Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: WitE 2 Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WitE 2 - 6/23/2016 10:28:48 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 3468
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
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.





_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 811
RE: WitE 2 - 6/23/2016 11:10:21 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 3468
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 812
RE: WitE 2 - 6/23/2016 11:13:48 PM   
loki100


Posts: 5361
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

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

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

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

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

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




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


_____________________________


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 813
RE: WitE 2 - 6/23/2016 11:44:43 PM   
rainman2015

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 2/12/2015
Status: offline
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
:)

< Message edited by rainman2015 -- 6/23/2016 11:48:19 PM >

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 814
RE: WitE 2 - 6/23/2016 11:46:20 PM   
Commanderski


Posts: 737
Joined: 12/12/2010
From: New Hampshire
Status: online
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.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 815
RE: WitE 2 - 6/24/2016 12:40:48 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6851
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Commanderski)
Post #: 816
RE: WitE 2 - 6/24/2016 6:53:49 AM   
loki100


Posts: 5361
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Commanderski

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

< Message edited by loki100 -- 6/24/2016 7:00:24 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Commanderski)
Post #: 817
RE: WitE 2 - 6/24/2016 3:18:19 PM   
rainman2015

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 2/12/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commanderski

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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
:)

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 818
RE: WitE 2 - 6/24/2016 4:13:40 PM   
loki100


Posts: 5361
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
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?

_____________________________


(in reply to rainman2015)
Post #: 819
RE: WitE 2 - 6/24/2016 9:50:15 PM   
RoflCopter4

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 4/19/2016
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 820
RE: WitE 2 - 6/24/2016 11:23:31 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 26622
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
It took 4 years from WitE to WitW. It's been 1.5 years since WitW. We needed to spend more time post-release on WitE than WitW, so that is a plus for WitE2, however Gary is also spending some time on the tactical game in development so that is a minus (but Pavel is fully on WitE2). In some ways development of WitE2 should be easier than WitW was, but on the other hand it's a longer game that is harder to test and balance. However there's a lot of experience with unique WitE needs due to the WitE1 experience. We are in alpha, and will be for at least the rest of this year. Does that give you an answer?

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to RoflCopter4)
Post #: 821
RE: WitE 2 - 6/25/2016 12:39:00 AM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1024
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

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

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

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

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


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


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

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 822
RE: WitE 2 - 6/27/2016 11:36:56 AM   
robinsa


Posts: 170
Joined: 7/24/2013
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 823
RE: WitE 2 - 6/27/2016 1:01:59 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3979
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
A nation that absorbed millions in casualties in six months is hardly going to be bothered by losing cities.

_____________________________

Either you love bacon or you're wrong.

(in reply to robinsa)
Post #: 824
RE: WitE 2 - 6/27/2016 3:40:03 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1024
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: robinsa


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine


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

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

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

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


It's not that holding ground adds to morale; it's that ceding it would hurt morale. Imagine, the Sixth Army expends massive effort to take Stalingrad, only to pull out shortly thereafter... You think there wouldn't be a drop in NM at that action? So it's very logical to expect negative morale consequences to the politically compelled military positions in the war.

Ideally, losing any established objective cities should bear a cost not only in VPs, but in NM as a political matter. How soon a captured objective becomes "owned" by the conqueror is an issue to be determined. Certainly Stalingrad bears a lot of insight into this concept: The German morale would have suffered so greatly had they evacuated Stalingrad that they risked the destruction of Sixth A. to hold it. Ideally that could be reflected in the game. Ideally.

(in reply to robinsa)
Post #: 825
RE: WitE 2 - 6/27/2016 6:09:16 PM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4136
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: offline
National Morale is not just unit morale and the wording of the term doesn't explain it's impact. NM includes numerous factors such as base quality of troops and officers, efficiency of training programs as well as evolving doctrine.

Trey

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
Sabre 21's perpetual arch-nemisis

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 826
RE: WitE 2 - 6/27/2016 6:32:06 PM   
Ridgeway

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline
So much confusion could have been avoided if GG had referred to this concept as something like "Average Combat Proficiency" rather than "National Morale".

