Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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 >> WitE 2 Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
WitE 2 - 9/20/2015 12:54:21 PM   
JamesM

 

Posts: 939
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: QLD, Australia
Status: offline
Has work started on WitE 2?

Apart from my question I have been thinking what changes they might need to do from War in the West. The air war model may need to be changed or adapted because strategic bombing from my research hardly played a role on the Eastern front (maybe part from early on and the bombing raids on the Romanian oil fields and some German air raids on Russian Cities), while in WitW it is a very important factor in the air war.

Also the number of administrative points may have to be changed (if the same point cost system is used in WitW) is to reflect the need to constantly create airfields and depots due to the ebb and flow of the front lines.
Post #: 1
RE: WitE 2 - 9/20/2015 1:59:45 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 2815
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: online
Doubtful since an expansion for WitW is now coming out. I know the map has been updated since they now have a unified map for all of Europe and NA.

But I would not expect to see a new WitE game for at least a year if not longer. Remember Gary is the only one doing the bulk of the programing at 2by3 as well. And there is only so much one person can do

(in reply to JamesM)
Post #: 2
RE: WitE 2 - 9/20/2015 5:28:55 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 15096
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: online
quote:

Has work started on WitE 2?


Technically yes.

quote:

Remember Gary is the only one doing the bulk of the programing at 2by3 as well.


No.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to JamesM)
Post #: 3
RE: WitE 2 - 9/20/2015 5:58:29 PM   
Blind Sniper


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/9/2008
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

Has work started on WitE 2?


Technically yes.

quote:

Remember Gary is the only one doing the bulk of the programing at 2by3 as well.


No.


Which is the first game in the pipeline, WitE2 or War in the Europe (or whatever name will be)?

You are one of the others programmers, aren't you?

< Message edited by Blind Sniper -- 9/20/2015 7:00:36 PM >


_____________________________

WitP-AE - WitE - CWII - BASPM - BaB


(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 4
RE: WitE 2 - 9/20/2015 6:05:17 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 15096
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: online
quote:

Which is the first game in the pipeline, WitE2 or War in the Europe (or whatever name will be)?


We trying to build a system to move in WIE direction where WITE-2 could be a next stop.. since geographically WITE area is also in Europe.

quote:

You are one of the others programmers, aren't you?


I spend significant part of my life to do this job.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Blind Sniper)
Post #: 5
RE: WitE 2 - 9/20/2015 6:17:57 PM   
charlie0311

 

Posts: 925
Joined: 12/20/2013
Status: offline
How much to buy out Grigsby? New team will emphasize consumer satisfaction.

I offer nothing,.., nothing but tears, suffering, pain, toil, pain (more), and blood.

My idea of a lame little joke. :)

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 6
RE: WitE 2 - 9/20/2015 6:57:36 PM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 3833
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
Charlie

We already have what you offer - but if you can provide the money to cover the day job too - that appeals. My lame little joke as the price of breaking friendships isn't monetary and please don't underestimate the importance of that element in this work.

More seriously if you can find a new team that has the dedication to produce games of this ilk then you have my undying admiration. I recognise and appreciate your views on customer satisfaction and offer two slightly divergent views in response (as the answer probably lies somewhere in between). Firstly no-one spends the time and effort developing games of this sort without the intention that players will enjoy the product. Secondly do artists create their work for anyone but themselves and the joy of doing the work itself?



_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to charlie0311)
Post #: 7
RE: WitE 2 - 9/20/2015 7:15:18 PM   
charlie0311

 

Posts: 925
Joined: 12/20/2013
Status: offline
Let's all be friends. Please, please. Will take the subj to PM.

What motivates artists is above my pay grade.

