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  53 54 [55] 56 57   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WitE 2 - 1/23/2019 12:04:51 AM   
sPzAbt. 502

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 8/8/2018
Status: offline
Reaching the Volga should also have impact as Tungan pointed out, it would cut most of the oil from reaching the industry, Stalingrad is important.

Could you code it so that holding a Volga position will influence Soviet production somehow but easing it down gradually with time as new routes open up?

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 1621
RE: WitE 2 - 1/23/2019 12:25:16 AM   
sPzAbt. 502

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 8/8/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TunganNinja

To Red Lancer:


You mentioned that there will be a theater box for the Arctic region. I'm wondering if you can expand on that point a little with concern to the Finnish front. I have two questions specifically in mind.

It is heavily speculated by many in the alternate history community that in the event of a winter '41-'42 surrender of Leningrad, greater German support would be able to reach the Lappland theater. This would allow for a possible Winter/Spring '42 offensive to cut off Murmansk railway (short term positioning), and possibly afterwards the capture of Murmansk itself (long term positioning). The Fins attempted to do such historically (with limited German support), but ground out with poor logistics. Given that Murmansk was an important Lend Lease supply link (along with Archengelsk), up until Persian chained LL increased in '43, does WitE 2 account for the possibility of reduced LL in the early war, due to these hypothetical offensives?

Also, the Finnish army mobilized a substantial portion of it's population into it's OoB (500k out of 3.5m total pops if I recall), but was historically unable to contribute to offensive operations after it's initial campaign. In fact, their OoB decreased from '43 on because of lack of supply on their homefront. My second question is then, can WitE 2 account for the significant lifting of Finnish supply issues by way of Germany through Leningrad to Finland? Ofcourse, Germany was having it's own supply issues, but no other minor Axis power suffered from supply issues quite like Finland, due to their logistical isolation, that required them to demobilize.

I'm afraid the answer to these questions is no, which would be disappointing. Lend Lease had a huge impact on the general war, and long term, full Finnish participation without demobilization would change the Northern Front during the late war period. Sure, they're not getting shiny new equipment, but at least they're being fed.


Cheers,
Tungan


It was actually the Germans that first planned to take the Kola Peninsula, it is just that only Finns had forces that coud make that happen.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Silver_Fox

quote:

Suddenly on 17 November the Finnish command ordered an end to the offensive despite positive feedback from the field commanders that further ground could be taken. The reason for this sudden change in Finnish behavior was the result of diplomatic pressure by the United States. Prior to the cancellation of the offensive, US diplomats warned Finland that a disruption of US deliveries to the Soviet Union would have serious consequences for Finland. Therefore, Finland became no longer interested in spearheading the offensive. With the Finnish refusal to be involved in the offensive, Arctic Fox came to an end in November and both sides dug in at their current positions


The USA-Finland relationship is one of the most peculiar during WW2, USA never declared war, it continued trough Cold War to this day.


(in reply to TunganNinja)
Post #: 1622
RE: WitE 2 - 1/23/2019 3:46:26 AM   
56ajax


Posts: 982
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Carnegie, Australia
Status: online
WITE2 - couple of things - can we avoid historical changes that add nothing to the game; disbanding SAD airbases and the renaming of the Air HQ from eg NorthWest to 16.237 Air Army like, fair dinkum, does my head in.

And once the Germans got out into the Steppes they became very unsettled by the limitless horizon; I have read this in a number of accounts. Perhaps a minor morale/attrition penalty once they get East of ???

_____________________________

The best way to get violently assaulted is to actively promote non violence.

(in reply to sPzAbt. 502)
Post #: 1623
RE: WitE 2 - 1/23/2019 4:01:36 PM   
thedoctorking


Posts: 1604
Joined: 4/29/2017
Status: offline
One thing I'd like is the ability to rename front HQ's. The way the game works out often, your fronts are working in very different areas than their names imply - the Volkhov Front is near Orel in a current game. It would make my immersion work better to be able to call it the "Second Steppe Front" or something like that.