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 827
RE: WitE 2 - 6/27/2016 7:33:13 PM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4136
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: offline
I definitely agree with that.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

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



_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
Sabre 21's perpetual arch-nemisis

(in reply to Ridgeway)
Post #: 828
RE: WitE 2 - 6/27/2016 8:21:09 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1024
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline
Does it also encompass troop morale?

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 829
RE: WitE 2 - 6/27/2016 8:33:53 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 403
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

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

Trey


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

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

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

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

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


< Message edited by MechFO -- 6/27/2016 8:51:00 PM >

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 830
RE: WitE 2 - 6/27/2016 11:25:23 PM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4136
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: offline
MechFO, I have long preferred to tie NM to player influenced actions rather than arbitrarily dates. I agree that German NM should be tied to losses instead of dates as the decline of the German capability was driven by attrition. Having a driver for the Soviets is a bit stickier as their increasing capabilities came from learning from painful mistakes and the evolution of their doctrine. My theory is that as Soviet losses climb, so should their proficiency as making mistakes and failure is a critical part of learning and therefore, a key ingredient for improvement in performance. A Soviet Army that is focused on avoiding combat in 1941 with low losses should not see an automatic NM increase. The Soviet player should be encouraged to attack and we are seeing in the Alpha of WitE 2 that attacking Soviets are enacting a far greater toll on German forces in 1941.

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

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

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

Trey


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

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

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

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

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




_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
Sabre 21's perpetual arch-nemisis

(in reply to MechFO)
Post #: 831
RE: WitE 2 - 6/29/2016 1:55:22 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1024
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

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

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

Trey



As I mull this topic over, I find that the highlighted text also has a lot of merit. With all the systemic problems of the Soviet army, running away and preserving themselves will not bring severe deficiencies into focus. Soviet doctrine would not be reexamined, and their NM (unit proficiency) should not increase as it now does automatically. Using arbitrary dates as a basis for changes in NM is totally divorced from the actual player-determined course of the war. Combined with running away and ceding objectives, the effect on Soviet NM should be highly negative with no chance of increasing until sufficient losses have been incurred to bring on reform.

I would hope that player decisions rather than historical decisions not chosen would be given a high priority in revisions in WitE 2. Such mechanisms would really make a lot more difference in its value as a game than a lot of technical modifications, however welcome those are.

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 832
RE: WitE 2 - 6/29/2016 2:51:53 PM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 4016
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: online
I don't normally post my ideas publicly but this is one I've ofter thought about....

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

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 833
RE: WitE 2 - 6/29/2016 2:54:53 PM   
zakblood


Posts: 21342
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: online
sounds like a good idea to me

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 834
RE: WitE 2 - 6/29/2016 3:09:00 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 403
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

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

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


Very good idea and fits the German situation to a T. Soviet situation as well actually, since performance wouldn't have been so bad in 42 if trained manpower losses hadn't been so huge in 41.

Might also be an idea to give Soviets bonuses to Armament/Supply/Vehicle? production if Manpower pool is over a certain threshold. This way the Soviet player has an incentive to not just plop the biggest possible army on the map.

In general I think AGEOD games might be a good inspiration on how to give the player the possibility for trade offs.


(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 835
RE: WitE 2 - 6/29/2016 3:18:52 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 403
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

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


Could be argued, though to be fair, at lot of problems later on were due to having lost all the trained manpower in 41 due to a combination of massive C3/Log failures and German quality. Fighting, at least defensively, at company/sub company level was never the Soviet problem, if the units had some time to train and were decently equipped. That said, I think it can be supported and would definitely add an interesting dynamic to the game.

quote:

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

Trey




I'd settle for a DC Barb system, but absolutely agree.

