WitW - Anyone play?

JudgeDredd · February 21, 2015, 03:41:15 PM

I just keep thinking the air losses are low. Just a gut feeling, but my last "outing" showed almost 16,000 sorties with 179 losses??

Boggit · February 21, 2015, 06:51:46 PM

Quote from: JudgeDredd on February 21, 2015, 03:41:15 PM
I just keep thinking the air losses are low. Just a gut feeling, but my last "outing" showed almost 16,000 sorties with 179 losses??

Slightly over 1%. Not bad really isn't it, but it does vary in the game, and if you're like me it can get much worse! You're probably a better air commander than me. ;) I'd look at the average of a few more days action before drawing too many conclusions.

Here's some real world statistics for you http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/air-forces-losses-wwii-13403.html

What was the nature of your losses? Flak, interception, accidents and bad weather?

Rayfer · February 21, 2015, 07:24:08 PM

Quote from: JudgeDredd on February 21, 2015, 03:41:15 PM
I just keep thinking the air losses are low. Just a gut feeling, but my last "outing" showed almost 16,000 sorties with 179 losses??

How much more/less complex is it compared to WitE. I could only ever play the scenarios in WitE....the grand campaign eluded me.

mikeck · February 21, 2015, 08:43:56 PM

Those aren't bad. Just keep in mind the number of sorties. If you are using bombers, be sure to escort them with a lot of fighters. I ordered the 15 AF (I think that is the one in the med) to bomb several rail heads and airfields. I manually selected the units and forgot to order escorts. They were mauled. I replayed the turn and had to squadrons of spitfires escort and my losses were 1/4 of the previous turn.

150 losses or so for 16000 sorties isn't bad at all

This game is phenomenal...I love the air game and all the control you have over it as well as the amphibious options. Very satisfying organizing, planning and executing a landing with airborne troops and amphibious units simultaneously.

jomni · February 21, 2015, 09:55:30 PM

Quote from: mikeck on February 21, 2015, 08:43:56 PM
This game is phenomenal...I love the air game and all the control you have over it as well as the amphibious options. Very satisfying organizing, planning and executing a landing with airborne troops and amphibious units simultaneously.

How does these aspects compare to WITP?

mikeck · February 21, 2015, 10:47:30 PM

Quote from: jomni on February 21, 2015, 09:55:30 PM
Quote from: mikeck on February 21, 2015, 08:43:56 PM
This game is phenomenal...I love the air game and all the control you have over it as well as the amphibious options. Very satisfying organizing, planning and executing a landing with airborne troops and amphibious units simultaneously.

How does these aspects compare to WITP?

Good question. I never really played a full WitP campaign...just the 1 year coral seA scenario in the original. I find there is far less micromanagement in WiTw. For example, supplies. In WitW, supplies are created without your control. The distribution is handled by assigning priority. If you are initiating a major offensive in northern France, you would want to prioritize supplies to high in those harbors in northern France. Additionally, you would select a high priority to the HQ of those units involved in the offensive. Of course, the ability of supply to get to those units is based on the distance, how many supply trucks the unit has, the terrain, level of enemy air interdiction,etc

In WitP, you would create an actual supply convoy and select the ships. You would then choose whether fuel, ammo or troops are loaded and then assign a port to go to.

Now in WiTW you can change aircraft ordinAnce in each aircraft if you like but there are no pilot rotations or transfers. Also, the AI can handle the air war for you. You can create an automatic air directive where you assign priorities and the hQ of each Air Force assigns the mission. So if you invade Italy, you might create an auto direction for "strategic air med." Where you prioritize air superiority, bombardment of rail yards and interdiction (attacking enemy reinforcements).
I choose to assign specific missions to an airforce and assign the air wings myself with escorts.

So I would say that in WiTw, with the air war, you get far more control over how it is waged without having to get into the weeds anymore than you want. There is less minutia to dig around in than WitP concreting logistics and troop movement. For example, in WitP, you create a convoy, assign ships, load the ships with the unit, equipment and fuel...with troops on troop ships, fuel on fuel ships, etc.
In WiTw, I go into "naval transport mode", select a unit in a port and drop/drag it into the port I want. The longer the unit is in the departing port, the more prepared it is to transfer in terms of equipment and readiness. The limitation being the amount of shipping available. Amphibious attacks are a bit more involved

All in all, I enjoy WiTw far more because I feel like I have a lot of control without making every little decision. If, as commanding General, I want the 1st infantry division moved from Tunisia to a friendly port in Sicily for a planned attack in a month, I shouldn't have to sit at my desk and type orders that "use ships A, B, C and G for troops and ships X, Y and Z for troops...and assign ships 1,2 and 5 as escorts, etc

It is a Gary Grigsby game. It is complex and detailed. Nothing is more detailed than WiTP...in my opinion, to its detriment (WitP)

I put WiTW slightly above WiTE on the complexity level solely because of all the things you can do with the air campaign, airborne drops and amphibious invasions. There is no game that is more detailed and complex (not hard to understand....but deep) Except WiTP

As stated, it is complex but not confusing. Once you do the tutorials (watch) and read the quick guide (10 pages or so) you can figure things out. I played the tutorial scenario "husky" (a 5 turn invasion of Sicily" about 5-6 times and I had it...at least enough to begin the larger scenarios and have a blast

jomni · February 21, 2015, 11:52:12 PM

Sounds good. I have WITP and WITE. Looks like this is middle ground, which is good for me.

mikeck · February 22, 2015, 12:24:37 PM

If you liked WiTE but we're frustrated by the inability to really maneuver and the lack of a true air campaigns, you will like WitW

JudgeDredd · February 22, 2015, 12:33:32 PM

I didn't mess with the Air Directives. I simply stated the priorities and let the AI assign the aircraft.

I have done this 3 or 4 times now in the opening sequence to Husky and each time has been the same - a huge amount of sorties and very few losses.

My gut was telling me those results were on the low side. But if the general consensus is that it's fair, then so be it. I just thought I'd point it out as it looked weird to me.

Anyway - carry on. :P

mikeck · February 22, 2015, 02:31:55 PM

I misunderstood you...I thought you were saying they are high! No, I think that is normal, maybe on the low side but normal. Figure that a lot of flights are naval patrol and recon that never really get shot down. It's always hard to tell in these games if casualties are WAD or not...like AGEOD. Time will tell

JudgeDredd · February 22, 2015, 02:49:12 PM

Well, as an example, there was a mission with 100 bombers (there abouts) and at the end, there were 2 casualties.

I know all sorts of things will affect it...like any free enemy aircraft being able to scramble, night or day attack etc.

I need to take a closer look and maybe take a screenshot of what I mean.

Mountain out of a molehill probably. :-X