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 8
RE: WitE 2 - 9/20/2015 7:38:01 PM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 3833
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
No unfriendliness intended and apologies if that was how you read things. For the record I've never had any issue with your well presented and argued points of view on this forum. I merely tried (clumsily maybe) to highlight that money is perhaps not the only factor with developing these games.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to charlie0311)
Post #: 9
RE: WitE 2 - 9/20/2015 9:23:14 PM   
Blind Sniper


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/9/2008
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
Thanks for the answers, in the meantime good luck!

_____________________________

WitP-AE - WitE - CWII - BASPM - BaB


(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 10
RE: WitE 2 - 9/20/2015 9:54:09 PM   
jfk1978

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 8/1/2015
From: Italy
Status: offline
Are You also working on a new naval warfare system ?

(in reply to Blind Sniper)
Post #: 11
RE: WitE 2 - 9/20/2015 10:10:48 PM   
JamesM

 

Posts: 939
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: QLD, Australia
Status: offline
I was not expecting this game for a year or 2. However, I started this thread to obtain opinions on the changes in from WitE and WitW to WitE 2.

(in reply to jfk1978)
Post #: 12
RE: WitE 2 - 9/20/2015 11:07:52 PM   
beekeeper

 

Posts: 99
Joined: 2/27/2012
Status: offline
I think all this forum wait it!
wite+witw on one map and ships and more micromanagment =)

(in reply to JamesM)
Post #: 13
RE: WitE 2 - 9/20/2015 11:34:26 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 2815
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

Has work started on WitE 2?


Technically yes.

quote:

Remember Gary is the only one doing the bulk of the programing at 2by3 as well.


No.


I guess my information is out of date . I know it used to be that way so I'm glad that has changed

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 14
RE: WitE 2 - 9/23/2015 8:40:42 PM   
cardolan


Posts: 22
Joined: 9/19/2010
Status: offline
My guess is that 2by3 will launch another game to introduce a new naval system (maybe war in the west 41-43 in the Mediterranen sea) then mix land-air-sea in Wite2 and in the end War in Europe.

I think I read something like that from Joel in this forums.

Small studio + lots of balancing and love in the details. For sure will take a few years before WiE so better enjoy the ride.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 15
RE: WitE 2 - 9/23/2015 10:34:48 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 2815
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: online
Also the new version of Steel Panthers is in the works now too as the next main release of 2by3. So that may push this out even further.

(in reply to cardolan)
Post #: 16
RE: WitE 2 - 9/24/2015 9:02:45 PM   
loki100


Posts: 4488
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Lochan nan balgair-dudh
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jamesm

...

Apart from my question I have been thinking what changes they might need to do from War in the West. The air war model may need to be changed or adapted because strategic bombing from my research hardly played a role on the Eastern front (maybe part from early on and the bombing raids on the Romanian oil fields and some German air raids on Russian Cities), while in WitW it is a very important factor in the air war.

Also the number of administrative points may have to be changed (if the same point cost system is used in WitW) is to reflect the need to constantly create airfields and depots due to the ebb and flow of the front lines.



I've been playing a fair bit of WiTW and one thing I've been thinking over is how much/how well does it translate. A key constraint is that even in the France 1944 phase of the war, land combat is small scale compared to the Soviet-German part of WW2.

But its clear that WiTW is the iteration to the system that will end up (possibly, maybe) as WiE so it will affect WiTE2.

I don't think the air war is an issue. Once you get used to it, its a lot more elegant and you can do all that you do in WiTE now (hit the enemy airforce, pre-combat attacks, close combat support etc), just with a lot less micro organisation. I can't see either side in WiTE generating the levels of air interdiction the Western Allies can ... at least not to the very end of the war when Soviet airpower is just another factor battering down the last German defences.

Few other rules worth thinking about.

Concept of combat delay is really good, starts to add some sort of elapsed time concept to the game, but clearly hinders an attacking player. Nothing wrong in that, but there is an issue of game balance that needs to be sorted out ... as in my comment above, so far WiTW has nothing akin to either the German 1941 offensives or the Soviet late war attacks.