(in reply to 56ajax)
Post #: 1624
RE: WitE 2 - 1/23/2019 5:37:49 PM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 370
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

One thing I'd like is the ability to rename front HQ's. The way the game works out often, your fronts are working in very different areas than their names imply - the Volkhov Front is near Orel in a current game. It would make my immersion work better to be able to call it the "Second Steppe Front" or something like that.

+1

(in reply to thedoctorking)
Post #: 1625
RE: WitE 2 - 1/23/2019 8:44:26 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 6472
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
unlikely to be possible as several of them have hardcoded name changes

(in reply to amatteucci)
Post #: 1626
RE: WitE 2 - 1/23/2019 9:28:38 PM   
OberGeneral

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 10/9/2018
From: Canada
Status: offline
I would like to see pre 1943 operations if that is possible.

I am thinking of scenarios for:

Case Weiss
Case Weserubung
Case Gelb.


(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 1627
RE: WitE 2 - 1/24/2019 1:39:09 AM   
thedoctorking


Posts: 1604
Joined: 4/29/2017
Status: offline
Yeah, I'd eliminate the hard-coded name changes, too. If your front advances from the steppes to Belarus, rename it the 3rd Belorussian Front. Or not.

(in reply to OberGeneral)
Post #: 1628
RE: WitE 2 - 1/24/2019 6:13:19 AM   
TunganNinja

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 7/19/2017
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt. 502

It was actually the Germans that first planned to take the Kola Peninsula, it is just that only Finns had forces that coud make that happen.



quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt. 502

The USA-Finland relationship is one of the most peculiar during WW2, USA never declared war, it continued trough Cold War to this day.


Very good points about Finnish resolve. The country got a lot of flack from the Western Allies during the Continuation War for going beyond their pre-1940 borders, aka. taking Petrozavodsk on the shores of Lake Onega, up to the northern shore of the Svir River. Cutting off Murmansk could only realistically be done with Finland fully participating in Germany's war against the Soviets, which is what would have happened with a German capture of Leningrad. Because WitE 1 already assumes full Finish participation with capture of Leningrad, and I assume the same is true for WitE 2, then I can definitely see a Finland that ignores USA demands because of enhanced German pressure.

Perhaps you are right that politics played a greater factor than supplies in this theater, but supplies were critically short and also resulted in lost momentum. The added rail connection to Germany doesn't hurt though, in case they try again during the winter or spring.

< Message edited by TunganNinja -- 1/24/2019 7:29:01 AM >

(in reply to sPzAbt. 502)
Post #: 1629
RE: WitE 2 - 1/24/2019 6:57:46 AM   
TunganNinja

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 7/19/2017
From: Canada
Status: offline
A major periphery consequence that stems from an Axis capture of the Kola Peninsula, is that it allows for placement of hostile military assets (naval gun batteries, airbases, and submarine bases) on the western coast of the White Sea, to blockade merchant shipping from entering Archengelsk its eastern shores. Because an allied supply ship must travel from the Barents Sea to the White Sea through an avg. 50km wide strait, an effective Axis blockade of everything - except planes and submarines - coming to and from Archengelsk could be achieved, with mere control of the Kola Peninsula's coastline. This is very much like snagging two birds with one stone, except the birds seen here are supply ports.
_____________

The way I see this reality being translated as a mechanism into the game, is by coding for two stages of penalties on Arctic Lend Lease. The first stage is a partial loss of incoming LL, and is triggered by a moderate percentage of Axis control within the Theater Box (or Axis controlling any of X selection of hexes along the Murmansk railway, whichever is easier to program). The second stage would be a full loss of incoming LL, requiring a near-total percentage of Axis control of the Theater Box (or Axis controlling of any of X selection of hexes on the Kola Peninsula coastline, whichever is easier to program).

