WitE 2

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21

User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: WitE 2

Post by Flaviusx »

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Seems to prevent runaways you need either to have victory tied to giving up ground too quickly somehow or you have to have high command stand fast rules that kick in at times

Personally, I will be happy if we have the Sudden Death Scenario from WITE 1.0 transposed in to WITE 2.0. It puts a dampener on the run away strategy. It just needs some numbers for SD checks in the middle and late summer of 41.

EDIT. Needless to say really, but as an additional CG scenario.

Yuck. Not signed.

Allow me to propose an alternative. Something like the DC3 political point system where early seizure of enemy objectives gives the Axis points to spend on goodies. (In a WITE context, maybe that means bonus APs?) That recognizes an advantage and gives the Axis player a tangible benefit. Or conversely some ephemeral penalties to the Soviet. (To be determined. Again, APs suggest themselves as a currency here.) Incentives are good.

Calling a vastly premature end to the game on account of reaching some arbitrary phase line? Not so much. The war doesn't end in August 1941 just because the Axis gets to Leningrad and Kiev early or whatever.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: WitE 2

Post by Flaviusx »

DC3 was a neat game with a lot of interesting ideas, actually. Too bad it wasn't up to snuff in certain areas. Better as a single player game than for PBEM.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: WitE 2

Post by Michael T »

Yuck. Not signed.

That's why there is the stock scenario and the Sudden Death version. Everyone is happy playing people on the same page.
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: WitE 2

Post by loki100 »

A bit more on the airwar - as I suspect this is the single thing that is the most different to WiTE1 - at least from a gameplay perspective.

You can automate it at one of 4 levels:

1) - give it to the AI, the AI will handle setting up missions, allocation of planes, moving air units up to the front etc. In WiTW using this option gives 'ok' results. But if the whole thing reduces you to a quiver of jelly, then do this and concentrate on moving the ground counters

2) - use the AI. Here what you do is to set target priorities for each air command - how much interdiction against ground support and so on. The AI will take these instructions and construct missions. Optionally you can tell it to move your airunits (as above) or do it manually. From WiTW this gives pretty decent results and you can change the mission instructions from turn to turn (obv in WiTW turns with big naval invasions may see a different pattern of missions and so on)

2a) - I like the AI but. You can use (2) to set up the skeleton of your missions and then manually adjust to fit your own exact needs. When I was first learning WiTW I found this very useful as the AI generated missions gave you a framework and then you could change specific elements. Over time you can take more and more control, till ....

3) - who needs the AI. I think this will be the norm as it is no big deal. Here you create your own missions, allocate the planes, select the target zone and other parameters. If moving planes between bases is too much you can still use the AI for this.

4) - I want to micro. Really a variant of the above. Change bomber loads, swap between rockets and bombs, add fuel tanks. As opposed to sending all (or most) of the bombers in an air command on the same mission (and let the AI do the detail of which plane strikes which hex etc), set up 4-6 missions per air group (the number is limited by the competence of your commander). Have your Ju-87s doing something different to your Ju-88s. Send your U2VS' on night harrasment missions etc. In general there may be less gain to doing this as neither side has the range of aircraft types that the Allies do in WiTW, but with the mid-game Soviets I could see the merit of using the Il-2s for front line strikes and the Pe-2/Il-4s for rear area interdiction.

On the latter point, worth noting, given the lack of airbases (and that they are on map), the common WiTE trick for the Soviets of ditching your level bombers won't work. Even if all you want to do is strike the front line you will need to layer your bombers back away from the front, so I doubt you can just rely on the Il-2s in any case.
rainman2015
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:52 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by rainman2015 »

ORIGINAL: loki100
ORIGINAL: rainman2015

What about ground unit bombings in WITE2? I use them a LOT and do it all manually. Any hex i really want to take gets hit 2 times prior to the attack to get all the disrupted troops.

Sounds like you are not doing this manually right before each battle in the new system.

Randy
:)


as with my comments above to Northern Star - I'd suggest a wander over to the WiTW AAR forum - there are quite a lot of detailed descriptions of how to use the air directives and their flexibility.

At its core, you open your turn and need to set them up as at this stage you can't move ground units but you can do admin things like set up depots, re-assign commanders and support units and so on (I tend to do these at this stage as I'm less likely to forget).