In the end the player only really cares for 3 things, combat power, replacements, logistics, arguably in that order, hence any incentive system must target those factors.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 6/29/2016 3:23:25 PM >

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 836
RE: WitE 2 - 6/29/2016 3:25:39 PM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4136
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: offline
That is something to definitely look into. We would need to research the secondary levels of effects to see what other impacts of a mass levy of manpower. I know the Germans during Barbarossa were tapped on manpower as they had a set number of trained replacements in 1941 and that pool was exhausted by September. Germany at this time was not on a war production schedule and was in fact powering down production of Heer crew served weapons and artillery. They simply couldn't dump extra manpower without having a significant impact on their industry.

Trey



quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

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

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



< Message edited by el hefe -- 6/29/2016 3:28:26 PM >


_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
Sabre 21's perpetual arch-nemisis

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 837
RE: WitE 2 - 6/29/2016 4:44:43 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1701
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Perhaps having NM tied to total losses for the Axis powers/Germans?

There might also need to be some tie in due to how things are going on the western front as well. 1943- wasnt only a bad year for the Germans because of Stalingrad surrendering in January, it was also bad for them due to Tunisia and Sicily and the italians leaving the war---all these had affects on the German military outside the eastern front. You listen to some interviews with German Soldiers that were fighting during that time period, and I remember one specifically saying once they realized they were fighting Americans they knew the war lost because Germany couldnt fight the whole world. So keeping things isolated to just the eastern front will be hard to do IMO as the whole war effort is what brought down Germany so some timelines maybe could make it quicker or slower but fighting on several fronts drained the Germans massively over time.

Production wise the Germans made up for in after the massive 1942 drafts by using more and more forced/slave labor from occupied territories---however quality of equipment was prolly alittle worse off when they began to use more and more massed slave labor. The German economy and war effort was never as unified or seamless as what the allies managed to do and one of the big reasons they lost. Everything they did was a rob peter to pay paul effect, not to mention the extreme amounts of political in-fighting Hitler instigated to ensure no-one else could challenge him in power. Basically the Nazis system helped to cause its own downfall with in-built in-inefficiencies. The German army did an amazing job of the term "doing more with less" but that only works for so long before your system breaks under the strain. Soldiers arent machines and the longer you stress them no matter how effective or highly trained they eventually snap. You see this as the war drag on for the Germans in many ways. You make the same guy fight for longer and longer periods of time and watch all his friends die around him and eventually he doesnt care as much anymore and gets himself killed through not caring anymore.....Allies studied this effect extensively and its one of the reasons they rotated and tried to rest units more than the Germans...not to mention the allies usually had the units/men to spare for these rotations.

Adding some options to each side for conduct of the war might be neat---like what if luftwaffe personnel were given to the army for more training, or an option to delay the deployment of the luftwaffe divisions for more training- ei a later arrival date but high quality divisions. Some trade offs like this could be options for both sides. Even on the Soviet side the first use of tank corps in 1942 was a disaster and Soviet commanders knew it would be because they didnt feel their units had, had enough time to train.

now balancing any changes like these could be the issue....but all this is my 2 cents salted with historical/studied facts lol.

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 838
RE: WitE 2 - 6/29/2016 10:05:32 PM   
sillyflower


Posts: 2495
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Loches France (but properly part of England)
Status: offline
Some excellent thinking in recent posts. I particularly like the idea of Soviet NM becoming higher as losses grow (at least in the early part of the game) because NM reflects the learning of lessons as opposed to morale. Anything that dampens down the WiTE momentum effect will make for a better game and, dare I say it, longer GC games.

Less enamoured with the idea of being lumbered with unpredictable political demands from on high as I want to control my forces by myself. However, I do understand the attraction and I would be happy if each side could choose between options. Sadly, probably too difficult for vanilla WiTE 2 as I can see that a lot of testing of complete GCs would be needed for balancing.

< Message edited by sillyflower -- 6/29/2016 10:18:50 PM >


_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 839
RE: WitE 2 - 6/29/2016 10:11:20 PM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6151
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline
My suggestion is a option for the Germans to buy winter clothing. Say one AP's for Inf and two for Mech, which would include
include synthetic oil costs. Include extra rail costs also. That way if a player stops is offense in October he can
be prepared for winter. We would need a new color outline and key for it.

Jon

_____________________________

Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 840
Page:   <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: WitE 2 Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   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

0.170