These penalties would stay active for as long as the trigger conditions remain true. The penalty would be offset somewhat in later years by Lend Lease coming online in Persia and the Far East. Arctic LL was by far the most efficient transport method however, owing to the relative nearness of the Eastern Seaboard of North America to Eastern Europe, which is why I cannot see it becoming fully supplanted by another source.

(in reply to sPzAbt. 502)
Post #: 1630
RE: WitE 2 - 1/24/2019 7:37:40 AM   
loki100


Posts: 5628
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TunganNinja

A major periphery consequence that stems from an Axis capture of the Kola Peninsula, is that it allows for placement of hostile military assets (naval gun batteries, airbases, and submarine bases) on the western coast of the White Sea, to blockade merchant shipping from entering Archengelsk its eastern shores. ....


Comment nothing to do with the game design and more physical reality.

In the 1940s there was no way could any power militarise the Kola Peninsula. Its too rough, too untracked, it was hard to traverse by anything other than nomadic herders. It took the USSR massive investment in the 1950s to create the infrastructure to support all the nuclear weapons they put there.

So at best, you have a small group of German/Finnish soldiers waving forlornly at passing ships.



_____________________________


(in reply to TunganNinja)
Post #: 1631
RE: WitE 2 - 1/24/2019 10:28:08 AM   
TunganNinja

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 7/19/2017
From: Canada
Status: offline
You're right, I did some digging and a look at a 1941 Soviet railnet shows the infrastructure in the Kola Peninsula clearly cannot support heavy weapons - or anything more than a battalion really - in the area. Historically, German planners for Barbarossa pauperized the Northern front, and it was repeatedly starved of reinforcements. That was a theme throughout the entire war, and I doubt that stance could realistically change even in an alternate timeline. At least until US Lend Lease dramatically increased with their inclusion in the war in December 1941, or expanded Finnish involvement in the war.

I'm talking about this aspect of Archengelsk, because from a gameplay perspective, the potential results of increased German commitment would greatly effect the entire Eastern Front over time, and therefore holds great speculative interest. I also would like to play a game where the results of my hypotheticals are as accurate as possible. For that, I welcome your criticism.

There are two alternatives for achieving the same objectives that I can gather: one would be near-fully commensurate in effect, while the other would be partially commensurate for Axis objectives in blockading Arctic Lend Lease.
__________________

The first alternative would be for the Axis to control the ports on the western coast of the White Sea and convert them into submarine bases. This is to perform a high intensity blockade by harassing merchant shipping inside the White Sea and laying mines in the vicinity of Archengelsk and the White Sea gateway to the straits. German X Type submarines come to mind as best for the role of mining the waters, although only 3 would be servicable in 1942. Otherwise more general submarines would fulfill the task.

The two seaports that were capable for this role are located at the towns of Belomorsk and Kandalaksha. Both towns lie along the Murmansk Railway and link with Finnish rail through Petrozavodsk. For Belomorsk, it has a benefit of an accompanying estuary, of a canal that originates from Lake Onega. Axis control of the shores of the canal, north coast of Lake Onega, shores of Svir River, north coast of Lake Ladoga, and the Neva River south of Leningrad (requiring the capture of Leningrad) can facilitate submarine passage from the Gulf of Finland into the White Sea. If unsecured at any point, then more rigourous transport of submarines over rail to the ports is required.

Unfortunately for Axis, the Karelia and Kola regions contain non-karst-type topography, and thus do not have the capability for natural submarine pens. Therefore, the conversion of these two former Soviet naval ports into effective German submarine bases is essential, much as it was for the Germans with the Norwegian ports. If these ports are utilized properly then, I would expect a severe reduction in LL supply entering Arkhangelsk.
__________________

The second alternative would be German submarines basing out of the Murmansk seaport. There is also a small chance that German submarines can repair unharassed at an undamaged Polyarny shipyard, a town nearby Murmansk at the Kola River's estuary.

