FWW... whats next?

[ComradeP]

When it comes to modelling more static fronts, I don't think the current mechanics would be able to represent those.

There are 3 main reasons for that:

1) The Disruption system doesn't check for volume of fire or casualties, meaning any result can cause Disruption.

That's also why the protection offered by trenches are in a different league than those offered by bunkers: with bunkers or other strongpoints, your troops can't currently be targeted by many enemy units due to their HA of 0. The different kinds of "soft" protection offered by terrain, elevation or entrenchment only result in lower casualties, not in a lower Disruption chance. You might very well end up with the same 1,2,3,4 Men D results that result in particularly the Soviets not being able to hold a line in PzC.

2) The "second row problem."

Due to the way casualties are increased for higher stacking densities, frontline hexes will be lightly held if the defender wants to prevent casualties from relative "overstacking". This, in turn, means divisions are likely to have numerous units in the second row. If the attacker assaults the first hex, he is then exposed to fire from the second row. You'll end up with assaults and counter-assaults for the first trench hex that the attacker (the Entente in most cases) is likely to win due to having more artillery and stronger units (in terms of men, as the Germans are likely to be understrength as the war drags on). After a few turns, and shelling of the second row, the line will more or less inevitably break due to the defenders Disrupting. All of this can happen in a single day worth of turns.

3) Support weapons are vulnerable to assault in the first row.

If there are one or more MG units, one of which isn't Disrupted, and a Disrupted infantry battalion in the front row, the MG unit will take most of the damage in an assault. Due to how small they are compared to the assaulting infantry, there's a reasonable chance they'll die or lose most of their strength. It isn't uncommon for that to happen in either EP '14, where the Russian assault values can lead to the 90 Men German MG units being destroyed or seriously weakened after a single assault, or France '14, where Entente MG units are small. Gun units that are forced to retreat lose at least half their guns.

Even though you have limited offensive capabilities against a retreating defender when the situation is fluid due to everyone having the same speed even when Disrupted, a static defence and the need to hold a line might result in local encirclements if the defender doesn't pull back. As soon as a breakthrough is made anywhere along the line, the neighbouring sections will soon become untenable. This already happens in East Front PzC, where you can methodically grind Soviet defensive positions into dust without them being able to do much about it.

[Xaver]

Disruption allways was a problem for me in Tiller games... is to random at the point you can score 3 rows of 50 or more casualties over an infantry btl and no disruption... but in defensive fire score 1 casualtie and your unit be disrupted even when is with no fatigue... i feel that is a problem with the decision to have covered with a single parameter something that needs be at least 2 diferent values (morale separate of quality) to control much better this... under certain level of morale units have a chance to disrupt but over that level never disrupt... of course morale could be restored like fatigue for example.

The pure trench warfare is hard to simulate, even in a game like "To end all wars" from AGEOD has problems and we talk about a game where the equivalent of FWW btl is division... apart this to be fair the trench warfare is maybe the less interesting period for the game scale... in SB is perfect but i feel that top scale is PzB if they want cover that period.

The MG units are very strong but at same time very weak... maybe the problem is how you move them... i feel that they need use the ability from CW to move one hex back when they are still deployed... and same with field gun units... something to help that support units that need be in first line survive more and be less "last stand" rear units.

Compared with PzC in FWW create pockets is harder because support units need more time to be ready and reduce pockets is slower and defenders have bigger chance to scape.

For me apart all this i feel that engine needs a rework to increase the speed in resolve turns and fire combat... you are losing around 2s if you play with normal speed in fire actions and a great part of turn resolution is wasted with actions you cant see... if they can code to resolve at max speed actions from AI out of your spot area this could speed a lot game.

The way they offer info about new titles... well, only PzB is doing something here and usually when game is close to release (but at least they release very early leaks after release a title) other series are with the old top secret system from HPS time... i dont like this, i prefer know whats going on to be ready and well, talk about future title, a good way to know more about it, search books, movies... start "playing" game even when is not released because for me part of the game is outside it.

Other good point could be have access to beta... i refer they can anounce title lets see.... 6 months before planned release, offer preorder it and have access to the game, in the end if you are not going to buy it you are not going to buy it but in games like this that you know very well what expect if you like battle covered you are going to buy it yes or yes first day if you have the money because Tiller never offer discounts or specials that could made you delay a first day buy to wait an offer.

In FWW i search small to medium scens, for me are the best related with my play time... i now that big battles offer a lot of options here but i think serie needs push more portions of big battles to increase the number of scens and options to play in a battle but without play the monster... and well, offer big battles in portions help to add what ifs with extra units or small changes in the portion of battle.

I am waiting see more and more FWW titles specially if they cover "exotic" fronts with fun what ifs and medium scens, thats why i like a lot see a title covering middle east in 1917-18 because well used the what if tool you can have a lot value in a "small" battle like Meggido por example (german-AH extra formations, more quality in turk units, french help for allies...) and well, title could be a good test for engine to see if it can cover wars between WWI and WWII (Poland, Spanish civil war...).

