender 100%, still the atacker would lose 60 squads and the defender just 50.
The right way should be to take pecentages on the enemy, in that way, the attacker would lose 6% of the defender, that is just 3 squads. Is that the way in which losses are calculates in WITE?

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 421
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/19/2010 12:55:44 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

-Are losses "scaled" compared to the unit size of the attacking and defending stacks and units?

In TOAW and in some cases in PzC, an attack by a huge amount of units against a single unit could in some cases result in a negligible amount of casualties for the defender and a high amount of casualties for the attacker. It was one of the TOAW things that I didn't like, next to how half a week worth of bombardment caused about 24 casualties (3 squads) and a few guys with a headache.

Will 10 to 1 attacks be likely to crush the defender, or will they cause 20% casualties at every combat phase or the like?

-If a broken up unit (regiments of a division) evaporates, what happens?

Yes, that is an important point, in TOAW an attack of say, 1000 squads vs 50 squads, you could have a result in which the attacker lost 6% and the defender 100%, still the atacker would lose 60 squads and the defender just 50.
The right way should be to take pecentages on the enemy, in that way, the attacker would lose 6% of the defender, that is just 3 squads. Is that the way in which losses are calculates in WITE?



In WitE casualites are not proportional and an overwhelming attack can cause the defender to be routed (rendered combat ineffective) or even shattered (unit eliminated).

(in reply to Iñaki Harrizabalagatar)
Post #: 422
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/19/2010 4:39:07 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

-Are losses "scaled" compared to the unit size of the attacking and defending stacks and units?

In TOAW and in some cases in PzC, an attack by a huge amount of units against a single unit could in some cases result in a negligible amount of casualties for the defender and a high amount of casualties for the attacker. It was one of the TOAW things that I didn't like, next to how half a week worth of bombardment caused about 24 casualties (3 squads) and a few guys with a headache.

Will 10 to 1 attacks be likely to crush the defender, or will they cause 20% casualties at every combat phase or the like?

-If a broken up unit (regiments of a division) evaporates, what happens?

Yes, that is an important point, in TOAW an attack of say, 1000 squads vs 50 squads, you could have a result in which the attacker lost 6% and the defender 100%, still the atacker would lose 60 squads and the defender just 50.
The right way should be to take pecentages on the enemy, in that way, the attacker would lose 6% of the defender, that is just 3 squads. Is that the way in which losses are calculates in WITE?



In WitE casualites are not proportional and an overwhelming attack can cause the defender to be routed (rendered combat ineffective) or even shattered (unit eliminated).



And at minimal or no cost to the attacker.

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 423
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/19/2010 4:44:10 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

I for one hope that the victory conditions are modeled so that the Axis player can win if the game is played through 1944/45. It is very rare for any EF game to last that long because Axis players seem to "lose interest" once the blitz falters and they have to go on a 2/3 year mobile defense. But for me, this is the most fun. Clash of Arms, "War Without Mercy" keeps the 2 players engaged to the bitter end because the VP conditions are constructed well.

Marquo


We have a short scenario victory system in place, but have not even started on designing our victory conditions for the campaign games. What do you think the focus should be for campaign game victory conditions (those that go to the end of the war)? I'm sure Gary will come up with something, but I'm curious what you think makes for good Eastern Front victory conditions.

(in reply to mmarquo)
Post #: 424
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/19/2010 5:41:49 PM   
AZKGungHo


Posts: 509
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline 		For the German Campaign I think it ought to be the historical limits Hitler himself had in mind.  That's probably near impossible, but that's what I'd set for the top victory condition, and then have the second level be holding Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad??

As for the Russians, it would have to be all of the Balkins (except Yugo) and of course Berlin.


_____________________________

"In Arduis Fidelis"
Louie Marsh

Books:
Once A Raider… http://tinyurl.com/89mfnnk
Getting Real - http://tinyurl.com/7zhcjlq
Websites:
www.usmcraiders.com
discipleup.org

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 425
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/19/2010 10:29:35 PM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		For the Grand Campaign:
 
Break the map into 2 halves. An Eastern half and a Western half.
 
