Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Even with constraints on research, there is still the issue that players will always analyze the pure stats of each item and then just build the best (or at least the combination that gives the best bang for buck). For example, a player would just build P51 as the standard US fighter, yet real issues means the US actually built P51, P38 and P47 in parallel (not to mention F6F, F4U, etc). Unless the economics system makes that not a stupid option (assuming the US ordering system wasn't stupid), any game is just fantasy. Even limited shifts would worry me, although mostly because once you allow say +/-10% the debates on 'why no 11%, or 15%...' start.

quote:

Any Fool Can Be Cold

quote:

ORIGINAL: GARY L

Any Update on War in the West Forum?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GARY L

Any Update on War in the West Forum?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Will WitW take logistics seriously?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

The recent thread on WitE game balance drifted into a discussion about some of the unrealistic aspects of the WitE logistics model. As WitE 2.0 will develop from WitW I thought an explanation of WitW's model would be useful information for those suggesting improvements. IMO - the logistics model together with the new air model are the biggest changes between WitE and WitW.

Firstly some comments on the WitE system to set a baseline. In WitE supply (i.e. supplies, fuel, and replacements) can be drawn from any hex containing a working rail connected to the wider rail network (i.e. a green rail hex) and in effect supply movement within the rail network is unconstrained. From a functioning rail hex (in most cases) supply then travels by truck first to a HQ and then from the HQ to a Unit in a two phase process.

The Big Differences in WitW
- Supply moves around the map during the log phase as 'Freight' and it is tracked. When Freight gets to a unit it is converted into one of the four types of supply - Supplies, Fuel, Ammo or Replacements - but only if they exist in the production pools. (I think of it as cashing a cheque)
- Freight is created, stored and transferred between a network of Depots. Units will try to get their Freight from the nearest Depot. Unlike WitE supply does not move through HQs and you cannot get supply from any working rail - only a Depot. Depots also have Trucks which move Freight to Units. The Truck situation is similar to WitE - the fewer trucks and further you have to travel the less freight you will receive.
- Depots automatically move freight to each other by rail or sea (not truck).
- The ability to move Freight between Depots is constrained by two factors. Firstly Depots can only exist in a hex with a Port or a Railyard. The capacity of the Depot to handle freight is dependent on the size of the co-located Port or Railyard. A big port like Antwerp can handle much more Freight than a small port like Granville. Secondly there is a limit on the ability of the network to move Freight between Depots by ship or rail.
- Rail Capacity is governed by two factors - firstly Railyard Points which are produced by Railyards. Railyard Points represent rolling stock. The less you have the more difficult it is to move. Secondly the usage of a rail in each hex is recorded. As you move more by rail the track changes colour and the cost to move increases - representing congestion.
- Sea Capacity is limited by Port Points and Shipping. A unit can now have enough SMPs to unload but will be unable to do so as the port has maxed out which then impacts on the freight capacity in the log phase.
- The movement of Freight and the movement of Units by rail/sea are in direct competition so you need to balance moving units strategically with the logistic need of your units.
- As a player you can create Depots in hexes on the rail network with towns (inc Ports). You can specify the Priority of resupply for Corps/Army/Army Gp via their HQ and also for each Depot.

So what?
- The practical upshot of all this is that supply is more constrained. You are unlikely to get all the freight that you need no matter how you position your troops.
- As rail movement consumes Railyard Points not all rail lines are equal especially when unloading a unit - resulting in an increased SMP Cost.
- Similarly as depot capacity depends on the size of ports and railyards some lines of communication have much more capacity. It is no longer only a question of repairing the closest rail to the front line.
- As replacements also consume freight based on their size - putting a unit on refit in a Depot hex can suck up all the freight and leave others with almost nothing.
- Railing a unit to the rear for refit is possible but it will reduce the freight moving forward.
- There is no HQ Build Up function - you now have to create a Depot and allow freight to accumulate before launching an offensive.

I hope this gives you a flavour of the system - I have simplified some parts but hope it all makes sense. Feel free to ask any follow up questions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Here's a screenshot of a recent Allied AI invasion in June 44 near Dieppe in the Campaign 43 scenario. Notice the different size airfields on the map. We keep making steady progress and are striving for a Fall 2014 release. I can only assume the large number of Italian labor battalions are out fixing various railyards that have been bombed by the Allied air forces.

This is not the first time I have been linked with Hans Gruber.

quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper

Even small fighter units based in a field needed some logistics to keep them going. IMO the new system simulates this better than what WitE currently has.

quote:

One big problem with the current WITE system I don't see addressed is synchronisation. If a unit spends it's full time allotment fighting through a position, another unit shouldn't be able to exploit with it's full movement allowance into the gap.