During the summer period of 1941 the British and Soviets conducted a naval campaign in the Barents Sea which resulted in German surface ships being unable to contest the waters. The Brits were able to perform this campaign quickly because of Soviet involvement and the port of Murmansk. However, German submarines continued to operate around the Barents Sea and sink convoys up until the last week of the War in Europe. The primary effect a German submarine base in Murmansk has is that it is significantly closer for conducting naval operations near the White Sea, compared to other historical submarine bases.

As an example, during the Battle of the Atlantic, The three most prominent German submarine bases in the Arctic were located at Bergen, Trondheim, and Narvik. Narvik is the closest to the entrance of the White Sea, yet it is still a 1,600km journey until its destination assuming it is hugging the shorelines. Murmansk has an approximate 500km distance to the same destination. Using the cruise speed of the Type VII submarine - the most common German submarine - the distance is the difference between a two day journey and a fifteen hour journey if traveling at surface speed. Double the journey time if there are any delays, or submerging occurs along the route.

An additional effect is that the Allies are restricted to basing primarily in the White Sea. As discussed previously, a major aid to Allied operations in clearing German ships from the Barents Sea was the fact that they were primarily based in Murmansk. Sailing out of the White Sea plays into German submarine strengths when tracking and ambushing convoys, and makes Allied patrol distance longer.

Despite the newfound German blue water advantage, this is a much less optimal strategy than a White Sea submarine strategy for naval operations. This is because German submarines are not known to have ever crossed through the Barents-White Strait. Such a crossing would likely have been a death sentence for any submarines with Allied patrol ships in the area, much like the Straits of Gibraltar. Even with a closer naval port convoy raiding would be an opportunistic, porous blockade, which I would label light in intensity. Still, German positioning of the Barents Sea would be much stronger than normal and therefore have a noticeable effect on LL coming into Arkhangelsk.
______________

This is why I think that Archengelsk is a reasonable blockade target in WitE 2.

My comments are getting a little too studious for my liking, so I will refrain from commenting much on the thread. If there is anything you would like to expand on or contest, please PM me.

Cheers,
Tungan


Edit: words

< Message edited by TunganNinja -- 1/24/2019 10:48:59 AM >

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 1632
RE: WitE 2 - 1/24/2019 10:35:06 AM   
sPzAbt. 502

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 8/8/2018
Status: offline
Also the Persian corridor Lend Lease should be affected by holding the Caucasus.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Corridor

(in reply to TunganNinja)
Post #: 1633
RE: WitE 2 - 1/24/2019 10:46:28 AM   
TunganNinja

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 7/19/2017
From: Canada
Status: offline
Yeah I like that idea. Reduce Persian LL by ~50 in that case? Bad roads in Central Asia, even worse than Caucasus, and longer travel to the front.

(in reply to sPzAbt. 502)
Post #: 1634
RE: WitE 2 - 1/24/2019 10:51:26 AM   
sPzAbt. 502

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 8/8/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TunganNinja

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt. 502

It was actually the Germans that first planned to take the Kola Peninsula, it is just that only Finns had forces that coud make that happen.



quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt. 502

The USA-Finland relationship is one of the most peculiar during WW2, USA never declared war, it continued trough Cold War to this day.


Very good points about Finnish resolve. The country got a lot of flack from the Western Allies during the Continuation War for going beyond their pre-1940 borders, aka. taking Petrozavodsk on the shores of Lake Onega, up to the northern shore of the Svir River. Cutting off Murmansk could only realistically be done with Finland fully participating in Germany's war against the Soviets, which is what would have happened with a German capture of Leningrad. Because WitE 1 already assumes full Finish participation with capture of Leningrad, and I assume the same is true for WitE 2, then I can definitely see a Finland that ignores USA demands because of enhanced German pressure.

Perhaps you are right that politics played a greater factor than supplies in this theater, but supplies were critically short and also resulted in lost momentum. The added rail connection to Germany doesn't hurt though, in case they try again during the winter or spring.



