Doctrine and what if's

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Doctrine and what if's

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 >> Doctrine and what if's

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 1:28:27 AM

Wild

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

Hey guys,
I just wanted to follow up on the subject of changing doctrine and of having more what if's in the game that i read in the what's new in 1.04 thread. I didn't want to take that thread too far of subject so i thought i would start a new one.

It seems like some people think there should be the ability to change doctrine and create more what if's and other ahistorical things. If not there seems to be the fear that the game could become dry and boring over time.

I myself am against this. I prefer to have as close an approximation to history as possible. That's why i bought the game. I never find it boring and do not think it will lose it's appeal.
I feel that that sort of thing is more in line with a Hearts of Iron type grand strategy game.

However i am just one member of the community and would like to hear what my fellow wargamers think on this subject.

What will it be guys, maximum historicity or maximum flexibility?

< Message edited by Wild -- 4/5/2011 1:30:30 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 1:50:21 AM

jomni

Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

I dunno. More "what if's" will really tick of the historical grognards (not me).
And more possibility of gamey stuff happening and this then increases the call for house rules.

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 2

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 2:51:45 AM

Farfarer61

Posts: 713
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

I suppose it is really a blend of "we all have hindsight" and 1941-45 reality. No Axis player is doing so as they want to relive the fun of winter 41 and Stalingrad. No Soviet player is eager to have the fun of mass encirclements. So Of Course people are playing to to achieve non-historical results (duh). Thats the fun.

(in reply to jomni)

Post #: 3

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 5:06:46 AM

Wild

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

Jomni, that's a very good point. Changing things too much away from history, would probably increase things that some player's would find gamey. Thus increase arguing and the need for more house rules.

Farfarer, I agree. The fun is in achieving things that are non historical. Such potentially capturing Moscow, avoiding Stalingrad, ect.
However i am not arguing against non historical results. Rather, i'm arguing that they be achieved in an historical fashion, with the production, doctrine and overall situation that was in the real war.

What excites me about this game is trying to do better then my historical counterparts did with the same tools and situation that they had.

Of course i realize that this is only a game and cannot replicate things with the accuracy that i would like. But it's the closest thing i have found so far.

I cannot express my enthrallment enough with WitE. When i read Glantz and then play a few turns, the eastern front seems to really come alive for me.
That is why i would like to see the game stay as close to history as possible.

I guess i was just wondering if other players felt the same way, or see it as more of a grand strategy game.

Thanks for the input guys.

< Message edited by Wild -- 4/5/2011 5:07:34 AM >

(in reply to Farfarer61)

Post #: 4

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 6:07:32 AM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

If you want history read a book because you won't get it from a game, human players will always push the boundary of what a game allows not history. Trying to limit what a player can or can't do will ruin the game long term, nobody really wants to just repeat history anyway.

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 5

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 10:19:22 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild
Jomni, that's a very good point. Changing things too much away from history, would probably increase things that some player's would find gamey. Thus increase arguing and the need for more house rules.

Farfarer, I agree. The fun is in achieving things that are non historical. Such potentially capturing Moscow, avoiding Stalingrad, ect.
However i am not arguing against non historical results. Rather, i'm arguing that they be achieved in an historical fashion, with the production, doctrine and overall situation that was in the real war.

What excites me about this game is trying to do better then my historical counterparts did with the same tools and situation that they had.

Of course i realize that this is only a game and cannot replicate things with the accuracy that i would like. But it's the closest thing i have found so far.

I cannot express my enthrallment enough with WitE. When i read Glantz and then play a few turns, the eastern front seems to really come alive for me.
That is why i would like to see the game stay as close to history as possible.

I guess i was just wondering if other players felt the same way, or see it as more of a grand strategy game.

Thanks for the input guys.