In the eastern half set certain hexes as objectives. While the Germans hold those objectives they receive “X” points per turn per objective.
 
In the western half set certain hexes as objectives. While the Russians hold those objectives they receive “X” points per turn per objective.
 
If the game is well balanced, then on 8th May 1945, both sides will have the same number of points and we get a draw!
 
-

(in reply to AZKGungHo)
Post #: 426
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/20/2010 12:03:43 AM   
thackaray


Posts: 50
Joined: 1/24/2006
Status: offline 		People have mentioned that some German players will be tempted to give up if they have to be on the defensive for 2-3 years.  What I have in mind is a sliding scale of victory points for hexes held but on a yearly basis.

Victory categoriesMajor victory, normal victory, minor victory, draw, minor loss, normal loss, major loss

1941

Moscow, Leningrad + other cities: Axis - Major Victory, Sov - Major loss.   Campaign Victory condition: Axis = major victory
Moscow and Leningrad - Axis - Normal victory, Sov - Normal loss. Campaign victory condition: draw, both sides keep fighting

1942
Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad + other cities: Axis - Major Victory, Sov - Major loss.   Campaign Victory condition: Axis = major victory
Moscow or Leningrad/Stalingrad: Axis - Normal victory, Sov - Normal loss. Campaign Victory condition: Axis = normal victory, both sides keep fighting

1943
Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad + other cities: Axis - Major Victory, Sov - Major loss.   Campaign Victory condition: Axis = major victory
Moscow and Leningrad or Stalingrad: Axis - Major victory, Sov - major loss. Campaign Victory condition: Axis = major victory
Moscow or Leningrad or Stalingrad: Acis - major victory, Sov - minor loss. Campaign victory condition: Draw, both sides keep fighting

1944
Moscow or Leningrad or Stalingrad: Axis- major victory, Sov - major loss. Campaign victory condition: Axis = major victory
Kharkov, Kiev, Smolensk: Axis - major victory, Sov - normal loss. Campaign victory condition: Axis = major victory
Kiev, Minsk: Axis - normal victory, Sov - minor loss. Campaign victory condition: axis = major victory

Note: As long as Axis by end of 1944 have not being pushed back into Poland or Romania = equals a normal victory for Axis
If worse than this for Axis, the Soviets should be at draw at worst and starting to edge into minor victory territory.
If catastrophic for Germany= Normal or Major victory for Russia

1945

This is where the German players holding territory to the east of Poland and Romania, should be major victory conditions.

The game ends in whatever year a major victory has been scored.

The aim should force both players to aim to get a major victory or deny the other player it.  But the major victory conditions change each year, according to territory held.  This is because the better the German holds territory historically, the better the rewards and chance to win the game.

Any criticism welcomed, as long as it constructive.





< Message edited by thackaray -- 1/20/2010 12:10:08 AM >

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 427
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/20/2010 2:41:18 PM   
MengCiao

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thackaray

People have mentioned that some German players will be tempted to give up if they have to be on the defensive for 2-3 years.  What I have in mind is a sliding scale of victory points for hexes held but on a yearly basis.


The aim should force both players to aim to get a major victory or deny the other player it.  But the major victory conditions change each year, according to territory held.  This is because the better the German holds territory historically, the better the rewards and chance to win the game.

Any criticism welcomed, as long as it constructive.




I agree, a wise German player will quit if he doesn't win in the first six months. After that...figure that the crushing defeat of Germany was
a major victory for Germany all things considered. The Russians should get a major victory if they take Berlin in 1943, a minor victory if they
take Berlin in 1944 and a major defeat if it takes them clear into April 1945


_____________________________

The corpus of a thousand battles rises from the flood.

