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: when compared with TOAW's FiTE...

 
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: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... - 1/10/2011 3:28:23 PM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome
I'm a very big fan of TOAW and FITE (and briefly playtested the Directive 21 scenario). I'm also a big fan of phased turns though obviously it could be annoying for an attack in Finland to burn AGS's turn, but you learned to avoid that with time. Honestly I miss a lot of the TOAW nuances that would end up making such a difference. There's really no bombardments, no opportunity fire, no bonuses for flanking and multiple side attacks, all that combat planning stuff that some hated (and I loved). Of course I will always remember having a panzer division be stopped by 21 trucks and a mule team but then again WitE has developed its own version of this with the super swamp defense (I've had an entire panzer corps be stopped by a single ab brigade in a swamp, and ComradeP has probably lost years of his life in frustration with this in our PBEM).


Beware! There is no such a thing as "super swamp defense" as much as there isn't "super checkerboards of doom".

Airborne brigades are the cream of the crop of the RKKA. These and NKVD regts are amongst the most valuable Soviet units in 1941. They're not nearly as easily outfought as the average raw Rifle Div with its ranks swelling with frightened conscripts who barely know what to do with their Moisin rifles other than to use them as clubs.

1941 Soviet units defending on swamps are steamrolled over more often than not by a succession of hasty attacks with German infantry (or just one deliberate attack if MPs allow). Mechanized units get too many losses due to engaging the enemy in very close range. As soon when the disruption of unit elements gets through the roof the Soviet unit just goes poof! I've been already surprised more than once by a PanzerKorps sneaking through swamps after the Landsers do their work. Remember the slogan: "Infanterie, Königin Aller Waffen!".



What TOAW models with flanking modifiers et al WiTE model accounts for in other ways.



< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 1/10/2011 3:34:58 PM >

(in reply to notenome)
Post #: 61
RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... - 1/10/2011 4:43:55 PM   
goranw

 

Posts: 1551
Joined: 10/23/2001
From: Uppsala,Sweden
Status: offline 		Hi!

Toaw is an exellent game in many ways, thats obvious.
A step in serious wargaming. I worked a lot with it. Made a 7km hex map that Brian Topp made a Barbarossa scenario upon.
Above all I was trying to make a historical simulation.( Ai-Ai)
In spite of some tricks ( ex. manipulating hex owner ship) it was not successful.

With "War in the East" its possible to make historical simulations for the first time.
( stretching over long time periods)
I know that is not the same as a very playable game but its a sign of
a healthy ground construction.
Goran

(in reply to morganbj)
Post #: 62
RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... - 1/10/2011 5:08:48 PM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: goranw
Toaw is an exellent game in many ways, thats obvious.
A step in serious wargaming. I worked a lot with it. Made a 7km hex map that Brian Topp made a Barbarossa scenario upon.
Above all I was trying to make a historical simulation.( Ai-Ai)
In spite of some tricks ( ex. manipulating hex owner ship) it was not successful.

With "War in the East" its possible to make historical simulations for the first time.
( stretching over long time periods)
I know that is not the same as a very playable game but its a sign of
a healthy ground construction.


Is that some kind of research project, Goran? Sounds very interesting

(in reply to goranw)
Post #: 63
RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... - 1/10/2011 5:26:06 PM   
goranw

 

Posts: 1551
Joined: 10/23/2001
From: Uppsala,Sweden
Status: offline 		Its very interesting ( as interesting as playing)
You combine game possibilities with military history.
Perhaps its a research project but not in strictly formalized academic meaning.
Goran

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)
Post #: 64
RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... - 1/10/2011 5:40:05 PM   
mavraamides


Posts: 447
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wikingus

... I know I know, it's unfair. WiTE is a completely new beast, but I am a long-time TOAW player and WiTE looks a lot like FiTE, with some extra options thrown on top, and with much better graphics.

I'm kind of not sure whether to get the game or not. Can any fellow TOAW player convince me it's worth buying?


WITE is what TOAW wants to be when it grows up.

In all seriousness, I'm a huge TOAW fan and even purchased it twice. I've probably logged 1,000's of hours in TOAW. But there is no comparison between the two, IMO.