The problem is the definition of replaying, or staying close to, history. I want to have forces that have the same capabilities of the historical forces, recognising that these capabilities changed over the course of the war. I don't neccesarily want to replay history - I don't want crowd my best mobile forces into a city, have them fight room to room, whilst leaving my weakest forces to hold the flanks. I don't want to plan an obvious attack, then delay for months so that the enemy can build extensive fortifications. I don't want to leave prepared border fortifications to move into a dangerous salient, in Poland, and then delay full mobilsiation until too late.

I would like the option to do both, play against an historical enemy, who uses the historical doctrine, but also have a shot at the alternatives.

Hind-sight can be a powerful tool, we know from history what did not work in the campaign, but we can never know what would have happened if Moscow had fallen, or if the Germans had evacuated Stalingrad in good time, etc.. Many options do not need hind-sight, there were alternative plans for Barbarossa, which were formed before 22nd July 1941, therefore, without hindsight and I would like to try them (an alternative 'OKH Barbarossa' plan is already available as a user designed mod, with more to come). There were many alternative strategies and doctrines proposed during the war, on both sides, and it would add a lot to the game to have them available.

What would have happened if the Germans had stopped offensive operations sooner in 1941 and put supply priority into winter clothing and equipment, difficult to judge because it didn't happen, but do the first winter effects always have to be so severe. How would it have worked out if Stalin had not purged the Red Army in 1937 - improved morale, better command and control, or if Tukhachevsky reforms and armoured doctrine had not been abandoned.

I don't think anybody wants a game than runs on tramlines and can never change direction, it is the 'what ifs' that could provide the most interesting aspects of the game.

This is a win win situatation, making alternatves available does not stop other settings and scenarios being available, to play an entirely historical game, with the same limitations suffered by the historical commanders, which is an essential baseline on which to build any alternatives.

_____________________________

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

�A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything� - Napoleon

�Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 6

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 12:27:48 PM

Panama

Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

There's no reason anyone would be upset if people were able to have optional settings. If someone wanted a historical game they could do it. Throw in an option for free set up if you want. Put in a set of tick boxes for different game options for what ifs. No need for anyone to be ticked off.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 7

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 1:05:35 PM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama
There's no reason anyone would be upset if people were able to have optional settings. If someone wanted a historical game they could do it. Throw in an option for free set up if you want. Put in a set of tick boxes for different game options for what ifs. No need for anyone to be ticked off.

Which is why I say it's a win win situation, hopefully we will all get what we want from the game. The problem is, as Joel Billings has said on another thread, it is a huge undertaking to work out and test what the historical settings should be and to be able to advise users which settings to use.

It is getting the historical capabilities of the forces right when you are putting them into scenarios that never happened and there are no real results to measure.

_____________________________

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 8

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 1:53:41 PM

Commanderski

Posts: 927
Joined: 12/12/2010
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

I think there are many options in the game now to make as many "what if's" as you want. As Axis you can move your Panzer divisions around to any part of the map that you want. As Soviet you already know what to expect and can plan defenses accordingly or even move your forces around to make some decent early counterattacks. You make the decisions on your objectives, not somebody in Berlin or Moscow.

Making any changes to the start or end date and any outside variables would tend to make this game more towards a "fantasy" type game. The amount of research Matrix, the developers, and testers did to make this game as detailed as it is is just amazing. To make any ahistorical changes that would affect the game would require them to do additional research and testing which would take them away from improving the game, like the new 1.04 patch they are working on.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 9

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 3:06:14 PM

barkman44

Posts: 344
Joined: 1/17/2010
Status: offline

Like with witp i would like to see more gc starting dates like a gc starting with the point at which the germans attained their maximum advance along the entire front before the soviet counter attacks.
or an earlier start to the 1943 gc so you can decide what to do and when about the kursk bulge.

(in reply to Commanderski)

Post #: 10

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 3:34:40 PM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commanderski
I think there are many options in the game now to make as many "what if's" as you want. As Axis you can move your Panzer divisions around to any part of the map that you want. As Soviet you already know what to expect and can plan defenses accordingly or even move your forces around to make some decent early counterattacks. You make the decisions on your objectives, not somebody in Berlin or Moscow.