Supply system has 3 parts and its elegant, but again will need a lot of care in implementation. You have the challenge of getting supply to a region (and if you use your rails for troop movements you can't shift supply and vice-versa). You use depots to create a supply stock in a given region ... key issues here are the ability to deliver supply to that area and the capacity of the depots. You then, within a given region, set troop priority to draw off that supply.

Oh and you lose cv at a rate of 1% for every 1% missing ammo, so lack of full supply is a real constraint.

All of this takes a huge nerf bat to the current logistics problems in WiTE. There is a real feeling of having to pause to let supplies build up and small scale attacks *because you can* may be pretty silly, you are burning off scarce ammo and fuel that you may want for a real attack later on.

edit - this also makes sense of the Soviet attacks post-Smolensk in late 1941. By making the Germans fight, they stopped/slowed the build up of supplies for Typhoon. So losing attacks, if you are the supply rich side, can be quite effective. It may also mean that players tend to look to end an offensive in good defensible terrain (ie behind a river), simply to deny their opponent the capacity to do this sort of attack.

Done right, it will bring in the pauses that are such a feature of the Soviet-German war.

Some other issues - I find that WiTW plays more slowly, there are a lot more fractional rules (ammo/cv; rail cap) and so on, compared the binary rules in WiTE at the moment. With WiTW this is no big deal, even by late 1944 neither side has a big army, but it does mean that WiTW brought east has significant computer processing challenges. Also movement point costs are more nuanced, in particular with the importance of varying air interdiction levels.


< Message edited by loki100 -- 9/24/2015 10:07:07 PM >


_____________________________

AARs:
WiTW: Once Upon a Time (somewhere)in the West; Fischia il vento; (oh) For a few Panzers More; XXX Corps Diary; Infamy, Infamy!
Others at AGEOD
PoN: A clear bright sun

(in reply to JamesM)
Post #: 17
RE: WitE 2 - 9/25/2015 10:31:37 AM   
Pelton


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
I think we will have a better idea how things will work once Torch comes out.

I have played 14 games of WitW and don't see the current system working for WitE 2.0.

The issue is logistics as it makes for a very static game and the same old issue with the combat engine.

Supplies do build up but it takes time which means the defender can build walls of steel, even in late 44 early 45 German defenses cant be broken.
and units simply can't move far enough to pocket anything even vs weak defenses.

This can be fixed IF supplies build up. France is very small area of operations and its next to impossible to get a break through.

I agree WitE 1.0 allows for to liberal supplies, but 2.0 has a very WW I feel to it as supplies and movement are slow aka almost static.


1. Logistics aka a true build up needs to be real.
2. Combat losses really need to be historical. 42-44 4-1 not 2-1. The combat engine needs to be trashed and start over
A combat engine not based on true loses on the ground. but on retreat loses will NEVER work as its Middle Earth and not historical.

Russian loses when they were winning and driving east were 4 to 1 at least not 1 to 1 when Germans retreat.

and yes I have posted historical data supporting this as has Chaos.

Fix the combat engine and tweak logistics and we will have a historical 2.0

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 18
RE: WitE 2 - 9/25/2015 11:38:38 AM   
Blind Sniper


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/9/2008
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
Can a historical WitE 2 be balanced and funny to play?

_____________________________

WitP-AE - WitE - CWII - BASPM - BaB


(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 19
RE: WitE 2 - 9/25/2015 12:10:05 PM   
JamesM

 

Posts: 939
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: QLD, Australia
Status: offline
It will be interesting to see how fortified zones in urban areas will be treated. In WitW it was almost impossible to take out units fortified in urban areas, while in WitE it is also impossible to hold onto urban areas such as Leningrad even if you have strong divisions in level 3 or 4 fortifications.

(in reply to Blind Sniper)
Post #: 20
RE: WitE 2 - 9/25/2015 12:31:08 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1356
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Still havent bothered to buy WiTW as it honestly just looks to be alot of managing an airwar....and I had enough of that tedium with the bombing of the reich game many years ago.