Finns remained mostly in contact with USA, the only one of them that did not declare war on Stalins request.
Finns did use this to their own ends also as they cracked the US diplomatic codes by SIGINT done in embassies in US and other neutral countries and as early as the end of 42 where leaning to the conclusion that Germany would loose the war.


Finnish supply situation was not the result of the lack of direct rail connection, Baltic shipping was working in good capacity, it was that Germany was keeping a tight hold of supply to Finland.
There was a drop in agriculture production because of the high mobilisation rate but mostly it was about Germany keeping a strangle hold on Finland.
This resulted later in Finland stacking up huge strategic reserves during the Cold War period, the system is still in use all but heavily reduced.

(in reply to TunganNinja)
Post #: 1635
RE: WitE 2 - 1/24/2019 10:54:08 AM   
sPzAbt. 502

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 8/8/2018
Status: offline
Salpa line should be in the game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salpa_Line

(in reply to sPzAbt. 502)
Post #: 1636
RE: WitE 2 - 1/24/2019 11:32:28 AM   
TunganNinja

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 7/19/2017
From: Canada
Status: offline
Yes, the Finnish politicians were never convinced Germany would win the war, and in fact severely curtailed their interest after they realized the war was lost. They were secretly negotiating surrender with Soviets since 1943. It is also true that it took significant encouraging by the Germans for them to declare the Continuation War (Soviet bombing of Helsinki in late June certainly helped).

Still, I remain convinced that a surrender of Leningrad would: A. Reduce direct pressure on Finland from the Soviets (no longer a hostile enemy metropolis on the border): B. Increase direct pressure on Finland by Germany (said metropolis now belongs to your boisterous "ally") C. Convince Finland that Germany will win the war.

Germany did a lot of things during 1940 to 1941 to bring Finland into their camp. A key point is when they blocked a Sweeden-Finnish alliance, forcing Finland to seek German protection (Western Allies only gave token guarantees). After Leningrad, there is no problem preventing Germany from continuing to escalate and bully Finland - as they did with the other Axis Minors - to fully rein them in. And with Leningrad they have a land connection. There were already German divisions in Finland historically, and there would be more in this alternative timeline.

Mannerheim is the kind of politician that knew how to balance on a fence, but not blindly so. If the war looked lost for the Soviets then they would jump on board. He has to deal with a carrot on his front, and a stick on his back. Ironically if they went with the WAllies I think they would have been fine.

Also I completely agree about the supply situation. The main effect would be the food coming in. Same as other Axis Minors.

< Message edited by TunganNinja -- 1/24/2019 11:36:50 AM >

(in reply to sPzAbt. 502)
Post #: 1637
RE: WitE 2 - 1/24/2019 12:11:35 PM   
sPzAbt. 502

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 8/8/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TunganNinja

Yes, the Finnish politicians were never convinced Germany would win the war, and in fact severely curtailed their interest after they realized the war was lost. They were secretly negotiating surrender with Soviets since 1943. It is also true that it took significant encouraging by the Germans for them to declare the Continuation War (Soviet bombing of Helsinki in late June certainly helped).

Still, I remain convinced that a surrender of Leningrad would: A. Reduce direct pressure on Finland from the Soviets (no longer a hostile enemy metropolis on the border): B. Increase direct pressure on Finland by Germany (said metropolis now belongs to your boisterous "ally") C. Convince Finland that Germany will win the war.

Germany did a lot of things during 1940 to 1941 to bring Finland into their camp. A key point is when they blocked a Sweeden-Finnish alliance, forcing Finland to seek German protection (Western Allies only gave token guarantees). After Leningrad, there is no problem preventing Germany from continuing to escalate and bully Finland - as they did with the other Axis Minors - to fully rein them in. And with Leningrad they have a land connection. There were already German divisions in Finland historically, and there would be more in this alternative timeline.

Mannerheim is the kind of politician that knew how to balance on a fence, but not blindly so. If the war looked lost for the Soviets then they would jump on board. He has to deal with a carrot on his front, and a stick on his back. Ironically if they went with the WAllies I think they would have been fine.