If we ignore specialist missions like naval interdiction, strategic bombing and recon, in WiTE2 you'll find the bulk of your airforce is doing one of three basic missions:

a) ground support. You assign the air units to a HQ and then they are used in the actual combat phase - so very close to the current WiTE mission;
b) air superiority. This really comes in two forms. An active mission is where you give your fighters a geographical area to patrol and go and do that. There are some nasty tricks here, like you can opt do this only in your opponents part of the turn (which can really catch out someone a bit lax about escorting their bombers) or a night fighter mission where they sit around known airbases waiting for units to return. The alternative is simply not to give a fighter unit any orders. They will then only fly interception in your own airspace - this is quite efficient as they don't use fuel or take operational losses unless they are actually called on;
c) ground attack. This is probably your default mission but comes with different options.

c1) First you draw a target area (there are some really nice on map visual aids to help you do this - it can get quite obsessional making sure you have just the pattern you need. The target area can range from 0 hexes (ie you tell it to go and bomb just one hexes) to 9 hexes (you tell it to operate within 9 hexes of a designated central hex). I usually find I am using 1-3 as my rule here.
c2) You then allocate planes to the mission. These can be a mixture of active planes (bombers) and escorts (fighters) - note that some fighters can operate in a bombing role but are less effective (again as per WitE)
c3) you chose the sort of mission via 'target priority' - options are airfield (bomb enemy planes); unit (directly bomb an enemy unit); railway (concentrate on hitting rail lines and movement - very good for supply interdiction); port/ferry (probably rare in WiTE2 but you concentrate on hitting port infrastructure or river movement); interdict (more below) or railyard (you bomb railyards - good as it degrades overall rail capacity and the ability to unload units and freight)
---- interdiction is probably the default mission. You do two things with this. Some (limited) direct damage to units in the area chosen and substantial losses if a unit moves in an area (this includes retreating), this also interdicts tactical supply (ie truck movements) so can be very effective at plastering the rear area. Edit - units can have more than one priority, so you can tell it to say do an interdiction mission but allocate some planes to airfield bombing, or to hit both port infrastructure and the railyards and so on.

d) for all missions, you can dig deep into the details. Planes have different load outs (simple eg drop tanks give extra range but at a cost in combat efficiency), some bombers can shift between a few heavy bombs and lots of light ones. The altitude can be set - want to bring in your Sturmoviks at 1,000m here is where to do it, the number of days per week, intensity of commitment, tolerance for bad weather etc,

So to your answer, if you really want to bomb a hex, gather an appropriate set of air units, tell then ground attack-unit-hex and they will do the mission you use in WiTE. As an eg, in WiTE2 I tend to place some stukas into a specialist mission to directly bomb Brest-Litovsk on T1 - makes it so much easier to take. You can then allocate some specialist support to the corps/army you have making the attack so you get more support at the moment of combat.

The distinction unit bombing-interdiction is subtle. I regard the first as costly for my airframes as you are telling them to go and bomb a relatively fixed space and to risk flak etc. The second gives more indirect effects, the enemy will degrade but over time but on the other hand your planes can operate longer (they are hunting roads and obvious communication channels).

edit - but apart from ground support all this is done before the land movement/combat phase. So you do need to think about air allocation and plan it. Its less problematic than it sounds but perhaps is why I tend to have each axis air corps on interdiction and hitting a 1-2 hex zone rather than broken down into lots of small targetted missions - the latter is more an indulgence for the Western Allies over France in 1944.

Quick thoughts:

1) It sounds like a much more realistic system overall, and maybe simpler to execute, although it sounds more complex on paper

2) Finally interdiction seems to be the huge factor it actually was in WW2. In WITE, i usually wonder if i should just take interdiction completely off, as it seems so useless. Whoever had air superiority, the other side was terrorized in moving behind the lines in anything like the open during WW2

3) Seems like the luftwaffe is going to be seriously nefted compared to the current WITE, with it being harder to pull off ground bombings at will (on call as needed), your planes more spread out and harder to get to the front, maybe supply for them much more difficult in the early stages, etc, but at least interdiction will be more realistic and effective, and i would guess overall, the luftwaffe (or the Soviets later) will feel more realistic, and if that is the case, they will cause the Soviets all kinds of issues

WITE2 sounds really great, but it also sounds like most everything i have heard is, at least early on, in the Soviets favor, and i am having a difficult time as it is with my Germans against the Soviets, so balance may be an issue.