As to WiTE 2.0- A slow down in operational tempo due to supply stockpiling is needed. However the balance has already proven to be very tough to maintain as recent games show- a -5 Morale for Soviets has led to basically much more powerful German 1942 offensive capability than intended.

So stockpiling needs to be measured and fine tuned to where initially the Germans can push hard but get stopped due to waiting, however at the same time a straight 1% loss to CV per 1% under on supplies/fuel will drop German CV very quickly and may end up making breakthroughs almost impossible especially when stacked with MP delays for combat in hexes.

As Pelton says the only way to make a system like that work is where you have realistic combat attrition. Not sure facts of losses back up the 4:1 loss ratio for the Germans for the whole war as during late war aside from the assault on Berlin think the statistics dropped to 2-2.5:1 for Soviet to German losses. However as can easily be seen in the game even this doesnt happen. As the attacker unless they are attack stopped rarely lose more men than the defender. An even if they do its usually a 1.5:1 exchange rate or thereabouts.

The caveat on losses is its hard to judge for a game, because again as Pelton has said we are not Hitler/Stalin- so Soviet players in general arent going to assault every week knowing they will just fail and lose buckets of troops....so how many troops/loss ratio does this save unless the game wants to factor in these idiotic Soviet forced assaults. Is alot of evidence pointing out that an earlier end to the soviet counteroffensives of 1941/1942 could have prevented any massive German offensive gains in 1942...as by continuing assaults past the point of gaining anything Stalin burned up alot of men and equipment that would have been better used to stopping the German 1942 offensive. Right now that huge error in Stalins judgement is already baked into the game and its assumed the Soviets lost that extra million men and are weakend and ripe for German 1942 offensive. As basically the Soviet Army put 30-35 Million troops under arms in WW2....You can easily look at the Starting Soviet OOB and add up its replacements per week and see it wont total 30-35 Million...so alot of Soviets losses are already built into the current system by just not giving the Soviets the troops in the first place.

Its a very rough balancing act, and it wont be all roses on the German side either, because to make it realistic on losses German casualties on attacks and reducing pockets would have to be drastically increased, about twice or more than they are now. Divsion to corps sized assaults only losing 1-2 companies of casualties is pure fantasy.

< Message edited by chaos45 -- 9/25/2015 1:34:53 PM >

(in reply to Blind Sniper)
Post #: 21
RE: WitE 2 - 9/25/2015 1:13:08 PM   
loki100


Posts: 4488
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Lochan nan balgair-dudh
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jamesm

It will be interesting to see how fortified zones in urban areas will be treated. In WitW it was almost impossible to take out units fortified in urban areas, while in WitE it is also impossible to hold onto urban areas such as Leningrad even if you have strong divisions in level 3 or 4 fortifications.


you can actually, in my last PBEM I cleared a well defended Antwerp in one turn. Same mix, lots of very heavy artillery, lots of engineers and a good dose of airpower.

but a critical bit in WiTW is that units in pockets don't degrade to 1-1 ants in a week.

The building blocks in WiTW are fine, its how you put it together.

@Pelton - mostly fair comments but the game has developed a lot, as you say, the Torch iteration will give a strong clue as to how things will evolve

@chaos45 - agree ... and Pelton's 4-1 fantasy has been called and disproved so many times on this forum that its a bit tedious he still feels the urge to repeat it.

So the bits for WiTE2 are there, but you can't just dump it into the game and hope it comes together.

