RE: Re: WITE 2

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: Re: WITE 2

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: Re: WITE 2

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Re: WITE 2 - 6/15/2016 6:45:02 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

Only a full globe map would solve this (or at least a map expanded beyond the range of conflict)

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 631

RE: Re: WITE 2 - 6/15/2016 8:48:45 PM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

Not really. Extending the map north to the Arctic ocean and south to Turkey/Iran border would cover most of this situations that arise. In the south, the Axis player can explicitly play to the "end of the world" By providing special Iran rules (British support if the German's get too close) these implausible situations will not have a huge impact on the game.

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 632

RE: Re: WITE 2 - 6/15/2016 8:53:20 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

What about east? To Vladivostok?

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 633

RE: Re: WITE 2 - 6/15/2016 8:55:43 PM

RedLancer

Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

WitE2 has the same large map as WitW so you can go to Turkey/Iran. Whether we make it playable that far has yet to be decided.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 634

RE: Re: WITE 2 - 6/15/2016 9:57:21 PM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

What about east? To Vladivostok?

IMHO, if the Germans force the Soviets off the east edge of the map, there is no chance of recovery. If the Germans take Baku, there is. Especially if the Front that is trapped between the Caucuses and the edge of the map is not eliminated.

Making Tbilisi a supply source would do a lot to eliminate the problem.

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 635

RE: Re: WITE 2 - 6/15/2016 10:29:31 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

@Loki you are only thinking in an offensive context. A player on the back foot in 1942 is going to swamp the landscape with a carpet of brigades. You simply have not played enough to realize this. Check the AAR's. It's an accepted defensive technique. And to keep comparing WITW with WITE in this context is like apples and oranges.

They are two completely different types of war. The allied player in WITW (if he knows his business) is rarely if ever going to be concerned with defensive lines. Whereas with the Russian it is his primary concern for the best part of two years.

I don't know why people try to derail simple suggestions with unrelated bull dust. The question is NOT how or when a player should use his brigades. The question is should a brigade have as much stickiness as a hex full of Mech units. Simple.

Either it will change or it won't. To argue though that the game would be no better with a more sophisticated zoc rule set is beyond my ability to comprehend. Trying to be non offensive here.

For some strange reason, you want to insist that it is not a problem and it won't matter because players will, for goodwill I guess, decline to create a carpet defense with ants.

I am going to leave the subject now. I can add no more. The naysayers can have sway.

_____________________________

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 636

RE: Re: WITE 2 - 6/15/2016 10:50:50 PM

chaos45

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline

IDK about the carpet being all that effective honestly esp with more shatters now on just BDE units. With the new supply system a huge carpet probably wont be needed. In Wite 1 you need the carpet because the otherside can concentrate a massive amount of force in a very small area. Unlike real life you will commmonly see 20+ German C/M divisions concentrated in 1 push, and the same on the soviet side. This allows some fairly gamey play on both sides really.

You easily see it with in me and Peltons game where in 1942 he has massive concentrations punching through just about where ever he wants, and then once the tide turns I turn the exact same tactic on the Germans. The game system without a hex delay or a huge supply limitation for massive forces in a small area just breaks down. A sea of ants wont matter against those size force concentrations. As once you break the line the next division or corps just hasty attacks a huge amount of ants out of the way for little MP cost.

Both sides can do this at different time periods in the current game. In real life terms a 3-5k man unit defending one hex is still going to cause issues to the attacker no matter how strong. Will the attacker defeat the defender, almost certainly yes...however that unit will still inflict losses and slow or delay the attack. Not to mention unlike in the game the attacker probably wouldnt know its only a BDE esp after he has already had to fight through several defensive belts at the main front.

Both sides had this lack of real accurate recon on advances past the MLR. Often German motorcylce units just sprinting ahead till they met resistance then trying to figure out what that resistance was. So IMO even just a BDE should zoc/delay an advance because the turns are only 1 week and defeating a BDE in combat even with superior forces would take most likely a day of action or so.

Recon probably needs to be one of the bigger changes in the game as enemy units and strength is way to easy to know/see. In real life the estimates were never all that accurate. For the MLR decent recon levels are probably accurate however if they units dont start next to each other the recon needs to be alot more limited than it is.....as they have had very limited time to figure out who they ran into.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 637

RE: Re: WITE 2 - 6/16/2016 3:17:19 PM

rainman2015

Posts: 229
Joined: 2/12/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Not to mention unlike in the game the attacker probably wouldnt know its only a BDE esp after he has already had to fight through several defensive belts at the main front.