[Don Czirr]

In FWW i search small to medium scens, for me are the best related with my play time... i now that big battles offer a lot of options here but i think serie needs push more portions of big battles to increase the number of scens and options to play in a battle but without play the monster... and well, offer big battles in portions help to add what ifs with extra units or small changes in the portion of battle.

I am waiting see more and more FWW titles specially if they cover "exotic" fronts with fun what ifs and medium scens, thats why i like a lot see a title covering middle east in 1917-18 because well used the what if tool you can have a lot value in a "small" battle like Meggido por example (german-AH extra formations, more quality in turk units, french help for allies...) and well, title could be a good test for engine to see if it can cover wars between WWI and WWII (Poland, Spanish civil war...).

+ 1 to all of the above.

I am a pending FWW customer - but the direction mentioned by Xaver would definitely inspire me to buy more ....

[Xaver]

I know that volcanoman is working now with 1914 because well, sure he do a hard work to find the info for OOBs, scens... in understand that now FWW serie is focused in 1914 and well, this was a "masive" period.

For me next titles (4th-5th) need a jump in time and space and play with exotic fronts... even create a title ala Salerno43 to cover in a title things that cant appear as individual titles but could be bonus in other scens... or if they are very related be a "patches" title.

Ummm a little question here, is planned add a demo for the serie??? maybe something not covered in the first titles... a mix of the 2 first titles... or something new.

[Volcano Man]

Ummm a little question here, is planned add a demo for the serie??? maybe something not covered in the first titles... a mix of the 2 first titles... or something new.

Unfortunately, no, there are no plans for doing a demo. If someone in the testing group wants to step up and create one, then that would be great, otherwise I am too busy.  :(

[-72-]

In addition - if you want 'access to the beta' -the only way that I know that happens at JTS is that you have to be on the testing team.

[Xaver]

Thanks for the reply.

Well, i talk about demo because for example in PzB series i know about some guys interested in serie and a demo could help them to jum into the serie... FWW even when is so similar to PzC (that is very well know) has diferences and "touch" the game could help to.

Well, the problem i have now is lack of time to be a "serious beta tester" investing time to test (i refer to play scens to test, review OOBs and hunt bugs is other history) but i want support at same time serie (and other series to)... here somekind of early access system where you pay to enter earlier is for me a very interesting system.

But returning to thread... we can expect that FWW03 be the "big south brother" of EP14???

FWW03 is going to have more medium scens??? in size like Koenigsberg, St Gond or Arras with enough units to move and map to play but not with full fronts.

And you think next title is close in time (this year) not close (1 or 2 years) or is in "soon" status 

Thanks and good luck, you have here a my 

[Mr Grumpy]

The timing of any new title release is very hard to predict as it all depends on how much Ed's real job interferes with time he has for his "hobby job" creating new FWWC titles and then of course the testing could all run smoothly or we might have to replay scenarios over and over to get them right?

So I am afraid the wait goes on.................

I think the Salerno style of title was very much a one off solution brought about by the designers having some finished material that on its own could not be used for a single title, so they decided to cobble it together to create SA43, I idea this was not repeated in PzC and I doubt will be used in FWWC but of course I am not I charge of such things........

[ComradeP]

In terms of diversity in the campaigns and the battles covered, FWWC already compares favourably to the majority of PzC titles as those tend to cover (a single period of) a single operation.

France '14 covers the fighting in Belgium and France from August to November, EP '14 covers seperate stages of the opening battles from August 1914 to March 1915 in East Prussia and Western Poland.

Aside from Moscow '42, probably the most epic PzC title in terms of variety in content as it offers 2 full campaign season campaigns, most PzC titles can't match the variety of FWWC.

Seeing how good the first two FWWC titles are, I have faith that the upcoming titles will be just as good and will offer just as much variety, even if they don't immediately move to secondary fronts like the fighting between Entente and The Ottoman Empire or the fighting between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

[Xaver]

Well, FWW has the advantage like you said, that practically all battles-campaigns are very focused in space (time to in early and late campaigns but in the middle part we can talk about months for a campign instead weeks), maybe this is why first 2 titles are perfect in space and timing, even they can add scens covering late periods as bonus.

The point in jump to a total diferent front for me is in expand the serie attractive... i refer that is "easy" find titles covering certain periods and fronts for a war but others are totally ignored (and is not like a EP14 be a cliche for FWW) and at least for me add value to serie and you can play with exotic nations.

Well, Salerno 43 is the most strange title in PzC serie (even more than Sealion) specially when you can buy the title for one of the scens... and you can enjoy them all, for me FWW is capable of use the Salerno system at least in 1 title (and i think could be used in more than 1).

For me in FWW a title ala Salerno could be:

1-Meggido+Palestine+Mesopotamia, a title with center in middle east for ottomans
2-Gallipoli+caucasus campaign, a title center in the Europe for ottomans
3-Rumania+Serbia+Italy , a title with a mix if diferent nations and periods (maybe when serie be in 10th or more titles  )

Maybe options 1 and 3 are very large but is not like you can split a lot them to create new titles with enough content... other option is add them not in a single title but yes as bonus scen in other titles.

Lets see, first is FWW03 that could be ready this year or "soon"