Randy
:)
HMSWarspite
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: WitE 2

Post by HMSWarspite »

I agree with the dislike of sudden death options or hold fast type enforced fixes. Give the huge dislike of being forced to do stuff that arose in the WitW forum I would advise against anything that removed choice. I think VP is the way to simulate political/ non-military pressures. Surely a cumulative VP system where you get points each turn for each city would be the way. The points per city would obviously different depending on the importance and size of the city. If done properly he player would chose their own lines in the sand. I guess they points per city could vary over time but that would seem too scripted and in danger of tripping the manipulation of players concern. Except for Stalingrad, which appeared to attract due to its name the big defences tended to slightly logical reasons (communications hubs, shelter, key river lines etc) that should cause players to dig In sometimes. Even Stalingrad had some logic as an objective.
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
MechFO
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by MechFO »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
ORIGINAL: Michael T
Seems to prevent runaways you need either to have victory tied to giving up ground too quickly somehow or you have to have high command stand fast rules that kick in at times

Personally, I will be happy if we have the Sudden Death Scenario from WITE 1.0 transposed in to WITE 2.0. It puts a dampener on the run away strategy. It just needs some numbers for SD checks in the middle and late summer of 41.

EDIT. Needless to say really, but as an additional CG scenario.

Yuck. Not signed.

Allow me to propose an alternative. Something like the DC3 political point system where early seizure of enemy objectives gives the Axis points to spend on goodies. (In a WITE context, maybe that means bonus APs?) That recognizes an advantage and gives the Axis player a tangible benefit. Or conversely some ephemeral penalties to the Soviet. (To be determined. Again, APs suggest themselves as a currency here.) Incentives are good.

Calling a vastly premature end to the game on account of reaching some arbitrary phase line? Not so much. The war doesn't end in August 1941 just because the Axis gets to Leningrad and Kiev early or whatever.

Absolutely agree. Also, one could take a page from WITP and make bonuses/maluses asymmetric.

Elements which could be tied to geographical features:

AP (though IMO only makes sense for Germans if they can actually do something worthwhile with it, f.e. build units, buy units (keep unit but pay AP every turn after withdrawal date? Or to have less CV in WF box, at least until 43? Might also make sense that one has to "buy" or can opt out of new TOEs?? Just changing leaders/OOB/forts is not enough.)

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 thrash 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.
rainman2015
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:52 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by rainman2015 »

Very much like the idea of using NM and victory points (ongoing points gained for holding cities) as the means to prevent wholesale abandonment of sectors that never would have been abandoned like that. Just the logical two choices to control this with, NM and VPs.

However, of course, as Michael states, some (many?) will still ignore those incentives and will still run wholesale as a strategy. For those, you can have an optional Sudden Death campaign scenario (or just house rules i suppose in lieu of that) that prevent complete ridiculousness.

Now, given the current game i completely get why players have to do a-historical things, for example, when the Germans do a Lvov pocket and the Soviets run wholesale to the Dnepr immediately. This is a game and you do have to do what the game requires of you to survive. But if the game is setup right, then both sides should be able at least to stand and fight tooth and nail for things that they would have in real life, only giving them up when a Kiev 41 or Stalingrad situation looms.

Randy
:)
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: WitE 2

Post by morvael »

My dear opponent didn't run, delayed me in the south, but eventually I repeated Kiev encirclement...
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: WitE 2

Post by 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.





WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: WitE 2

Post by Michael T »

I have to say I only use the Sudden Death Scenario as a tool that helps prevent running by both sides. If there were *real* penalties associated with giving up to much ground or too many important cites without a fight I would be all for that. Posters have presented lots of idea's over the years, some repeated again now. They were always shouted down by the people who want to be able to run freely.

I would love to see an optional rule for, for the want of a better handle - Realistic Political Constraints -

This optional rule would include lots of carrot and stick type penalties/rewards for either giving up too much or hanging on for longer to geographic objectives. That would be so cool. A whole range of stuff could be included. So much more flavor would be added for those people longing for such a campaign.



User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: WitE 2

Post by Michael T »

A few idea’s for disincentives:

Leaders getting executed (only the good ones)
VP penalties (big ones that make a difference)
AP hits
Large MP reductions for units within a geographical area (but MP for attacking is proportionally reduced) The idea being you can’t move very far but you can still attack.
NM hits that have sunset clauses.
Factories frozen in situ until a certain date
Rail capacity reductions for moving factories
Lend lease reductions (i.e. Trucks) Let’s face it, the allies wanted the Russian’s to actually fight the Nazi’s for the support they rendered.

More could be added, these are just idea’s. You could randomize this kind of thing.

A few idea’s for incentives:

Leaders getting promoted or improved
VP bonuses
AP bonuses
NM bonus with sunset clause
Lend lease increases (i.e more trucks) the allies like your style.

You could easily translate a similar carrot and stick methodology for the Germans. All these randomized penalties/rewards could be tied to the loss or capture of key geographical area’s or key cites before or after certain dates.