Both sides had this lack of real accurate recon on advances past the MLR. Often German motorcylce units just sprinting ahead till they met resistance then trying to figure out what that resistance was. So IMO even just a BDE should zoc/delay an advance because the turns are only 1 week and defeating a BDE in combat even with superior forces would take most likely a day of action or so.

Recon probably needs to be one of the bigger changes in the game as enemy units and strength is way to easy to know/see. In real life the estimates were never all that accurate. For the MLR decent recon levels are probably accurate however if they units dont start next to each other the recon needs to be alot more limited than it is.....as they have had very limited time to figure out who they ran into.

I like the idea of a more limited recon ability for units that you didn't start the movement phase next to (i.e. more limited air type recon). That would make a much different game, although speaking as one that mostly plays the Germans, not sure i like it (hmmm)! You would need to know the basics of what you were attacking to know how much force to bring to bear or any tiny unit would force you to 'overspend' combat force/MPs to attack, but i like the concept.

Randy
:)

(in reply to chaos45)

Post #: 638

RE: Re: WITE 2 - 6/16/2016 7:56:02 PM

RKhan

Posts: 315
Joined: 1/17/2016
From: My Secret Bunker
Status: offline

So, how far away are we from having WITE 2.0 available, even as beta? Is there a place one can look for updates on the release date?

_____________________________

RKhan

(in reply to rainman2015)

Post #: 639

RE: Re: WITE 2 - 6/16/2016 8:07:22 PM

RedLancer

Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

You won't get a better answer than Post #522 above.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to RKhan)

Post #: 640

RE: WitE 2 - 6/16/2016 11:46:29 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

@HMSWARSPITE - your argument makes no sense at all to me. Even the most rudimentary change to the zoc rules would be an improvement. You are happy with the zoc rules? Fine. But don't muddy the water with silly arguments about all this supposed added complexity a change would entail.

HQ's don't have zoc's. No need to say anymore on that point.

Who said it was broken? I said it can be improved. Spend some time thinking about what some good improvements would be rather than counting toothbrushes.

As for WITW, I was at one point a tester. Short lived as it turned out. But I did help make one or two small improvements. But in the end arguing with people like yourself wore me down and I gave up.

You really know how to upset people, you know? "People like" myself? So what am I? I have suggested many improvements to the WitE/W system.

You suggested an improved ZOC system based on the number of men in the hex. I pointed out some issues. Now you flame me, backtrack on what you said, and ask for a "most rudimentary change" to the ZOC rules.

I was pointing out what a can of worms complex ZOC rules can be... I didn't say it couldn't be improved, just that I think it would take a lot of work relative to the 'problem'.

Go on, what is your suggested rudimentary change? And while you are at it, why isn't stacking an issue?

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 641

RE: WitE 2 - 6/17/2016 12:29:49 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

I said this:

quote:

These are just examples. I am sure those in the know could come up with better numbers and formula.

I always get the same responses from people like you. I suggest a change or improvement. Then the naysaying begins.

I don't offer a solution. Because I am not *the* programmer. I do know for a fact a simple and better system could be designed and implemented if the desire to do so was there.

Now for your benefit, stacking. All you need do is read the forum. Not for the first time, my most recent rant about stacking is here, just a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4090905

You want to start a debate here about? Go ahead. Be my guest.

Sorry you feel upset. Maybe go play with someone else?

_____________________________

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 642

RE: WitE 2 - 6/17/2016 5:09:43 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

I think we both agree that both stacking and ZOCs are an abstraction at individual hex level that makes no sense and is highly unrealistic. However in a game of the scale of WITE (or even WITW) abstractions at hex level are not very important if they lead to the right effects at corps/army (or equivalent). I think we disagree whether this is the case (or I assume so), but each to their own, that is the fun of forums like this.

However, your first mention of ZOCs in this thread was "
What about variable zoc costs? Small units, for example brigade/regiments create just as much friction as a whole corp of Mech units ATM. This should be addressed. I am not sure what possible excuse could be offered for this kind of thing...."