(in reply to thackaray)
Post #: 428
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/20/2010 3:14:28 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline 		I guess this is now place to discuss it but if this game sticks to history as much as possible then a historical outcome should be a drawn and if any side performs better then historically then it's victory for them

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to MengCiao)
Post #: 429
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/20/2010 4:20:56 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
Hard to speculate on victory conditions when so much is still unknown especially when I am uncertain if success on the Eastern front transcends to a superior defence on other fronts due to transfer of surplus resources, but I hope consideration will be relative to the historical performance of the western Allies in their determination. Very impressed with all I have read about the game so far.

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 430
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/21/2010 12:42:17 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thackaray

The game ends in whatever year a major victory has been scored.

The aim should force both players to aim to get a major victory or deny the other player it. 

But the major victory conditions change each year, according to territory held. 

This is because the better the German holds territory historically, the better the rewards and chance to win the game.



I really like thackaray's idea.

-


(in reply to thackaray)
Post #: 431
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/23/2010 8:22:41 PM   
mmarquo


Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline 		"I'm curious what you think makes for good Eastern Front victory conditions. "

Joel,

I am always intrigued if not fascinated at how designers set the stage for the game. I know you all are deep into programming the mechanics of movement, combat, production, etc.; in the end that is much easier than solving the overarching problem of how to create a level playing field where each contestant has an equal opportunity to win.

In a game like this one must consider time, space and losses needed to obtain the time/space objectives.

First off I reject the notion of comparing the player's acheivements against the historical counterparts. This is not feasible unless you are going to incorporate some sort of Hitler/Stalin "meddling" rules whereby the players are somehow periodically constrained - and then it becomes more of a game of chance than skill. And many would lose interest or not even start playing if there was a chance that periodically they would be hamstrung by OKH or STAVKA. Anyway, historically the campaign was over on day one, thus a different tact is needed.

Joe 98 presented a formulation that is along the lines of what I beleive is reasonable: create objectives which simply generate points/turn. IMHO it is dubious not to reward the Axis for capturing Moscow even if the Soviets retake it 2 turns later. This could be as simple as points per a few, select significant major cities; or complex to the point of rewarding points to the player who controls every hex on the map with each hex assigned a dfferent value (minor/major cities, clear, RR, road, etc). I would favor fairly simple as a campaign like this should be planned and fought on a large, strategic scale.

As for losses, this becomes a tricky issue. Rewarding points for losses may inhibit players from sacrificing units - and may send the message that it is always better to retreat and give up ground than stand, fight, lose and lose points. But if the objectives are space/time rewarded, than sometimes sacrificing a unit to gain time may make sense as long as the penalty for losing the unit is not too severe. It is probably best to keep this as simple as possible - no points for losses and let the players decide how to defend the objectives. If they sacrifice too many units, then the objectives will be easier to take and vice versa.

Marquo

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 432
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/25/2010 8:10:41 AM   
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline 		I would like to point that, for a Soviet player, it should be required to take first the Balkans before going on a major offensive to take Berlin directly

(in reply to mmarquo)
Post #: 433
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/25/2010 3:32:50 PM   
MengCiao

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
Why? Why not just wipe out AG North and go straight to Berlin? are the Germans going to hold on in the Balkans if Berlin falls?

_____________________________

The corpus of a thousand battles rises from the flood.

(in reply to Iñaki Harrizabalagatar)
Post #: 434
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/25/2010 3:37:45 PM   
paullus99


Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline 		Historically, Stalin wanted the Balkans for post-war activities. Plus, opening up the Balkans front stretches the German line quite a bit .

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to MengCiao)
Post #: 435
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/25/2010 4:37:44 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		There are historians who think that Stalin didn't want the war to end early, after the Allies had landed in Sicily. According to those historians, Stalin wanted as much influence as he could get in post-WWII Europe and in the world, and he knew after Kursk that the Axis were at least not going to stage any spectacular offensivs anymore, so he had nothing to lose but men and equipment, of which he had plenty. A significant part of that equipment wasn't even his, but came as Lend-Lease from the US, so US factories were indirectly sponsoring Stalin's plans.

