Basic info on War in the West 43-45

[Joel Billings]

Speaking of logistics, here's a very crude graphic representation (on a crude alpha map) of the fact that the system now tracks rail usage down tracks. In this case various shading shows different levels of use. As use goes up, less freight moves over it and units moving over the track use more MPs. You'll notice Naples is a depot type 3 (port source of supply for other ports). You create forward depots in the game. Fresh from reading the US Army logistical study of the France 44 campaign, Gary threw himself into doing the logistics game he's always wanted to do (a scary thing from the guy that brought supply points into World at War, a game some refer to as Axis & Allies on steroids). Over 30 years of working with Gary and he constantly impresses me with what he comes up with. And Pavel is doing an equally great job on the new air game, so I for one am looking forward to seeing this game come together.

[Wild]

delete

[Aurelian]

Looking forward to this game.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: Smirfy
From the scale chosen the actual “game” will be reliant on working mechanics for logistics, comand and control and politics to carry it. (in those three WITE fell on its face which incidently was a surprise given Garys civil war game). From the sceenshot there is nothing to suggest WITW will be any different.

[8|]

Each to his own I suppose

As a contrary opinion, 1) WitE logistics are comparable to similar games but certainly need improvement even for WitE, 2) C&C is by far the best model I have seen (but can still be improved of course), and 3) I don't see where politics is even applicable to WitE (although inter-Allied friction will certainly be a factor in WitW).

Each to his own I suppose

As a contrary opinion, 1) WitE logistics are comparable to similar games but certainly need improvement even for WitE, 2) C&C is by far the best model I have seen (but can still be improved of course), and 3) I don't see where politics is even applicable to WitE (although inter-Allied friction will certainly be a factor in WitW).

I'm sorry but there arnt that many turn based operational hex based games on the market to compare WitE with so claiming it is comparable or the best is laughable to start of with. Atomic's operational wargames had a better logistics model and they are 10+ years old. C+C as a mechanic is pretty poor and does not reflect Eastern Front warfare in the slightest. If you cant see how politics effected the war in the East I think you should get your nose out of technical manuals and read a history of the conflict and then compare it to zero political gravity WitE. The map used is too big for a strategic wargame and too small for an operational wargame so without those three facets I mention the game is a counter shove and a database nothing more. Numerous posts have pointed out that the West will be cramped to say the least.

My 2cents was releasing Barbarossa to Berlin and trying to get it to work as the starting point of a "Europa" series was optimistic. It would have been better to start with Poland or the Western Desert to get the scale and mechanics right. Failing that it would have been more sensible to release if the first module had to be an Eastern front wargame it should have only dealt with the events up to Spring 42. When you narrow the remit you have more chance of getting things right. Now the crowbar is going to be used to lever WiTW into a failed scale. That is beyond debate. So like I said it better have a great political, logistics and C+C model because anyone can see it wont work.

[sillyflower]

I admire the scale of the ambition but am hoping this does not come out for many years.

WiTE has already consumed almost all of my gaming time for 16 months now and I want to play Panzerkorps, Total War 2 Shogun, Guild Wars 2 etc etc so please give me a chance to do something other than this game.

[morvael]

It would be great if tracking rail capacity would be backported to WitE, I would even buy it in a paid expansion pack. The current supply model is unrealistic just because of this single issue - unlimited capacity of one rail line to supply any number of units. Is it possible for this feature to make into WitE?

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: morvael

It would be great if tracking rail capacity would be backported to WitE, I would even buy it in a paid expansion pack. The current supply model is unrealistic just because of this single issue - unlimited capacity of one rail line to supply any number of units. Is it possible for this feature to make into WitE?

I'd suggest this should be the only reason to actually create the supply model. It looks the best approximation I have ever seen, 2by3 should be applauded for trying to create something like this. However, Allied bombing during the transportation plan and armed recce interdiction after the landings essentially isolated the Normandy battlefield from the rest of the world in the summer of 1944. A supply model this detailed is beside the point at this particular point in time since the there was never any danger of the train lines in northern France getting overloaded.

German forces lived off a logistical shoestring and the capacity of the rail network was the least of their quartermaster's worries.
They simply couldn't move large formations by train safely and usually had to go via long time consuming routes if they did try it. The Allied bomber offensive destroyed marshalling yards, miles of track, lots of bridges and it was all the German logistics could do to keep the troops supplied with basic food requirements and ammunition.