And if I may, I might be able to help you. The game is designed, programmed, documented and tested by a finite number of people. I nearly said 'fixed' but the number does vary a little from time to time. Thus there is a finite amount of resource that is available to design and implement features. There are also other constraints like min machine spec memory and processor time. Many suggestions for improvements do not take account of these constraints, and given the number of posters vs the resource to implement, there are always more suggestions for improvements than can be done. So, ideas don't have to just be a good idea, they need to be better than all the other ideas (or better than all but a few, depending on how many ideas can be worked and released) that are fighting for a given game or upgrade/patch. Given gthat I (and I think probably some others, including the ones that need to make these choices) don't see the ZOC issue as particularly broken, there is your "possible excuse" (and it isn't an excuse).

I would love the stacking issue to be more logical, and this might be having an effect at corps level (ironically more in WITW I suspect) the "excuse" there (as already explained) is that the display issues are rather large so the time/resource ti make that change outweighs that for a simple update. Might be in WITE2 for all I know though.

Just thought I could help you understand you weren't necressarily oignored on all those suggestions. It really isn't personal from all those people "like me".

Oh, and in WITW, small units don't exert ZOCs in the same way as divs iirc... do they in WITE? (Long time since I've played WITE and as I said I think much larger than single hexes while playing).

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 643

RE: WitE 2 - 6/17/2016 6:09:28 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

I understand what you are saying. But I obviously disagree.

If I hear you right you are saying words to the effect of, that to make zoc stickiness more proportional to a units actual affect in the real world, it is too costly to improve in terms of 2by3 resources and it is also low in priority.

We apparently agree it could be better.

I still say it could be improved with little effort and a simple rule. And, like others, I think it's important. I will leave it at that.

As for how zoc's work in WITW. I believe/thought that they impeded the movement of other units in an identical manner no matter unit size. This is the case in WITE. Are you saying that a reg/brigade in WITW has less effect on enemy movement than larger units? I don't believe that is the case and would have thought Red Lancer would have pointed that out to me if it were the case.

I find it puzzling that some players don't think this is a fundamental issue. But hey, each to their own. I get a lot of enjoyment out of solving and implementing tactical/operational challenges. This desire to see a more realistic zoc rule would add to that enjoyment for me, and others I assume.

The primitiveness of the current zoc rule, in my view, does not do the game justice.

_____________________________

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 644

RE: WitE 2 - 6/17/2016 6:54:17 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

You are right about ZOC in WITW (my mistake). I knew there was a difference at regimental level but a quick refresher reminded me that small unit ZOCs don't convert enemy territory into friendly territory. The big effect on Regiments is that they take extra MPs to move ZOC to ZOC above what divisions do.

However I still do not see that the ZoC system in game breaks it, or even really affects it much. I would not update it for less than a really detailed one: pseudo combat evaluation (portion of unit creating ZOC vs the CV of the unit trying to enter) and that removing the ZOc in hex for as long as friendlies are present, and the harder it is, the more MPs it would take. This is not a trivial load on either CPU or designer. Arbitrary 'regt's dont have ZOC is not much better than today. Should 3 Regts in a hex have a ZOC

If the ZOC was locking (ended movement) that would be an issue for small units, but it isn't...

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 645

RE: WitE 2 - 6/17/2016 7:19:02 PM

RedLancer

Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

I did take the time to get the rulebook out and look at what might be entailed. I cannot read the code so this is a bit of a guess on my part.

The current rule set means that any enemy unit impacts a hex equitably as all hexes are either friendly, pending or enemy. An enemy hex is any hex adjacent to an enemy unit.

For this discussion I'll only consider entering an enemy hex rather than ZOC to ZOC.

The cost on entering an enemy hex is the movement cost plus a value mitigated by a bonus for moving unit morale. +1 is added for Regts and Bdes.

So to code what Michael proposes I think requires at least one complete additional step to be added - not just a check on whether the hex is enemy but also a check in any of the 5 possible adjacent hexes what enemy units are present and what is the total score to impact movement.

Currently to enter a hex the added cost / bonus reduction is +((120-Morale)/20) ROUNDDOWN. This means that the score to impact movement has to change the 120 value in someway.

I agree that there is a better way but I'm not convinced that it is worth the effort. As Loki100 has stated the need in WitE2 is less.

I don't know how difficult this is. Those who understand the code read the forum and may comment. My big worry is not in the coding of new rules but the impact on the AI. You would need to teach the defending AI the difference if it is the defend to the same standard as at present and that is significantly more challenging.