I don't think the Soviets would have to capture the Balkans for a major victory, especially as the Western Allies would've freaked if he had. Reaching the border with Yugoslavia should be good enough, after that the Red Army should swing into Hungary like their historical counterparts.

I'm not sure what the best kind of victory system would be. Holding major cities could create a sort of gamey "ninja" victory as the Axis will be mostly trying to capture those cities. Perhaps fighting to the bitter end, with victory points for cities held and units destroyed (with very low points for Rifle divisions and higher amounts of points for elite units for the Soviets, and low points for other Axis divisions, fairly high points for German infantry divisions and high points for Panzer, Panzergrenadier and SS divisions).

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 436
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/26/2010 10:47:19 AM   
paullus99


Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline 		Programming some kind of dynamic victory system would be awesome - allowing the conditions to change as the situation at the front changes (Germans initially trying for total victory by knocking the Soviets out of the war, followed by a desperate defense to win just by not loosing everything later on).

I don't know if it would be possible, especially given the myriad conditions that would need to be taken into account - I'm happy just to get my hands on this monster game sometime in the near future.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 437
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/26/2010 2:00:54 PM   
Phenix

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline 		How does leaders work? do they have individual values or are they all the same?

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 438
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/26/2010 2:18:27 PM   
thackaray


Posts: 50
Joined: 1/24/2006
Status: offline 		When I mentioned my preferred method of victory conditions a few posts above, it was meant to be the basis for dynamic points for dynamic victory condition.  So each city would have base points then a random number of points added at start of game.  As the game progresses, each hex value increases slightly, but this is in conjunction with the total amount of points need to win increasing or decreasing, as well for each side to get a major victory.

The game is meant to be a historical simulation, but this is in terms of the numbers/types of equipment and men given to each side.  The game is ahistorical when it comes to tactical and strategic decisions.  So to enforce conditions for the Soviets to have to take the Balkans before gunning for Germany is taking the strategic decisions away from the Soviet player.  If this goes ahead, the developers might as well program Hitler and Stalin directives to take certain cities or hold at all costs orders.  I'm glad the developers aren't going down that route.

(in reply to Phenix)
Post #: 439
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/26/2010 3:37:49 PM   
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline 		About dynamic conditions, I recall a game some years ago, Civil War Generals 2, that had a very good dynamic system, there were basic Victory locations to start with, but then, when fight went on for some hex, it become a victory location, the more fighting for the hex, the more victory points it rewarded, that would simulate very well the obstinated fight for some locations beyond its strategic importance.

(in reply to thackaray)
Post #: 440
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/26/2010 5:35:58 PM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline 		They all have individual values for Political, Morale, Initiative, Land, Armor, Air, and Naval.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phenix

How does leaders work? do they have individual values or are they all the same?



_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to Phenix)
Post #: 441
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/26/2010 7:00:31 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

About dynamic conditions, I recall a game some years ago, Civil War Generals 2, that had a very good dynamic system, there were basic Victory locations to start with, but then, when fight went on for some hex, it become a victory location, the more fighting for the hex, the more victory points it rewarded, that would simulate very well the obstinated fight for some locations beyond its strategic importance.


The CWG 2 system was indeed ingenious and functional at the same time. However, the game was a battlefield simulator, so the system would have to be at the least adjusted to fit with a war the size of the campaign on the Eastern Front, otherwise some farmfield in the middle of nowhere might be worth a lot of VP's after it has been fought over for 3 years. Using such a system for settlements and cities would be nice though, like Kharkov becoming more valuable after each battle.

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 442
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/27/2010 5:07:29 PM   
MengCiao

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

There are historians who think that Stalin didn't want the war to end early, after the Allies had landed in Sicily. According to those historians, Stalin wanted as much influence as he could get in post-WWII Europe and in the world, and he knew after Kursk that the Axis were at least not going to stage any spectacular offensivs anymore, so he had nothing to lose but men and equipment, of which he had plenty. A significant part of that equipment wasn't even his, but came as Lend-Lease from the US, so US factories were indirectly sponsoring Stalin's plans.