It will likewise be limited in the 40-42 game since the desert is...well...the desert. It was possession of a port and a truck fleet that mattered.

In the east, though, this model will ice the cake.

Regards,
IronDuke

[vinnie71]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Speaking of logistics, here's a very crude graphic representation (on a crude alpha map) of the fact that the system now tracks rail usage down tracks. In this case various shading shows different levels of use. As use goes up, less freight moves over it and units moving over the track use more MPs. You'll notice Naples is a depot type 3 (port source of supply for other ports). You create forward depots in the game. Fresh from reading the US Army logistical study of the France 44 campaign, Gary threw himself into doing the logistics game he's always wanted to do (a scary thing from the guy that brought supply points into World at War, a game some refer to as Axis & Allies on steroids). Over 30 years of working with Gary and he constantly impresses me with what he comes up with. And Pavel is doing an equally great job on the new air game, so I for one am looking forward to seeing this game come together.

This is interesting and very realistic. I was reading some (translations of) papers by German generals recently of their war in Russia, and what strcuk me was the mention of several of them of these depots and the adverse effects that their distance to the front had, especially during the Battle for Moscow and how concerned they were of these falling in Russian hands or being somehow cut off from them. Like the previous poster I would love to have that somehow reworked back in WitE.

Incidentally it would stop both sides from unleashing the constant offensives that is now possible and would actually make those air transport groups even more important in the game....

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Wild

I agree with you Iron Duke.
I had such promise for this series,but the Devs seem immune to any feedback from their customers. If this was still the 1970's,i guess i could accept that,but in the year 2012, to not acknowledge a very vocal part of their fanbase, that says the axis are being handled incorrectly is astonishing.
I know there is a group of players (Aurelian and his ilk) who would like to stifle this series,but to do so would be a huge error on matrix's part in my opinion.

Wild,
Thanks for the support. However, to clarify, It's not that I think the AXIS are being handled incorrectly, I just think the game is being handled incorrectly and as the side with most to do, it impacts the AXIS side more than the Allied. My matches are always mirrored so I have no problem with either side in a general sense.

To summarise:

Firstly, there are not three games here and it's hard to see the justification for charging three times. I'm intrigued to know what happens in the final game if the German assault on France fails? Does the game arbitrarily end in 1942, or does it go on until 1945? If 1942, I sense there will be a few concerned voices, unhappy at having their grand campaigns ended early. If it goes on to 1945, why am I paying twice for the same time frame and map?

Indeed, add up the total number of units in the three games, and I strongly suspect there won't be as many combined as there are in WitE. Given the relative levels of action, casualties and committment, I seem to be getting 70% of the war in one title, with the other 30% being covered by three additional titles.

Secondly, scales. WitE is an operational wargame. WitW 43-45 won't be at these scales...period. The screenshots we see encompass all the land combat for the first 50 turns of the 43 GC. At this scale, land warfare is essentially a slugfest, as I suspect the first Beta AARs (if released) will demonstrate. If you are playing at a scale that allows few hexes, then manouvre is impossible and everything becomes frontal.

Thirdly, add ons. the logistics model looks superlative. However, a naval model is largely beside the point for much of the WitW and a more detailed aerial model is surely no reason to split the fighting into three games.

Fourthly, what you said...

EDIT:Joel this is very impressive.But what i am looking for is more flexability to increase my gaming expeiance.Why is the side that already has all the advantages given all the fun things to do,unlike WitP.

If a German player retains a hope of winning ouright in WitE in 1943/44, it is because they did very well in 1941/42. In WitW 43-45, you're starting from an historical starting position, against a numerically stronger opponent, and the situation simply precludes achieving much. The new Naval model is useless to the AXIS in this game, the new air model will allow for more realistic shuffling, but will still remain shuffling deckchairs on the titanic. the new logistics model will no doubt be historically realistic, and will deliver precisely calculated small amounts of supply to the AXIS because of the Allied air supremacy.

I doubt there is anything the AXIS can do about anything at these scales because they preclude meaningfull manouvre.

War in the West should have been one title with 5 GCs. There, I've said it...

I had such promise for this series,but the Devs seem immune to any feedback from their customers.

I have been a member here for 10 years. I have never been banned or even warned for my behaviour, not even in the old AOW. I have never criticised a game publicly, and never criticised a developer. I have contributed official scenarios to three titles (although I wasn't credited in them all and not all have been published) and additionally done some testing.