< Message edited by Red Lancer -- 6/17/2016 8:04:39 PM >

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 646

RE: WitE 2 - 6/17/2016 11:16:42 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

There is some confusion here. *I am talking about zoc to zoc*

I always have been. This is another problem. Getting the message across. I am not concerned with changing ownership, or moving into enemy hex costs.

Friction, stickiness, zoc to zoc, crossing a river in to a zoc. These are what matter.

I cannot understand why you think it's a non issue. But you don't so I will just have to leave it. But I can't believe after all this you guys still don't see what I am on about.

I will provide an example of what I mean:

If a Panzer Division moves between two regiments the added cost is +8, same as if it tried to move between two tank corp. That is what I mean by stickiness. Thats why a carpet is so effective.

If Pavel said to me words to this effect: You can have the existing zoc to zoc rules OR you can have reg/brigades with no zoc at all I would say remove zoc to zoc costs for these units. It would be better.

Another problem here is general wargaming experience with operational games. A lot of guys here Mechfo, for example and others know exactly what I mean. But Red, Warspite and Loki I don't think know really what I mean.

Again. The current rules are saying that a security regiment can influence the movement of a passing unit in an adjacent hex to the exact same degree as a whole hex full of tank corp or Panzer units.

Should I perhaps post a screenie with two examples? Would this clear it all up?

_____________________________

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 647

RE: WitE 2 - 6/18/2016 12:34:25 AM

Great_Ajax

Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline

I get it and I agree with you. I hate the carpets as they are purely a method to soak up enemy movement capability instead of using the more common sense method of placing your combat power forward while maintaining a reasonable reserve. I see this as both a ZOC issue and the lack of options a defender has in blunting penetrations of his line due to the turn based nature of the game. I think ZOC adjustments based on hex occupation are valid as are MP adjustments for attacking different sized units. A panzer division conducting a deliberate attack against an enemy brigade is going to take a lot less planning (and less MPs) than the same unit planning an attack on a hex with three rifle corps. I also think the way that reserves work should be looked at to allow more options for the defender to actually plan for his mobile reserves to respond to enemy penetrations of his line. In order to discourage the tar baby defense, the defensive player needs more options for planning reserves.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is some confusion here. *I am talking about zoc to zoc*

I always have been. This is another problem. Getting the message across. I am not concerned with changing ownership, or moving into enemy hex costs.

Friction, stickiness, zoc to zoc, crossing a river in to a zoc. These are what matter.

I cannot understand why you think it's a non issue. But you don't so I will just have to leave it. But I can't believe after all this you guys still don't see what I am on about.

I will provide an example of what I mean:

If a Panzer Division moves between two regiments the added cost is +8, same as if it tried to move between two tank corp. That is what I mean by stickiness. Thats why a carpet is so effective.

If Pavel said to me words to this effect: You can have the existing zoc to zoc rules OR you can have reg/brigades with no zoc at all I would say remove zoc to zoc costs for these units. It would be better.

Another problem here is general wargaming experience with operational games. A lot of guys here Mechfo, for example and others know exactly what I mean. But Red, Warspite and Loki I don't think know really what I mean.

Again. The current rules are saying that a security regiment can influence the movement of a passing unit in an adjacent hex to the exact same degree as a whole hex full of tank corp or Panzer units.

Should I perhaps post a screenie with two examples? Would this clear it all up?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 648

RE: WitE 2 - 6/18/2016 1:16:26 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

@ Trey , thank you, thank you. You have saved me a trip to the local mental institute, I can put away my straight jacket

Hooray, someone from the dev team finally gets it

Now I can rest easy, nothing may change but at least someone in the team is on the same page. Thank you. You have no idea how much frustration you have relieved me of.

< Message edited by Michael T -- 6/18/2016 1:21:45 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Great_Ajax)

Post #: 649

RE: WitE 2 - 6/18/2016 1:18:53 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

+1 on the reserves issue from me too.

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 650

RE: WitE 2 - 6/18/2016 1:37:52 AM

Great_Ajax

Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline

NP Michael :) We have these kinds of discussions all the time through emails and the development forum. Sometimes I win a little victory and a change gets done and sometimes I can't. Many of the changes depend on current priorities and the difficulty of the task. When I lose, I just bide my time until the discussion pops up again and then I add my two cents. I will say that Pavel, Joel and the 2by3 team always listen and even though I get frustrated at times, I understand the resource constraints.

Trey

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 651

RE: WitE 2 - 6/18/2016 3:43:57 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

In appreciating the game, I think it's important not to let "perfect" be the enemy of "good".