And for what its worth, I think WiE is a pointless exercise. I've never played a strategic level WW2 game that didn't go seriously off the rails in the early war phase. Earliest its worth starting a WiE is June 1941 ... at least at that stage all the main powers are locked in

_____________________________

AARs:
WiTW: Once Upon a Time (somewhere)in the West; Fischia il vento; (oh) For a few Panzers More; XXX Corps Diary; Infamy, Infamy!
Others at AGEOD
PoN: A clear bright sun

(in reply to JamesM)
Post #: 22
RE: WitE 2 - 9/25/2015 4:48:07 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1355
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
I think there is a lot of assuming going on here. I can summarise a lot of comments here as: this wont work as WITE 2 because it will need re-balancing. And it will, but the basic issues with Wite - lack of realistic supply, air game simplifications will be much better modelled. In my book, the measure of a good underlying game system is not needing special rules to simulate unusual events, and little need for house rules. For example, the initial opening rules for Ge, or HQ build up. These are both artificial add ons to a basic system because the basic system has holes. WITW does not have (and does not need) HQ build up. It has supply priority. This just alters where the supply goes, using existing mechanics. The Barbarossa shows what can be achieved against strategically unprepared troops by fully prepared ones. I would hope the initial conditions and supply states will enable the German opening without any special rules.

It may not be perfect but it should be way way better than the (best out there) WITE 1. I think WITW has far less house rules arising than WITE...

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 23
RE: WitE 2 - 9/25/2015 4:53:05 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1355
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jamesm

Has work started on WitE 2?

Apart from my question I have been thinking what changes they might need to do from War in the West. The air war model may need to be changed or adapted because strategic bombing from my research hardly played a role on the Eastern front (maybe part from early on and the bombing raids on the Romanian oil fields and some German air raids on Russian Cities), while in WitW it is a very important factor in the air war.

Also the number of administrative points may have to be changed (if the same point cost system is used in WitW) is to reflect the need to constantly create airfields and depots due to the ebb and flow of the front lines.



Why would the air model need change? Yes, there was little SB in the east. Why? Because there weren't enough SB and they were needed elsewhere? This isn't a reason to change the system. If the Ge wanted to SB like mad, and had less GS instead, this is a natural consequence and a valid option.

The issue that will need addressing is the rail use of moving factories - ideally (see my previous post) factory moves wont be limited by special rules (you can move x per week), but will use rail capacity. Then the player chooses.

Oh, and of course Admin points will change. All the scenario details will need to change...


_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to JamesM)
Post #: 24
RE: WitE 2 - 9/25/2015 4:54:47 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1355
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: beekeeper

I think all this forum wait it!
wite+witw on one map and ships and more micromanagment =)


I do hope not (the micromanagement) - even at the level in WITW turns will take longer (more units). I don't want more that needs to be done.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to beekeeper)
Post #: 25
RE: WitE 2 - 9/25/2015 5:14:14 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1355
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I think we will have a better idea how things will work once Torch comes out.

I have played 14 games of WitW and don't see the current system working for WitE 2.0.

The issue is logistics as it makes for a very static game and the same old issue with the combat engine.

Supplies do build up but it takes time which means the defender can build walls of steel, even in late 44 early 45 German defenses cant be broken.

Aren't you forgetting that supplies apply to defenders as well- they are falling back on their supply, but (for Ge especially), it isn't binary (in/out of supply). You only have so much supply to go around, so building a wall everywhere shouldn't be possible (or not quickly).


quote:

and units simply can't move far enough to pocket anything even vs weak defenses.

Why do you say this?

quote:

This can be fixed IF supplies build up. France is very small area of operations and its next to impossible to get a break through.

The unit density in France is way different to the east. Also, the single biggest factor in France (dominating strategy above all else) was supply limits. It isn't as if the WA were ever close to breaking through after Sept '44... This is like saying Lemons don't grow in Scotland so planting lemon trees in Sicily is a waste of time...

quote:

I agree WitE 1.0 allows for to liberal supplies, but 2.0 has a very WW I feel to it as supplies and movement are slow aka almost static.

