Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I don't like tinkering with NM. That has a strong tendency of blowing things up. It is not a tool that lends itself to precision, especially on the Soviet side. It doesn't take much to turn most of the Red Army into ants early on.

VPs are too weak an incentive, imo. They wouldn't stop me from running in 1941 since I know I will not win the game for years if at all.

Losing APs...yeah, that would give me real pause as the Soviet. APs are precious. Yet sufficiently granular in their effects that you can give and take here without wrecking the game. Given a choice between losing an army and losing 100 APs for Kiev falling early, you might actually want to lose an army. (To pick a number off the top of my head.)

The Axis may not value bonus AP awards as much as the Soviet values AP penalties. That's a genuine problem.

Economic penalties assume an actual economic system, which doesn't exist at present. I suppose you could brute force this by applying a straight up percentage penalty to either production or rail cap or both to represent temporary shock effects.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commanderski

In WITW prep points are used for pre-invasion, mainly for Amphib landings and parachute drops. What are prep points going to be used for in 2.0? Or is it too early to do much discussion on them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commanderski

In WITW prep points are used for pre-invasion, mainly for Amphib landings and parachute drops. What are prep points going to be used for in 2.0? Or is it too early to do much discussion on them.

Unused movement points give a boost to your attacking cv but not on the defense. This means if you rest units, especially well to the rear, they can launch a one off very powerful blow. The at-start German army benefits from this.

You lose prep pts by attacking (at the moment any attack so its a binary yes/no state [1]) or being attacked. In this case the loss is proportional to the intensity of combat.

Fair to say the concept is being refined. You'll need this as the Axis in part as the new logistic model means that as you reach Moscow et al, it helps offset material shortages - suppose you could regard it as one last lunge by an exhausted under-supplied army but motivated army. Also the new map is very different in some key areas to that in WiTE - again prep pts are probably the solution to having to breach a well defended major river line.

Its one reason (another) why I'm not sure that a Soviet run away is the best solution - you want to have made sure the Germans have had to fight all the way by the time they reach the gates of Moscow and Leningrad, you really do not want to be hit by formations that have simply been able to march all the way from Poland. If an Axis player can do that, even your strongest defensive line is going to be at real risk.

It also feeds into the developing game play model where pulling units properly into reserve and letting them recover after hard fighting is worth it. A German infantry division that has marched and fought all the way from Poland can be at 3-4 cv by November. One that was rested at a key stage can be 15 or so (at least on the attack).

[1] - this actually is where the earlier ant debate has more validity than in how it was presented by some posters

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

NM, modifying the very arbitrary system now in place. Why should a Soviet keeping Kiev into 42 have the same NM as somebody who loses it? Have a base value that stays more or less constant and modify it. The main issue here IMO would be the first few months of 41. For this period one could have special buffs/debuffs in place to get the ball rolling, later value would depend on performance in the field This gives incentives to both sides to fight and keep what they can.

This might also be connected to total casualties modifying NM, especially for Germans, they lost performance due to attrition, not date.

If the Soviets run too much, they preserve their forces but [trash] their combat effectiveness. If the Germans run too much they risk making the Soviets too strong too soon. However this also means the logistics system will have to be able to prevent offensives snowballing.

Economy. Aside from Oil, maybe give certain large industrial clusters or special resource locations production modifiers for vehicles? or a delayed limited supply generation capability.


That said, I think just the new logistics/railyard/depot system will make certain cities so important to have/deny to the enemy, that the dynamic will be very different to the existing one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

NM, modifying the very arbitrary system now in place. Why should a Soviet keeping Kiev into 42 have the same NM as somebody who loses it? Have a base value that stays more or less constant and modify it. The main issue here IMO would be the first few months of 41. For this period one could have special buffs/debuffs in place to get the ball rolling, later value would depend on performance in the field This gives incentives to both sides to fight and keep what they can.

This might also be connected to total casualties modifying NM, especially for Germans, they lost performance due to attrition, not date.

If the Soviets run too much, they preserve their forces but [trash] their combat effectiveness. If the Germans run too much they risk making the Soviets too strong too soon. However this also means the logistics system will have to be able to prevent offensives snowballing.

Economy. Aside from Oil, maybe give certain large industrial clusters or special resource locations production modifiers for vehicles? or a delayed limited supply generation capability.


That said, I think just the new logistics/railyard/depot system will make certain cities so important to have/deny to the enemy, that the dynamic will be very different to the existing one.

I fully endorse these ideas. I like a national morale penalty for running away. It's a logical penalty as opposed to other sorts of penalties or rewards. VPs also make sense because gaining and losing objectives is the measure of how we determine victory in the game, and they should vary according to timing. Initial objective values would relate to how the sides perceived their posture from the outset of the war. It's a little harder to develop an objective value in later stages after the '41 campaign has run its course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: robinsa

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine


I fully endorse these ideas. I like a national morale penalty for running away. It's a logical penalty as opposed to other sorts of penalties or rewards. VPs also make sense because gaining and losing objectives is the measure of how we determine victory in the game, and they should vary according to timing. Initial objective values would relate to how the sides perceived their posture from the outset of the war. It's a little harder to develop an objective value in later stages after the '41 campaign has run its course.

I disagree. The sixth army holding their ground surely didn't add to morale.

I think it should be connected to victory points but that would require a new system with "ticking" VP's. For every turn you hold an objective you get point (at an increasing rate to make sure you really want that extra VP).