I don't think the Soviets would have to capture the Balkans for a major victory, especially as the Western Allies would've freaked if he had. Reaching the border with Yugoslavia should be good enough, after that the Red Army should swing into Hungary like their historical counterparts.

I'm not sure what the best kind of victory system would be. Holding major cities could create a sort of gamey "ninja" victory as the Axis will be mostly trying to capture those cities. Perhaps fighting to the bitter end, with victory points for cities held and units destroyed (with very low points for Rifle divisions and higher amounts of points for elite units for the Soviets, and low points for other Axis divisions, fairly high points for German infantry divisions and high points for Panzer, Panzergrenadier and SS divisions).


In my experience of east front campaign games (There was one for one of the Operational Arts of War that was really good) a smart German player quits as soon as possible. It's hard to see what's in the game for a German player after the summer of 1942. Diverting the Russians into the Balkans might be the best plan or the plan that Stalin wins if the war goes on until 1946 so that about mid 1944 the German player tries to figure out how he can accidently lose Army Group Center, thus virtually guarantee-ing that Stalin can't win by prolonging the war.
Perhaps the players could switch sides in the Summer of 1942 with the starter Russians winning if the Germans are wiped out on schedule and the 2nd Russians winning if the war lasts til 1946.


_____________________________

The corpus of a thousand battles rises from the flood.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 443
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/28/2010 9:12:01 PM   
critter


Posts: 139
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline 		I think allot depends on how they model the forces in the game. It seems they want you to fight the war..Moscow and Lenningrad in 41. Stalingrad 42 ect..
My thoughts would be to let you choose your objectives as we used to do in certian board games...Russian Campaign..Wacht am Rhine. but again will the model let you do it?
If each side picked 2 primary , 3 secondary and 4 other objectives and added your points up each year and again totaled them at the end of the game? It would make for some pretty good fights if say you chose to take Lenningrad and save Stalingrad and your opponent chose the opposite. How much force is needed when and where.
I don't think letting the Germans pull up short in late 43 or 44 and play for the draw in Russia is a viable option. They should have to hold major Russian cities. You're not the Fuhrer in the game. You're orders are to win in Russia until the Russians make that impossible. The minute you stopped carrying out the orders and tried to lay up...Your war would end with a visit from the Gestapo.
Germany holding at the Polish Russian border and at the Rhine,while they were bombed back into the stone age is not a victory. They would have to go for a win on one of their fronts. I don't think they could have held anyway. Think of a spring/summer 46 offensive with Russia and the Allies getting a year at full strenght to get build up.. By that time they could have destroyed every bridge, major city and electical plant in the country. The German people would have figured out Der Fuhrer wasn't coming up with a secrect weapon. Hitler would have needed a army to guard him from all the secret plots.
It will be interesting to see how they plan on keeping the German player playing when the long retreat starts. More reason to be sure the AI is strong.

(in reply to MengCiao)
Post #: 444
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/29/2010 3:12:01 PM   
MengCiao

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: critter

It will be interesting to see how they plan on keeping the German player playing when the long retreat starts. More reason to be sure the AI is strong.


One possibility would be to let Player A play AG North as a German and All fronts not opposed to AG North as a Russian while player B takes
AG South and Center as a German and opposes AG North as a Russian. Since the AG North player would want German reserves going to his area
He would have to make some political deal (a la Model) with the Russian North Player (since I would assume reserves would have to be jointly controled on both sides) to do the same for him.

Control could change so that in Summer 1942, the AG South (and eventually A and B and Don and Frieter-Pico) player could have the Russian North and deprive the Russian southern front of Reserves until things got critical around Stalingrad --- then that criticality could force a switch and the German North and Central Player could find himself switched into the AG A B Don Frieter-Pico melange and face what he had been commanding earlier...just as Manstein said to Hitler "I urge you to consider what would happen if we were commanding the other side."


_____________________________

The corpus of a thousand battles rises from the flood.