Confusing use of 2.0 We use it for a major revamp using WITW system, I think you are talking about latest patch of 1.0 engine.

quote:


1. Logistics aka a true build up needs to be real.
2. Combat losses really need to be historical. 42-44 4-1 not 2-1. The combat engine needs to be trashed and start over
A combat engine not based on true loses on the ground. but on retreat loses will NEVER work as its Middle Earth and not historical.

Russian loses when they were winning and driving east were 4 to 1 at least not 1 to 1 when Germans retreat.

and yes I have posted historical data supporting this as has Chaos.

Fix the combat engine and tweak logistics and we will have a historical 2.0

Interesting. You do of course realise that your frequent use of 'Middle Earth' as a term is these days seen as boring and close to trolling?

And whilst you may have data showing 4:1 losses (I haven't seen it, but I haven't been in this forum that much lately) it needs to be discussed in light of game mechanics. Units don't lose combat solely due to losses. And losses in retreat will have been a significant factor. You say 'losses on the ground'. Have you statistically valid data that shows losses (by division as a minimum, but btn or at least troop type preferable), over a week of combat and moves of a sensible fraction of 10 miles, by attacking force type/strength, and their effect on the capability of the division? I haven't. Total losses only matters in regards to manpower pools and replacement rates. Other than that, all that matters is holding ground/retreating and next week's attack/defense capability. Whether the CV is low because of dead/wounded or troops being tired, hungry, disorganised or low morale does not affect the combat engine, only the replacement/recovery engine

I am not arguing that you are wrong, just that you may not be right.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 26
RE: WitE 2 - 9/25/2015 5:33:20 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1355
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Still havent bothered to buy WiTW as it honestly just looks to be alot of managing an airwar....and I had enough of that tedium with the bombing of the reich game many years ago.

I have played both - no comparison. Weekly turns (not daily), raids can be set with almost 1 click. Even micromanaging everything you will set up all of (say) BC's raids for a week with little more than one big BTR raid. It is daunting, but nowhere near as bad as BTR.

quote:

As to WiTE 2.0- A slow down in operational tempo due to supply stockpiling is needed. However the balance has already proven to be very tough to maintain as recent games show- a -5 Morale for Soviets has led to basically much more powerful German 1942 offensive capability than intended.

So stockpiling needs to be measured and fine tuned to where initially the Germans can push hard but get stopped due to waiting, however at the same time a straight 1% loss to CV per 1% under on supplies/fuel will drop German CV very quickly and may end up making breakthroughs almost impossible especially when stacked with MP delays for combat in hexes.


This could be read as 'improvement is difficult so don't even try'. Surely not what you mean? You haven't played WITW, but on the strength of (what? Pelton's views?) you decide that the system can't work. Believe me, rolling over a 1-1 CV unit with a 20+ Arm Div works fine in WitW. It is just you wont see 1-1 units in any number in France in 1944, thus there wont be breakthroughs. Why doesn't someone model a 'eastern front' 1941 situation in WITW? The kit will be all wrong, but set up a Sov strength front line in clear terrain and see if some decent attackers can break through. Believe me, they will. It is just down to scenario design.

quote:

As Pelton says the only way to make a system like that work is where you have realistic combat attrition. Not sure facts of losses back up the 4:1 loss ratio for the Germans for the whole war as during late war aside from the assault on Berlin think the statistics dropped to 2-2.5:1 for Soviet to German losses. However as can easily be seen in the game even this doesnt happen. As the attacker unless they are attack stopped rarely lose more men than the defender. An even if they do its usually a 1.5:1 exchange rate or thereabouts.

