Realistic Unit moves in time suggestion

[vandorenp]

After years of waiting I finally bought the game. Being a big fan of the original I have been chafing at the bit to jump into this. I am very impressed with the result and anxious for the improvements being discussed. Nevertheless an old issue for me with games like this is still present. That is sequentially moving and fighting units implies a sort of time travel. In a given turn a unit can "wait" for a path to be cleared and then proceed through the path as if it was there from the beginning.

Since this game is very sophisticated I am suggesting that when a unit enters into a hex which was occupied by the enemy at the beginning of the turn and is now empty, the follow on unit proportionally loses "waiting" MP's in accordance with the MP's consumed by the friendly attackers clearing the hex, discounting the follow on units time taken to get to the hex. (the follow on unit's own movement to the hex may include all the waiting time)

This additional time might be a random amount of the MP cost of all hasty and/or deliberate attacks that it took to clear the hex. This would emulate the real possibility of passing through safe corridors while fighting in the zone (hex) is still going on.

[SigUp]

Unfortunately WITE is probably a patch away from reaching the end of the road. Fundamental changes won't be done. But perhaps something can be done about WITW.

[Tarhunnas]

There is a cost to enter a previously enemy controlled hex that is supposed to simulate this.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

There is a cost to enter a previously enemy controlled hex that is supposed to simulate this.

I don't think it is supposed to simulate this. The cost is the same regardless of whether the hex saw five battles or is in the middle of nowhere with the next enemy unit 100 miles away.

[Lobster]

Do not hold your breath for this. It will not happen. John Tiller used a similar concept for his Campaign series games, Panzer Campaigns and Modern Campaigns. Many people did not like it for some of the same reasons. So Tiller gave an option and made a phased system for the game also. So you have an option of using the continuous mode, as in WitE, or phased which is more realistic.

I have seen the continuous movement that is used in WitE referred to as an arcade style. More focused on doing instead of thinking. I'm inclined to agree.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

There is a cost to enter a previously enemy controlled hex that is supposed to simulate this.

I don't think it is supposed to simulate this. The cost is the same regardless of whether the hex saw five battles or is in the middle of nowhere with the next enemy unit 100 miles away.

Yeah, true. But I think making the cost dependent on the number of battles would make breakthroughs more difficult, and that wouldn't be desirable.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

There is a cost to enter a previously enemy controlled hex that is supposed to simulate this.

I don't think it is supposed to simulate this. The cost is the same regardless of whether the hex saw five battles or is in the middle of nowhere with the next enemy unit 100 miles away.

Yeah, true. But I think making the cost dependent on the number of battles would make breakthroughs more difficult, and that wouldn't be desirable.

That's certainly right, and I also worry about this. So some compromise has to be found.

[vandorenp]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: SigUp


I don't think it is supposed to simulate this. The cost is the same regardless of whether the hex saw five battles or is in the middle of nowhere with the next enemy unit 100 miles away.

Yeah, true. But I think making the cost dependent on the number of battles would make breakthroughs more difficult, and that wouldn't be desirable.

That's certainly right, and I also worry about this. So some compromise has to be found.

I had forgotten about the cost for moving into a previously enemy controlled hex. (Just read it in the rules and hadn't connected it what it represented) Considering the update expectations and this token account for time to breakthrough I guess we ought to go along. (I still can't see having an infantry division way back of the line come up with just enough MP left over to pop a weak defense and have the panzers siting right at the line run wild with nearly max MPs as if it was the start of the turn.

Every game design is a tradeoff in this case between entertainment and realism. I know that. And then there is a matter of play balance. If I wanted to favor entertainment and play balance over realism however I would still be playing Avalon Hill's Stalingrad or a fantasy game.

If we stick with this, meaning the token account of waiting for a breakthrough, we will have Montgomery battering away at El Alemain for a week and the Brit Armored Divisions racing through as if time had gone into slow motion for the assualt.