The bottom line is you want a *real* carrot and stick approach, you want to make it a no brainer to fight for territory and cities even if it costs 100,000's of your electronic troops.

Real commanders of both sides could not give up whole chunks of their country or hard won gains. This is a fantasy, just as big, even bigger than things like Lvov. Lot's players want to play without these kinds of realities. That's fine. But this is also a fantasy game.
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: WitE 2

Post by loki100 »

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.


worth noting that admin pts - for both sides - are no longer a critical currency. With command and support unit re-assignments for free, they are really only needed for leader shifts and Soviet builds. With both sides after about T3 I have a huge pile of untouched/unusable APs

My instinct is the new rules on movement in your own territory will give a strong incentive to deny the enemy that capacity for as long as possible. Run too fast/too far and the enemy will move very fast. Also if you run, all those at start Axis prep points will still be intact when the critical battles open on your chosen new defensive line - not something I'd want to risk.

Final bit is that some locations will really matter - depot capacity and quality of the rail links. Even a one turn delay in it switching hands could be critical as to the situation by the start of December 1941.

I just think its far too early to start on with definitive statements about what either side will or will not do/be able to do
rainman2015
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:52 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by rainman2015 »

We could always add the threat of execution (of ourself!) if we abandon key cities/areas without a fight, that would fix the problem...;) Guess we don't want it to be THAT realistic though...

If NM is too finely balanced to play with as incentives, and if APs are not that valuable in the new game (i would guess especially for the German), then it has to be VPs, and if we play the game to win per the VPs, then a good set of VP incentives will go a long way to making wholesale running not a viable strategy.

Randy
:)
User avatar
Commanderski
Posts: 941
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:24 pm
Location: New Hampshire

RE: WitE 2

Post by 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.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: WitE 2

Post by Flaviusx »

Unit reassingments no longer cost APs? Wow. That's a big change. Significantly reduces the value of APs. I guess that's good news for the Soviets, but kind of screws up my idea about using APs as a reward mechanism.

WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: WitE 2

Post by loki100 »

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
rainman2015
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:52 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by rainman2015 »

ORIGINAL: loki100
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

Loki, do you think that the 'prep points' and advantages of resting, combined with the new depot system and the need to build up supplies, together will be enough to re-create the furious offensives followed by the much quieter intervals that characterized the Eastern front. I am especially thinking of the Soviets later in 43+, where they would do the huge offensive, move forward some distance, then the front would go relatively quiet for awhile while they built up again, but it applies to the Germans too of course.

Randy
:)
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: WitE 2

Post by loki100 »

while no one has got there yet - the game effectively ends at T20 at the moment, I reckon the basics of the system will do a great job at modelling the mid/late war. You can see as a Soviet player that you'd pull the tank armies into deep reserve to recover/build up. Suspend active operations to let your front line depots build up. When ready bring up assault armies to just behind the line (a 1944 Gds Rifle Corp with a lot of Prep Pts is going to be eye-watering). Massive prepared offensive effectively burning off all those one-shot units, slip the tanks into the gaps and watch.

As more and more of units come into contact, and you burn off that supply stock, your offensive will loose steam. At that stage a Pzr Corps or two held back can then wreak havoc in return. Repeat. And it would make sense to plan as the Soviets did in 1944 - one offensive in the north, let that run into the ground and then hit in the south. While WiTE has few penalties for not attacking across the front.

That I think is the thing that already makes it hard to play WiTE - the feeling that operational pauses pay off. In my current PBEM, I gambled with the Germans on a 3 turn break in late August-mid September. The result was a very enjoyable late September [:)].

The losses will match as well. In the same PBEM German and Romanian losses in a set piece assault on Odessa and the surrounding forts were around 15k. I'd hate to think what will happen when say 3 Rifle Corps hit 2 well dug in German divisions. Leningrad will be an interesting decision - its going to harder to outflank (map changes), so do you really want to tie up an elite assault formation building up for the attack and then having a lot of it lieing dead in the ruins?
RoflCopter4
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:11 pm

RE: WitE 2

Post by RoflCopter4 »

It's almost certain that this has been asked several times, but since this forum doesn't have a search function (that I can find anyway) I don't know where or when. Basically I'm just curious whether WitE2 is likely going to be several years away, or whether it's far enough along that it may be just a couple of years (or less?) before a potential release. I am absolutely not asking for a release date by any means, I'm just wondering approximately whether the game is still in very early stages or if you feel that significant progress has been made.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”