The caveat on losses is its hard to judge for a game, because again as Pelton has said we are not Hitler/Stalin- so Soviet players in general arent going to assault every week knowing they will just fail and lose buckets of troops....so how many troops/loss ratio does this save unless the game wants to factor in these idiotic Soviet forced assaults. Is alot of evidence pointing out that an earlier end to the soviet counteroffensives of 1941/1942 could have prevented any massive German offensive gains in 1942...as by continuing assaults past the point of gaining anything Stalin burned up alot of men and equipment that would have been better used to stopping the German 1942 offensive. Right now that huge error in Stalins judgement is already baked into the game and its assumed the Soviets lost that extra million men and are weakend and ripe for German 1942 offensive. As basically the Soviet Army put 30-35 Million troops under arms in WW2....You can easily look at the Starting Soviet OOB and add up its replacements per week and see it wont total 30-35 Million...so alot of Soviets losses are already built into the current system by just not giving the Soviets the troops in the first place.


And here we see possibly the cause of massive misconception here. WITE does not model every soldier in the Soviet army. Where are the cooks? The Supply clerks? The truck maintainers? the rear area depot troops? The MPs? Some may be factored in, and the Sov 'tail' is much smaller than WA, but you cannot add game troops up and compare with the total enlistment. Any more than you can add total ammo production in game and compare with real life. Ammo used in basic training isn't modelled. The instructors aren't modelled. Ammo sent to a rear area store and forgotten isn't modelled.

quote:

Its a very rough balancing act, and it wont be all roses on the German side either, because to make it realistic on losses German casualties on attacks and reducing pockets would have to be drastically increased, about twice or more than they are now. Division to corps sized assaults only losing 1-2 companies of casualties is pure fantasy.


I think you will find that Division to corps level assaults always losing a regiment or more is a bigger fantasy...

I am not saying you are wrong, just that this being a reason why WITE 2 (from WITW) wont work is wrong

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 27
RE: WitE 2 - 9/25/2015 6:24:02 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1356
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
HMS- Ive read alot on eastern front combat and a fair amount on western front combat- assaults for both sides were very lethal and deadly affairs.

In the game most assaults even with 100's of thousands of troops involved end up 1-2k losses its beyond dumb. In real life and as happened in pretty much every major operations of the war entire battalions/regiments/divisions/even corps could and were basically wiped from the map in 1-2 weeks of combat.

This rarely if every happens in the current version of the game unless enemy is encircled and forced to surrender- attrition by direct combat is way to low. Every major operation of the war supports this.

Turns of massive offensive pushes against entrenched defenders with reserve formations only costing 10-20k men in a week is fantasy, as the offensives you see in WiTE dwarf almost anything conducted in the real war. As the Germans will often throw 40+ divisions into a headlong offensive coving areas of 200-300 miles in 1 week in the game against similar levels of soviets in 1942. Effectively you see kursk level force committments all summer long in 1942 with miniscule losses in the current version of the game.

Im not saying to not try and make a go of it and make a balanced game just saying the system needs some fixes if its going to work right...and the current game combat system of line up both sides "units" and roll dice till one side breaks off then they take a hammering mainly from retreat losses poorly reflects the reality of WW2 combat. As that description of units lined firing/rolling dice on an open field is a how the game effectively resolves combat.....and thats the issue with why you dont get realistic combat results. Maybe WiTW has a better model but thats the current from my understanding of how WiTE combat works.....so basically he who has most/biggest shooty gits wins as all terrain does is modify final odds.

An no every advance didnt lose a regiment because many advances werent contested because the defenders retreated or where wiped out by previous combat. I think you will find any combat where the defenders fought it out in decent strength with entrenchments the attacker takes a fair amount of losses as well as the defender. Im not complaining about a panzer division overrunning a Tank BDE and only taking a couple hundred losses.....Im talking when this happens from 2-3 divisions getting hit by 2+ divisions and losses are still only in 500 or less range at times- isnt realism. This lack of realism is also why we see both armies sitting at 90+% ToE almost all the time because you dont lose near anything to launch attacks.

The cooks/ammo handlers/mechanics are in the game....those are the 20 man each support squads that both armies have massive amounts of. Also if your looking at 4.5M German forces on the eastern front in 1942 that is for sure including all these odd personnel under the support label. As I can assure the Germans probably never had more 2M actual combat troops on the eastern front...in all honesty based on the way the German Army worked prolly 1-1.5M men might have actually been combat troops at most- infantry/combat engineers/panzer crews.