(in reply to Great_Ajax)

Post #: 652

RE: WitE 2 - 6/18/2016 6:17:21 AM

RedLancer

Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is some confusion here. *I am talking about zoc to zoc*

I always have been. This is another problem. Getting the message across. I am not concerned with changing ownership, or moving into enemy hex costs.

Friction, stickiness, zoc to zoc, crossing a river in to a zoc. These are what matter.

I cannot understand why you think it's a non issue. But you don't so I will just have to leave it. But I can't believe after all this you guys still don't see what I am on about.

I will provide an example of what I mean:

If a Panzer Division moves between two regiments the added cost is +8, same as if it tried to move between two tank corp. That is what I mean by stickiness. Thats why a carpet is so effective.

If Pavel said to me words to this effect: You can have the existing zoc to zoc rules OR you can have reg/brigades with no zoc at all I would say remove zoc to zoc costs for these units. It would be better.

Another problem here is general wargaming experience with operational games. A lot of guys here Mechfo, for example and others know exactly what I mean. But Red, Warspite and Loki I don't think know really what I mean.

Again. The current rules are saying that a security regiment can influence the movement of a passing unit in an adjacent hex to the exact same degree as a whole hex full of tank corp or Panzer units.

Should I perhaps post a screenie with two examples? Would this clear it all up?

I know exactly what you mean but used entering a ZOC as an easier example as many of the challenges are similar. ZOC to ZOC adds 4 points to the cost. That provides a little more flex in the rule set. Please post screenshots if you wish.

I never said it was a non issue. I did say that it was less of an issue for WitE2. This is very much like the process I went through with Pelton about combat losses. Before I ask for a change I understand all the facts first.

< Message edited by Red Lancer -- 6/18/2016 6:57:45 AM >

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 653

RE: WitE 2 - 6/18/2016 8:04:24 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Ok give me some time and I will do some shots. Right now I am building a chicken coop.

_____________________________

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 654

RE: WitE 2 - 6/18/2016 3:28:18 PM

notenome

Posts: 608
Joined: 12/28/2009
Status: offline

About the zoc cost thing (bearing in mind I am massively rusty with this game)

I think part of the challenge is that whilst unit size should have an impact on zoc, one should also remember that blocking detachments are valid (and in the time period, frequently used) strategy.

I honestly can't think of a good solution to this though, especially since move costs in open terrain are so low there isn't much wiggle room for granularity.

The best I can come up with is to make it a check where you would have a normal zoc movement penalty (as you have it now) which could be halved (the penalty) if the interfering unit fails a check.

So out of ten, for example, (commander inf or armor rating/2 + 2/4/6 (brig/div/corp) or something like that.

Which would make some sense, Raus (iirc his name correctly) in his book spends a good deal of time detailing how in the early days of Barbarossa his regiment was isolated for a couple of days by a single KV tank that would neither die nor move from a critical road junction. You want it to be possible for interference to occur without necessarily mandating it.

That said it is a rather complex solution and WITE already has an awful lot of rules.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 655

RE: WitE 2 - 6/18/2016 6:34:22 PM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

Variable strength zones of control could add a lot of color to the game. I especially like it if there is an element of variability to the ZOC strength check. Not sure about the complexity it introduces since the calculation must be performed at the beginning of each turn and again each time the defending side yields a hex. The algorithm could make the ZOC weaker or stronger based on the units exerting influence into the hex. Longer ranged indirect fire weapons would have the greatest influence. If you consider a movement to contact for a deliberate attack. The whole thing becomes an adventure.

As a note, HPS Smolensk shows Soviet divisions deployed fully forward defending 18-19 KM with a battalion every 2 KM. This is similar to regimental breakdowns in WITE with 2 regiments per hex.

(in reply to notenome)

Post #: 656

RE: WitE 2 - 6/18/2016 10:44:15 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

I can't post any screen shots here for some reason. I will try again later.

_____________________________

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 657

RE: WitE 2 - 6/19/2016 4:50:27 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Here are some screenies of what I am on about. Note the MP cost as the Mech units move past the weak Soviet brigades/reg. Each unit has from 700 to 2000 men. They exert the same strength zoc (and hence MP cost to bypass) as any other unit or stack of units you can imagine. A 50% strength security reg = a hex of 3 X 100% full strength divisions in the case of zoc to zoc OR zoc across river costs.

Case A