Just a quick list of where WITE is better:
1) The AI is far superior. WITE has quite simply the best AI I have ever faced in any operational or strategic wargame. TOAW's AI was barely adequate at best.
2) Graphics. See any screenshot.
3) C&C. Much more detailed and realistic modeling. Easily one of the best features. Not your classic combat multiplier but HQ's that actually transfer tangible assets like arty and pioneers to units in range. Ability to transfer around battalions, etc.
4) Supply. Detailed supply modelling down to number and state of trucks used to move things around.
5) Air war.
6) Leaders.
7) Access to information. Massively detailed OOB and command info screens allowing all sorts of sorting to locate specific units and gather general information.

I'm sure I and others will come up with much more.


(in reply to Wikingus)
Post #: 65
RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... - 1/10/2011 5:57:15 PM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: goranw
Its very interesting ( as interesting as playing)
You combine game possibilities with military history.
Perhaps its a research project but not in strictly formalized academic meaning.
Goran


I will be soon working on a research project on applying computer simulations to shed light on archaelogic discoveries.

Let me recommend to you - if you already don't know it - the work by P. Sabin on using wargames to "validate" sources from Ancient History: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/ws/people/academic/professors/sabin/lostbattles.html
and more generally to the topic of military history.

(in reply to goranw)
Post #: 66
RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... - 1/10/2011 7:46:04 PM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome
Of course I will always remember having a panzer division be stopped by 21 trucks and a mule team but then again WitE has developed its own version of this with the super swamp defense (I've had an entire panzer corps be stopped by a single ab brigade in a swamp, and ComradeP has probably lost years of his life in frustration with this in our PBEM).


Beware! There is no such a thing as "super swamp defense" as much as there isn't "super checkerboards of doom".

snip

1941 Soviet units defending on swamps are steamrolled over more often than not by a succession of hasty attacks with German infantry (or just one deliberate attack if MPs allow). Mechanized units get too many losses due to engaging the enemy in very close range. As soon when the disruption of unit elements gets through the roof the Soviet unit just goes poof! I've been already surprised more than once by a PanzerKorps sneaking through swamps after the Landsers do their work. Remember the slogan: "Infanterie, Königin Aller Waffen!".


I feel very uncomfortable when making this kind of claims without any data to back it. In this case I have the data, which I've been keeping for the AAR of the GC I'm playing.

This was the situation: I deployed the 5th Leningrad Guard Div on the swamps between Lake Peipus and Pskov, to avoid German infiltration (which would unhinge both my line on the Narva and my defenses around Pskov). It's the 2=4 unit you can see on the picture:



It got attacked in the manner I said, several initial hasty attacks performed by infantry and a final one by armor:

Combat results and soviet losses were the following

Result Men Art AFV Ftr Bmr
Win 2421 26 - - 1
Win 151 2 - 1 3
Win 85 1 - 5 -
Win 95 1 - 4 -
Win 273 1 - 11 1
Win 151 2 - 1 -
Win 112 4 - 4 5
Loss 1756 31 1 - -

A grand total of 6236 men, 81 arty pieces, 1 afv, 57 fighters, 13 bombers.

For the Axis the losses were as follow:

Men Arty AFV Ftr Bmr
129 1 4 - -
160 10 - - -
30 - - - -
89 1 1 - -
85 4 7 2 4
233 4 2 - -
37 - 4 1 1
62 - - - -

For a grand total of 1105 men, 24 arty pieces, 18 AFV, 8 fighters and 5 bombers.

That division made a gallant stand there, but losses were 6:1 in men, 3:1 in artillery, 18:1 in AFVs, 7:1 in fighters, 2:1 in bombers. An intense battle, with substantial losses for the Axis.

Did it pay off? I think it did, just take a look at what happened when the Leningrad Guards yield to the German invaders:



The 5th Leningrad Guards Div is the 2=2 div NW of Pskov.

That expensive battle resulted in the encirclement of the bulk of my 24A - which was defending Pskov - and outflanking my Narva defense line. Not too shabby for the price the Wehrmacht paid.

My lesson: no matter how good the unit or the terrain, always try to defend in depth, if not possible, account in your plans for the possible consequences.