As to Peltons 4:1 he gets it from a chart a guy put on his website that is wrong. As it doesnt include all losses for the Germans and inlcudes all losses for the Soviets to make the odds favor the Germans- biased statistic making basically. Also the chart doesnt included Axis-Allied losses...in fact most Stats showing how much ubermen the Germans are use total Soviet losses and only German losses to show how each German kill x amount of soviets....but then every pro german statistic out there always forgets the million+ Finnish, Hunargian, Romanians, Italians that also fought and in fairly large numbers died/were wounded fighting the Soviets...Im sure those million+ men account for a fair amont of Soviet losses as well. Not to mention when you include axis allied casualties the 4:1 ratio quickly drops closer to 2:1 give or take level. All just depends on what study you believe but basically the final odds ratio is probably around 1.5-2.5:1 Total all Axis vs Soviet.


< Message edited by chaos45 -- 9/25/2015 7:28:31 PM >

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 28
RE: WitE 2 - 9/26/2015 8:47:38 AM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 3833
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
Keep this thread going it's great....

- I have to say that IMO Historical Statistic Wars to prove a point are an interesting argument but an ultimately flawed approach unless constrained to a single finite factor in time and space like how much cargo can a rail line move in one week. Scientific practice is to have a Control against which to measure your findings. In games of this sort with so many variables and absolutely no Control render arguments over whose statistics prove a point better are almost worthless. Much better is gut feel - does it feel right? I've spent days balancing scenarios for both WitW and WitE and never used loss statistics as the game does not model all forces. Time and space is a much better indicator.

- Don't base WitE2.0 thoughts on WitE. 2.0 is being created from WitW and the WitE/W Code split over three years ago and both have changed hugely from that schism.

- Where comments in this thread are on the money is in consideration of logistics and offensive operations. Firstly the need to stockpile logistics is paramount (not really possible in WitW) and also choosing suitable avenues of advance which match supply routes. I believe the Panzer Ball will not be possible in WitE2.0 as you will be unable to sustain so many hungry formations. Also a 'planned' offensive should benefit the attacker in more than just supply. Barbarossa and Bagration were successful as they were well planned. Now a system that links planning and supply build up would be clever. ;)

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 29
RE: WitE 2 - 9/26/2015 9:28:25 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1355
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
The element of planning is a good one. WITP has prep points for objectives (and so does WITW amphib). Some sort of system like that would be a bonus. I am not sure how to do it (it definitely isn't a case of 'target units'). Maybe corps could have objectives with a bonus if a move is towards it... would need more thought.

And my point on cooks and truck maintainers wasn't aimed at 'in combat units'. I know that is what a support squad is. I mean the ones behind the lines not the ones in HQ and combat units. Who unloads the supply trains? Who drives the trucks? Who receives the recruits in Moscow and gives them uniforms etc? This is the hidden element that isn't in the game. At present manpower magically moves from a pool to a unit, without soldiers being involved in any way... Thus an audit of manpower against totals is very hard (as Red Lancer says).

And casualties are hard to audit as you the only thing you know in RL is that is what the figure was (with uncertainty). You don't know why they were like that. Unless you create exactly the same circumstances, you cannot know what the game 'should' create. Also you dont know where you are in the distribution of RL results. On entire fronts and wars it will tend to average out, but you will never know if RL was a -2 std Dev result or a +2 Sd. In other words if you could magically run the universe again, what result would you get (chaos effects etc - tiny changes in decisions could make big differences to results).

Thus in my view you just have to decide what the engine will include and try and arrange a plausible range of outcomes. At present WITE is on/off with supply,and this makes the start/stop effect hard. WITW supply will make it at least possible to have supply driven pauses and build ups 'organically'. Of course it will need to be tuned...

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> WitE 2 Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172