I'm not a troll, I'm well read and I don't embark on a thread like this lightly. I've added reasoning and illustrative examples to all my points so I can be comprehensively rebutted by anyone whose analysis differs.

So far, I've been told We're going with 10 miles hexes (but no reasoning why), it'll feel different, and its not really an operational wargame. For the first time in my life here, I'm beginning to feel like we're paying the price for being a captive audience in a niche market. The major decisions have been made in private, I like or I lump (my betters are effectively telling me) because there aren't too many other places to go.

I suspect I'm fast reaching the point when the growing realisation I am on DEV ignore will outweigh my desire to contribute constructively (or be a tiresome pain in the ass depending on your POV). If I didn't need the WitE forum to help me through a game, I'd take a ban to stick up a "what scale should WitW be" poll to test the community waters.

Yours,
IronDuke/Timmy the Troll (delete as appropriate).

[Aurelian]

Poor, poor W(hiner)ild.

Game's not even near being out yet, and he's already attacking 2by3.

Understandable why the devs don't listen to him.

And I doubt very much that Matrix is going to tell Gary Grigsby "You have to make the game the way wild wants."

And just what is this "huge" market he claims to exsist? And these "PMs?"

[Joel Billings]

To do the early war years, and the war in the Med, you have to have a flushed out naval game, and a flushed out air game (how else would you do the Battle of Britain, Sea Lion, Norway, North Africa, Battle of the Atlantic). Now in 1943-45, the naval game is not as important, but the issues of air control over water are important (why didn't the Allies invade in Northern Italy in the summer of 43?). War in the East is a monster operational game covering the largest land war in history. But War in the East does not really do justice to naval issues or many air issues because it was not critical to the land war and could be simplified. In the West, to do them justice like we think War in the East does justice to the land issues, we need more detailed systems (not at the WitP level, but more satisfying for the serious gamer). Logistics are critical in all areas, and we've learned a lot with our WitE experience, just like our Uncommon Valor game taught us some things we needed to learn before we did WitP. We think we can do better in WitW, and that will be necessary and helpful for all of WiE (including WitE 2.0). We could try to do all of WitW 1940-45, in which case we'd say, we'll see you in 3-6 years if we haven't been forced to sell our houses and get a day job first. Some have argued we took on too much in doing WitE 41-45 all at once, but we made the decision to do it all at one time. With WitW, we see a clean break between the later years when the naval issues were simpler, and the earlier years where we need to create a new naval game. Remember, there will be scenarios in both 43 and 44 where the Allies will have an opportunity to choose different invasion sites and build up to the invasion. To me this is still an operational game, and as you can see in the screenshot there are lots of hexes (please don't critique the map as it's an alpha map which will ultimately be painted and will go through several more rounds of data adjustments - we already have a list of changes to be made). It's not WitE, and there will be times when the Allies are bottled up in small parts of the map, but it's still an operational game (divisions, not corps or army units). The new air game will allow for the simulation of the strategic bombing campaign, and the east front holding box will add the dimension of having some control over east vs west front strategic choices. We think the new air game and the invasion possibilities will make for an interesting game that is within our capabilities to do in a reasonable time frame (not a bridge too far). After this, Gary will complete a naval game system that will work with WIE in mind (and already having major pieces of the naval air game done), and we'll be able to do the earlier years in WitW. As we've said before, we expect at some point to work on a WitE 2.0 on this WiE map, using all of the more detailed systems that we will then have in place. Then, we can try to fill in the gaps and construct a WiE. In order to do a WiE game, it needs to all be at the same scale, and we selected this scale a long time ago, but doing a War in Europe game all at once just isn't possible, and isn't the best way to refine all of the systems we'll need to have working. Just a reminder, we aren't EA working on the next Madden Football, with tremendous resources to bring to bear for a market of millions of consumers.

As for retro-fitting rules from WitW to WitE, a few small items may come back into WitE, but it's unlikely that the bigger items will come to WitE. The impact on the game would be so great that the development time needed requires us to do it as a new game. And that's why we talk about WitE 2.0 someday using the WiE map as the best way to get the benefit of what we have learned and will continue to learn while working on WitW. That's quite a ways off though, and we think WitE is a great game that can be enjoyed as it is for many years.

I hope this gives our customers (and potential customers) a better understanding of our thinking.