His lesson:


This hardly can compare with 27 trucks and 1 mule team stopping a PzD

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)
Post #: 67
RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... - 1/10/2011 8:00:10 PM   
goranw

 

Posts: 1551
Joined: 10/23/2001
From: Uppsala,Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

quote:

ORIGINAL: goranw
Its very interesting ( as interesting as playing)
You combine game possibilities with military history.
Perhaps its a research project but not in strictly formalized academic meaning.
Goran


I will be soon working on a research project on applying computer simulations to shed light on archaelogic discoveries.

Let me recommend to you - if you already don't know it - the work by P. Sabin on using wargames to "validate" sources from Ancient History: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/ws/people/academic/professors/sabin/lostbattles.html
and more generally to the topic of military history.


Hi!
Very interesting. I will use the link to " broaden my mind " on the subject.
Many thanks!!
Goran

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)
Post #: 68
RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... - 1/11/2011 3:23:59 AM   
notenome

 

Posts: 608
Joined: 12/28/2009
Status: offline 		Obviously the game is still young and there's a lot of stuff flying around. One big advantage of WitE is the built in C & C, had forgotten about that (all the administrative features, as a matter of fact), that's something FITE or TOAW could and never was meant to model. As for the swamp defense, I still think its too good, and as such I have abused it with my game vs ComradeP (we trade a lot of emails and agree on a surprising number of things). That said, and as I stated above, it is precisely the operational features of FITE that I miss so much. Stuff I've already mentioned like bombardments and opportunity fire (which would make it a lot harder for the soviets to evacuate a pocket) and flanking attacks (this one I really miss and consider crucial for a high mobility force like the Wehrmacht). Also other things like loss tolerance, as when I play Axis I'm obsessive about casualties in the early going (indeed most Axis players are). Doubtlessly some things will get added and others won't, and ultimately this comparison is unfair, as FITE is basically the stretching of the TOAW system to its utmost limits, whilst WitE is game made from the beginning to simulate the Eastern Front.

(in reply to goranw)
Post #: 69
RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... - 1/11/2011 3:28:02 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome
as FITE is basically the stretching of the TOAW system to its utmost limits, whilst WitE is game made from the beginning to simulate the Eastern Front.


And this is the reason why I avoid FITE. It becomes so tedious to play. At least WITE is made to tackle the scale from bottom up.

(in reply to notenome)
Post #: 70
RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... - 1/11/2011 10:03:52 AM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome
As for the swamp defense, I still think its too good, and as such I have abused it with my game vs ComradeP (we trade a lot of emails and agree on a surprising number of things).


A more systematic way of looking into this would be to develop a hypothetical "battle" scenario - of a scale similar to the Velikiye Luki scenario - with 1941 forces. I already have an idea for it. It would take place on the swamps south of Lake Ilmen and the goals would be, for the German, to get across a Panzer Korps being supported by one Infanterie Korps (or two).

Yet another what-if "battle" scenario would cover checkerboard defense and attack, also with 1941 forces.

Now I just need to find the time to get into this.

(in reply to notenome)
Post #: 71
RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... - 2/12/2011 4:26:25 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot
But there is no comparison between the two, IMO.



Well there's a no brainer quip. Of course you can't compare the two. One is almost ancient, the other is brand new. One is made for one specific theater, one is a swiss army knife. One is hugely complicated, one is not. It's like trying to compare a truck to a volkswagen. They both have wheels and engines and that's as far as you get. You can't because they are two completely different things.

I just got WitE for my b-day and it looks like someone was trying to mash together SPI's WitE, GDW's DNO and some other East Front games. Hopefully I didn't just throw away $80. Doesn't look like it but I'll soon find out.

But really, why does anyone try to compare Gri WitE with TOAW FitE scenario? It's a waste of time.

BTW, never go to this forum while playing WitE. You'll lose everything above the map. It's just black if the game has one of it's info windows open. Got to close the info window before things come back.


< Message edited by Panama -- 2/12/2011 4:30:12 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to mavraamides)
Post #: 72
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: when compared with TOAW's FiTE... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

1.328