Also I completely agree about the supply situation. The main effect would be the food coming in. Same as other Axis Minors.


Finland was negotiating peace terms and always refused unconditional surrender, it was backed by USA at Tehran in this.

Yes, the fall of Leningrad in 1941-42 would have convinced Finns that destruction of the Bolshevik regime was possible and most likely increased their effort towards a victory.


German plans for the city was its destruction and giving it to Finland, Finns would have also liked Estonia and Livonia to be included in Greater Finland but Germans where on the fence about that.
Mannerheim would have likely have intervened and tried to prevent the leveling of the city he loved personally.

There was little possibility to go with Western Allies after the fall of Norway and Soviet Union would have most likely demanded to place troops in Finland, Soviet troops had the bad habit of never leaving a country they entered.

< Message edited by sPzAbt. 502 -- 1/24/2019 12:12:07 PM >

(in reply to TunganNinja)
Post #: 1638
RE: WitE 2 - 1/24/2019 1:24:15 PM   
TunganNinja

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 7/19/2017
From: Canada
Status: offline
And yet it was still a surrender. Did I say unconditional surrender?

Yes, Finland could have ended up like Iran did in the early stages of Barbarossa, but I think not. Iran was antagonistic to Britain and the Soviets, while Finland had a good relationship with Britain and the USA. Iran also needed to be cleared as a supply route. Soviets bombing Finland in June 1941 convinced Finnish leaders of the need for war, but the bombing only occurred because Germany was visibly influencing Finland and intending to use them as a front in a coming war.

Yes, at the time it would seem foolish for Finland not to seek German protection. I am arguing that although it would look stupid at the time the results may surprise you. An ostentatiously neutral Finland, with special work put into diplomacy with WAllies, would in my estimation bare fruit by Barbarossa. I can't see how the Soviets or Germans would respond effectively. WAllies would use Lend Lease to keep Soviets in check. Germany could attack Petsamo from Norway but it would be ineffective without a naval invasion of Southern Finland. That would tie up men that are required for Barbarossa and make an enemy at an inopportune time. It's the same reason why Turkey was not attacked by either the Germans or Soviets, for instance. The Finnish military was proven to be a nuisance by now, after the Winter War.

Otherwise we will have to agree to disagree about WAllies on Finland. There is nothing stopping the Winter War though.

(in reply to sPzAbt. 502)
Post #: 1639
RE: WitE 2 - 1/24/2019 4:45:22 PM   
thedoctorking


Posts: 1604
Joined: 4/29/2017
Status: offline
Remembering from Days of Decision (the 1936-whenever World In Flames expansion) that Finland starts out somewhat towards the fascists but open to influence from the other two factions. As the Democrats once, I got Sweden and Finland on my side. Made a huge difference; the Fascists were on the defensive from the beginning and the big confrontation was Communists-Democrats with Fascists a minor ally of the Commies. Didn't play out fully but it was a lot of fun as an alternate history.

(in reply to TunganNinja)
Post #: 1640
RE: WitE 2 - 1/25/2019 6:31:59 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 27111
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
I've deleted some posts that got into a political discussion that doesn't belong here. Please take those discussions elsewhere. Thank you.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to thedoctorking)
Post #: 1641
RE: WitE 2 - 1/26/2019 9:48:11 PM   
gamer78

 

Posts: 200
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline
In the War in The West selecting aircraft types in f10 mode was drawing range circles for all aircraft of that type. Map scroll was very slow when zoomed out. Turn processing speed is excellent. Could it be removed for future games and in WITW? I think I've wrote it in War in the west forum.