[Micke II]

Thank you for the map and explanations. The map clearly demonstrate that the scale choosen for WITW will not work. How can you convince players to play with Normandy scenario where inside 5 hexes there will be 30 or 40 divisions stacked during 9 or 10 turns ?
You will not attrack interest if during these 10 turns there is nothing to do except strategic bombing and handle logistic.
On the West front in 1944 a division was covering a line of 5 km maximum (3 miles)
With a scale of 10 miles the simulation will be at the corps's level, not division level.

[Joel Billings]

Actually the frontage would be up to 8 hexes with only about 20-25 divisions on the front line. The other 5-10 (or more) can be a hex back and potentially in reserve mode where they can participate in attack and defense. Ok, I get it, some of you would like to see a different scale, but that is not going to change, so for those I can only say feel free to not buy the game when it's released.

[Aurelian]

Is there specific places you can land at, or will you be able to land anywhere on the coast?

SPI's WiTW/WiEU/WiTE used 20 mile hexes IIRC. And it worked just fine. (And you could land anywhere on the coast.)

I think that DG's Computer WiEu is the same scale.

[randallw]

Oooch, some potential customers might feel that was kind of a bad way to talk to them, not that you meant offense. ( Joel's response )

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: randallw

Oooch, some potential customers might feel that was kind of a bad way to talk to them, not that you meant offense. ( Joel's response )

Maybe,just maybe the guy has had it with people telling him he doesn't know how to choose the scale of a wargame? How many games and how long has he been in the industry?

Why don't we see how things develop before saying it'll never work eh?

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

ORIGINAL: randallw

Oooch, some potential customers might feel that was kind of a bad way to talk to them, not that you meant offense. ( Joel's response )

Maybe,just maybe the guy has had it with people telling him he doesn't know how to choose the scale of a wargame? How many games and how long has he been in the industry?

Why don't we see how things develop before saying it'll never work eh?

I agree. I wouldn't do well with Erik and Joel's job! I would get tired of someone calling my "Kid" ugly all of the time....

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Well, as a serial offender when it comes to holding invalid concerns [;)], my first reaction to this was that given that the individual units will (presumably) be modelled down to individual squads, tanks and artillery pieces, and the screenshot above saw the deployment of some Regimental sized units, how can the game avoid exploring these battles at the operational level?

To be clear, I didn't say your concerns were invalid, I said they would be _more_ valid if the focus of the game were on certain operations and exploring land combat within those operations. There are games that cover these areas at a lower ground and time scale and allow you to explore every historical operation that happened before Cobra. That may be your main focus, but it is not the focus of this game, any more than replaying Kursk in detail was the focus of War in the East.

My second reaction was that are we now saying that the game is not intended to be a detailed operational simulation of the land fighting in the western theatre? Is that how we should interpret the fact the game is not "focused on exploring some of these battles on a more operational level".

What I wrote above may help clarify this. Joel's responses will probably explain it better. While you have divisions that can be broken down to regiments on the map, just as you did with WITE, as a player you are thinking much more like Roosevelt, Churchill and Eisenhower than like Patton or Montgomery. Your focus will rarely be on a small section of the front, but rather on the whole and on the combination of land and air and amphibious operations rather than just land combat.

Taking the Kursk analogy again, Prokhorovka in War in the East consists of a battle for a single hex. If you are interested in that particular battle, it's not really the best way to get into the details of it, despite the fact that the historical units with their historical and detailed TO&Es and Leaders are there. Despite that, playing out the weeks of 1943 during and after Kursk is a great experience that gives you a great sense of just how much of a blunder Kursk was and how it played into the Soviet position as well as the challenges that faced the Wehrmacht afterwards with the Soviets going over to the strategic offensive. That's what I'm getting at. Now if you add in a much more detailed and realistic air war as part of this and include amphibious operations and a coastline that covers Western Europe, the options get quite interesting and even though the game is not a game just about Normandy, you will get a good sense of how important Normandy (or the other landings) were and when and where you could or should land, what impact each landing has on the overall strategy for the Western Front, etc. It will be a heck of a good game and one that lets you see the big picture while keeping many of the interesting and historical details, just like War in the East.

With respect, whilst a new air model and naval model will be nice, it was boots on the ground and operational art that liberated France and Italy. A naval model for anything bar a few months in the mediterranearn version of the game, and 2-3 turns in the 1940 game, will be largely pointless given the Kriegsmarine lacked the fuel, tonnage or numbers to trouble the RN, particularly in the period 43-45 covered by this first title.

I think air and naval power had quite a lot to do with the Allies' successful landing in Normandy and air power had a large role to play in how the land combat proceeded after the landings.