(in reply to critter)
Post #: 445
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/31/2010 9:18:27 AM   
Obsolete


Posts: 1492
Joined: 9/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Is there a victory point cost associated with disbanding units? I always hated how TOAW considered my disbanded formations to be destroyed by the enemy as far as the game was concerned.


Was it really that bad?  Considering even vapourized units simply had their components magically returned at a later date as reconstituted units/replacements.




_____________________________



King-Tigers don't let Tiger-I's get over-run.

(in reply to MengCiao)
Post #: 446
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/31/2010 12:35:25 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

quote:

Is there a victory point cost associated with disbanding units? I always hated how TOAW considered my disbanded formations to be destroyed by the enemy as far as the game was concerned.


Was it really that bad?  Considering even vapourized units simply had their components magically returned at a later date as reconstituted units/replacements.





It requires 1 administrative point to disband a unit. There is no victory point cost for disbanding units.

(in reply to Obsolete)
Post #: 447
RE: War in the East Q&A - 1/31/2010 1:25:05 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Was it really that bad? Considering even vapourized units simply had their components magically returned at a later date as reconstituted units/replacements.


It was more of a problem for units that didn't reconstitute, as their "loss" increases the friendly loss penalty. Some scenarios didn't really give the player a lot of flexibility and more or less forced them to play with the historical units.

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 448
RE: War in the East Q&A - 2/16/2010 1:42:12 PM   
Platypus

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 2/16/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Ok, lets cover supply and interdiction of supply. Please describe the supply methodology in general and factors that influence the supply status of a unit.



Supply in WitE is a very complicated and involved process that would take pages to describe in detail so I will just give you the gist of it here.

There are three kinds of supply in WitE, fuel, ammo & general supply. Every unit in the game has particular requirements for each of these supply types. Units consume fuel when the move (or planes fly), ammo when they fight and general supply for a variety of purposes including the obvious rations.

When units consume more supplies than their supply requirements they must be re-supplied. Units draw supplies from their HQs or directly from a rail head if it is closer. Units can draw supplies up to 5 hexes (or 20 motorized movement points) from an HQ or rail head. HQs can draw supply up to 25 hexes (or 100 motorized movement points) from a rail head. The combined rail head to HQ to unit supply line cannot exceed 100 motorized movement points. HQs cannot supply other HQs.

Units within 6 hexes of a supply source get the full amount of available supply. Beyond that range supply is progressively deceased. Units low on supply have reduced movement ability (ground units) and are less combat effective (all units). Units beyond supply range or isolated are severely effected in both movement and combat.

Partisans can "interdict" supplies by damaging rail lines and supplies can be destroyed by bombing the HQ but in general the Eastern Front is just too big a place for either of these methods to be terribly effective.



Very interested in the logistics chain - especially land elements -- how to build, maintain & protect it. I am unable to find other references about construction of transport infrastructure such as railheads + improved road network.

1. Does the AXIS player have control over where, when & how to build rail lines/junctions or major roads - ie. Can he build cheap autobahns? The aim - to increase the "motorized points" distance by improving transport infrastructure?


2. What limits these builds - for example, does he have a certain number of Transport Infrastructure "points?" And can the Soviet or Allies target these "points" by Allied strategic bombing strikes on production?


3. Can the player increase build-rates in any way? If so, specific details such as time, resources and cost?


4. Is the Axis player limited to simply altering the Russian-gauge track or can he build brand new ones? What differences are there, in terms of time and costs if he does so?


5. Last question is about Political Policies in Occupied Zones -- historical records show that when the Wehrmacht went into the Ukraine, the population initially responded as if they were liberated. Does the human player have any option to follow-through with this policy, thereby maintaining a policy of liberation rather than jackboot subjugation?
Has such a choice been considered?


Looking forward to this game - having spent many hours playing the original version all those years ago..


Cheers




(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 449
RE: War in the East Q&A - 2/16/2010 3:38:57 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline 		You don't build new roads or rail lines in WitE.  What you see is what you get.  There is no politics in the game.

_____________________________

We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester

(in reply to Platypus)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: War in the East Q&A Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.781