< Message edited by gamer78 -- 1/26/2019 9:51:03 PM >

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 1642
RE: WitE 2 - 2/1/2019 9:53:34 AM   
MagicMissile


Posts: 33
Joined: 10/11/2014
From: Stockholm
Status: offline
Hello
It’s my birthday today. Any chance of a small update as a birthday gift?
Looking forward to beta/release.
Have a nice weekend.
/Patrik

(in reply to gamer78)
Post #: 1643
RE: WitE 2 - 2/1/2019 8:46:26 PM   
mrhuggles


Posts: 28
Joined: 6/26/2018
Status: offline
What are the chances of any scenario building tools? It'd be neat if players could edit their scenarios to be as historical/gameplay focused as they want

(in reply to MagicMissile)
Post #: 1644
RE: WitE 2 - 2/3/2019 2:12:59 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2030
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
Been away for years, sorry if this has already been covered. Was wondering if out of fuel could really be out of fuel and a unit lose all movement unless it opts to abandon heavy equipment dependant upon motorised transport. At which point it could becomes a "special" infantry unit with the option to re-equip.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to mrhuggles)
Post #: 1645
RE: WitE 2 - 2/3/2019 3:08:15 PM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 4047
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gamer78

In the War in The West selecting aircraft types in f10 mode was drawing range circles for all aircraft of that type. Map scroll was very slow when zoomed out. Turn processing speed is excellent. Could it be removed for future games and in WITW? I think I've wrote it in War in the west forum.


A lot of work is going into improving performance and although the work is yet to be finished it looks like you will be able to choose to see range circles.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to gamer78)
Post #: 1646
RE: WitE 2 - 2/3/2019 3:10:31 PM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 4047
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrhuggles

What are the chances of any scenario building tools? It'd be neat if players could edit their scenarios to be as historical/gameplay focused as they want


You'll have access to the same editor as the official scenario designers. A lot less is hard coded than the original WitE so more scope for creating the scenarios you want.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to mrhuggles)
Post #: 1647
RE: WitE 2 - 2/3/2019 3:14:24 PM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 4047
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Been away for years, sorry if this has already been covered. Was wondering if out of fuel could really be out of fuel and a unit lose all movement unless it opts to abandon heavy equipment dependant upon motorised transport. At which point it could becomes a "special" infantry unit with the option to re-equip.


The less fuel a unit has the less MPs but there are no plans to allow units to shed equipment to maintain mobility.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 1648
RE: WitE 2 - 2/3/2019 3:38:16 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Been away for years, sorry if this has already been covered. Was wondering if out of fuel could really be out of fuel and a unit lose all movement unless it opts to abandon heavy equipment dependant upon motorised transport. At which point it could becomes a "special" infantry unit with the option to re-equip.


The less fuel a unit has the less MPs but there are no plans to allow units to shed equipment to maintain mobility.

You know, the loss of heavy equipment incurred in retreating during the winter was THE primary reason for fabled "stand your ground" orders from Hitler during the Winter of '41-42? Without that kind of penalty, "no retreat" postures don't really make any sense.

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 1649
RE: WitE 2 - 2/3/2019 4:54:34 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2030
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Been away for years, sorry if this has already been covered. Was wondering if out of fuel could really be out of fuel and a unit lose all movement unless it opts to abandon heavy equipment dependant upon motorised transport. At which point it could becomes a "special" infantry unit with the option to re-equip.


The less fuel a unit has the less MPs but there are no plans to allow units to shed equipment to maintain mobility.

You know, the loss of heavy equipment incurred in retreating during the winter was THE primary reason for fabled "stand your ground" orders from Hitler during the Winter of '41-42? Without that kind of penalty, "no retreat" postures don't really make any sense.

Interesting. Never thought of that. I was thinking mainly of incidents like Peiper's retreat from La Glieze, just one famous example where a unit had to abandon massive quantities of vehicles to escape complete destruction. I think there's something to be said for giving a one time MP allowance after fuel is gone, to represent unaccounted for stocks/siphoning and scrounging but the game currently allows units to manhandle vehicles and heavy equipment indefinitely.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 1650
Page:   <<   < prev  53 54 [55] 56 57   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: WitE 2 Page: <<   < prev  53 54 [55] 56 57   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

0.188