Likewise in the air, this first game is set in a period of Allied Air supremacy. Whatever the Allied player chooses to bomb in the air portion of the game, waves of P-51s and P-47s will attrit the Luftwaffe to nothing by turn 50 of the 1943 campaign, whatever the AXIS player attempts to do (unless he puts everything into national reserve).

I think that given the start in 1943, the Axis player will still have options that can cause the Allies trouble, especially given that the outcome is not predetermined and player skill and strategies can vary. Let's assume that your prediction about the Axis being without airpower in 50 turns is correct, which I'm not sure it is if the Axis player plays well. That would still be a year in which the Axis has a lot of decisions to make and could seriously affect the Allied player's options as to where and when to land and how much to risk.

Which essentially brings us to the one section of the game where the Allies didn't have it all their own way, being unable to prevent a well organised fighting withdrawl from sicily, having to crawl a bloody crawl up Italy, and having to slug it out in the Bocage for three months before gaining space to manouvre.

Arguably, the only part of the WitW which gives the Germans any options (although these are all still slim) is the ground fighting, and it is precisely this part which is to be played out at a scale that will largely remove meaningful manouvre and decision making.

Please see my responses above. I feel that you are not seeing the forest for the trees here and are talking yourself into minimizing the gameplay that will very much be there while focusing on your concerns.

In your next post you also express frustration that we are not listening. In fact, you've had several responses now from key people involved in the project. We are listening, even though we do not share the degree of your concern, largely because we know that this can and will work as a great game from past experience. The other point to make here is that creating the map for War in the West (and War in Europe) has been a nine month full-time project on its own so far, with much more work still to be done before it's ready for the release (probably another nine months to finish it). We do not agree that the map scale needs to change, but I want to also give you a sense of how much work it takes to even begin one of these games.

The eventual goal is to have these all fit together as a War in Europe. That's worth keeping in mind as well. A War in Europe at this scale will be an incredible game for any wargamer and we aim to keep it playable.

As Joel also pointed out to your later reply, the idea that we could do the entire West, 1940-1945 in one project is not realistic. It would take five or six years to do that and the game would likely never release as Joel and Gary would not be able to support themselves long before the release date. The release plan allows us to explore some logical sections of the war in ways that make the additional features and the amount of work required in each area realistic for our development costs and time. I wish we could do it all and do it four times faster, but we cannot and this market will not support a larger development team.

Finally, I'd (with the very greatest of respect and a gentle tone) point out that the man who gave us the cinematic magnificence that is Star Wars, also gave the world Howard the Duck. Past performance is not a guarantee of future....etc etc etc.

Using George Lucas on us is a bit of a low blow...

Well, firstly, the game is surely fundamentally broken if the Germans can beat the western Allies from an historical starting position in either 43 or 44. If this is a turn of phrase (one to note down for the publicity blurb, it was a nice soundbite [;)]), and what you mean is "lose less bad" a la the victory models for WITP and WitE, then I would continue to argue that it is absolutely essential that the ground combat is modelled meaningfully because only here can the Germans affect the outcome.

I was really speaking about this from the Allied perspective. The German player will have his hands full from the start trying to figure out a strategic defense without enough resources and playing bluff/counter-bluff with the Allied player until the first landing in Western Europe. As the Axis, you may be able to eliminate a landing if the Allied player gives you the opportunity, but you are fighting a strategic defense and deciding how best to achieve a victory within the game's terms. As with War in the East, this will be a very realistic game, not a fantasy game for either side, but within historical realism it will give you many options.

The argument about a numbers game that the Germans can't win applies equally to War in the East, yet players there enjoy playing in 1943 and 1944 as well. It's a great defensive challenge for the Axis. The Germans did lose this war and they will face the forces that liberated Europe, but how the war unfolds and whether they can achieve a performance better than their historical counterparts is the real question for their side. Again, since you are in the role of supreme commander, the question comes down more to if you didn't have Hitler and Himmler but instead had Kesselring and Model in charge of everything, would it have been different for the Allies?

Regards,

- Erik

[U2]

Looking good Joel. Can't wait for WitW!

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

ORIGINAL: randallw

Oooch, some potential customers might feel that was kind of a bad way to talk to them, not that you meant offense. ( Joel's response )

Maybe,just maybe the guy has had it with people telling him he doesn't know how to choose the scale of a wargame? How many games and how long has he been in the industry?

Why don't we see how things develop before saying it'll never work eh?

I'll bet that's not the only thing he's fed up with.