It would be interesting if there was a possibility to change between different VP systems between games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

So much confusion could have been avoided if GG had referred to this concept as something like "Average Combat Proficiency" rather than "National Morale".

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

National Morale is not just unit morale and the wording of the term doesn't explain it's impact. NM includes numerous factors such as base quality of troops and officers, efficiency of training programs as well as evolving doctrine.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

National Morale is not just unit morale and the wording of the term doesn't explain it's impact. NM includes numerous factors such as base quality of troops and officers, efficiency of training programs as well as evolving doctrine.

Trey

I'm aware of that, which is why losses suffered IMO should be a prime modifier in any NM system, but I think assigning it to some geographical locations could still be used as a trailing indicator of general proficiency, while at the same time giving these locations such tangible benefits that both sides would do their very best to hang on to them as long as possible. Of course NM points shouldn't be scattered all over the map, or this the only modifier, but one of several.

Political considerations/morale etc considerations means a fight would be necessary to take f.e. Stalingrad. If it were taken, this is an indication the Soviets are deteriorating in relative quality since under no circumstances would it be ceded without them being overwhelmed. Remember, our perceptions of the 2 sides quality is heavily dependent on their success, and the currency of success is territorial gain and there is a reason both sides decided to duke it out there instead of another arbitrary geographical location, somewhere in the steps.

We would think less of a Wehrmacht that barely managed to take Kiev instead of standing in front of Moscow. More of one that is sitting in Stalingrad in 44 instead of running in the Ukraine. Of course, many influences, are being subsumed into this, but that's just how NM works.

The current NM already goes in this direction, except it is tied to arbitrary dates, and the values derived from our perception of how "good" they were. But those values are derived from where those frontlines were and how they moved.

The big advantage of having a geographical influence is also that we know who was where when, which, together with the date system, gives a certain baseline on what values should be assigned where. Ideally losses would be a further modifier which adds a further consideration that players must consider.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

MechFO, I have long preferred to tie NM to player influenced actions rather than arbitrarily dates. I agree that German NM should be tied to losses instead of dates as the decline of the German capability was driven by attrition. Having a driver for the Soviets is a bit stickier as their increasing capabilities came from learning from painful mistakes and the evolution of their doctrine. My theory is that as Soviet losses climb, so should their proficiency as making mistakes and failure is a critical part of learning and therefore, a key ingredient for improvement in performance. A Soviet Army that is focused on avoiding combat in 1941 with low losses should not see an automatic NM increase. The Soviet player should be encouraged to attack and we are seeing in the Alpha of WitE 2 that attacking Soviets are enacting a far greater toll on German forces in 1941.

To me, there is no skin in the game with the player because the victory objectives are purely player driven. There is no higher authority directing strategic objectives and therefore, no pressure or consequences for these strategic goals. The games play out like a giant sandbox without a lot of realistic constraints as both Germans and Soviets are free to abandon large swathes of territory with no real consequence. My dream WitE addition would be a Supreme Leader strategic objective assignment system. At a minimum, each Spring (say March), each Supreme Leader assigns a strategic objective to the northern, central and southern sector and could be a combination of attack and defend for a large city in each sector. Each player has no idea what the other player's objectives are and could lead to some interesting operational situations. Success and failure to achieve these goals would have concrete benefits and punishments. What those impacts are would be debatable but I think it would drive a much more dynamic and realistic game.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I don't normally post my ideas publicly but this is one I've ofter thought about....

My suggestion is that manpower is more tightly restricted and NM more stable. In return the player is given the ability to trigger additional manpower into the pool but at a cost in NM. This replicates mobilisation and changes in the call up criteria for the population. This benefits good players. Someone who is doing better than history is not penalised by historical NM levels if they do better than history. For the AI the mobilisation is triggered when the manpower pool falls below a set level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe
Having a driver for the Soviets is a bit stickier as their increasing capabilities came from learning from painful mistakes and the evolution of their doctrine. My theory is that as Soviet losses climb, so should their proficiency as making mistakes and failure is a critical part of learning and therefore, a key ingredient for improvement in performance. A Soviet Army that is focused on avoiding combat in 1941 with low losses should not see an automatic NM increase. The Soviet player should be encouraged to attack and we are seeing in the Alpha of WitE 2 that attacking Soviets are enacting a far greater toll on German forces in 1941.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe
To me, there is no skin in the game with the player because the victory objectives are purely player driven. There is no higher authority directing strategic objectives and therefore, no pressure or consequences for these strategic goals. The games play out like a giant sandbox without a lot of realistic constraints as both Germans and Soviets are free to abandon large swathes of territory with no real consequence. My dream WitE addition would be a Supreme Leader strategic objective assignment system. At a minimum, each Spring (say March), each Supreme Leader assigns a strategic objective to the northern, central and southern sector and could be a combination of attack and defend for a large city in each sector. Each player has no idea what the other player's objectives are and could lead to some interesting operational situations. Success and failure to achieve these goals would have concrete benefits and punishments. What those impacts are would be debatable but I think it would drive a much more dynamic and realistic game.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I don't normally post my ideas publicly but this is one I've ofter thought about....

My suggestion is that manpower is more tightly restricted and NM more stable. In return the player is given the ability to trigger additional manpower into the pool but at a cost in NM. This replicates mobilisation and changes in the call up criteria for the population. This benefits good players. Someone who is doing better than history is not penalised by historical NM levels if they do better than history. For the AI the mobilisation is triggered when the manpower pool falls below a set level.