Making any changes to the start or end date and any outside variables would tend to make this game more towards a "fantasy" type game. The amount of research Matrix, the developers, and testers did to make this game as detailed as it is is just amazing. To make any ahistorical changes that would affect the game would require them to do additional research and testing which would take them away from improving the game, like the new 1.04 patch they are working on.

Perhaps I was not clear, I agree that the options and settings will give most people what they want from the game, that's why I say that it is a win win situation. There will be an historical game and also scenarios and settings to provide the rest. The 'OKH Barbarossa' scenario, one of my favourite variants, is already available and I guess there will be many more.

From the 'what-if' point of view the fixed start date is a shame, but that's how it is, there are still options for a later start date. The 'Patriotic War 1942' (user made scenario for WIR) might be a good candidate for WiTE - Russian attack on a disarming Germany that has won the war in the West. Nice to give the Russians an opportunity to attack with early war equipment.

I don't expect any of this to delay the work on 1.04, the developers would not do that anyway, these additional scenarios will come in time, as the game gets into people's blood. I'm just flying the flag for 'what-ifs', but not asking for any priority, I think it will happen by itself.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 4/5/2011 5:13:24 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Commanderski)

Post #: 11

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 4:25:31 PM

Lrfss

Posts: 349
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Spring, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commanderski
I think there are many options in the game now to make as many "what if's" as you want. As Axis you can move your Panzer divisions around to any part of the map that you want. As Soviet you already know what to expect and can plan defenses accordingly or even move your forces around to make some decent early counterattacks. You make the decisions on your objectives, not somebody in Berlin or Moscow.

Making any changes to the start or end date and any outside variables would tend to make this game more towards a "fantasy" type game. The amount of research Matrix, the developers, and testers did to make this game as detailed as it is is just amazing. To make any ahistorical changes that would affect the game would require them to do additional research and testing which would take them away from improving the game, like the new 1.04 patch they are working on.

Perhaps I was not clear, I agree that the options and settings will give most people what they want from the game, that's why I say that it is a win win situation. There will be an historical game and also scenarios and settings to provide the rest. The 'OKH Barbarossa' scenario, one of my favourite variants, is already available and I guess there will be many more.

From the 'what-if' point of view the fixed start date is a shame, but that's how it is, there are still options for a later start date. The 'Patriotic War 1942' (user made scenario for WIR) might be a good candidate for WiTE - Russian attack on a disarming Germany that has won the war in the West. Nice to give the Russians an opportunity to attack with early war equipment.

I don't expect any of this to delay the work on 1.04, the developers would not do that anyway, these additional scenarios will come in time, as the game into people's blood. I'm just flying the flag for 'what-ifs', but not asking for any priority, I think it will happen by itself.

I support this method and idea

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 12

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 5:21:52 PM

Angelo

Posts: 87
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline

Like yourself I prefer historically reaslistic games, having grown up with SPI and Stratagy and Tactics magazine.

However, this game has turned out to be a disappointment as far as histotorical realism is concerned and the lack of options for what-if's has limited the game. The hard coded start dates and end dates, lack of a weather system, hard coded first winter effects etc... the list goes on, leaves me feeling I've been cheated.

As I know the outcome 90% of the time before I even start playing, I'll play it occationally maybe when a major patch comes out or I want to beatup some nazis or soviets

I doubt that I'll even look at War in the West let alone buy it, if this game is any indigation of it's quality.

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 13

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 7:04:53 PM

mussey

Posts: 683
Joined: 12/2/2006
From: Cleve-Land
Status: offline

"What will it be guys, maximum historicity or maximum flexibility?"

Why can't we have both? Not sure why we should be locked into just one.

_____________________________

Col. Mussbu

The long arm of the law - "The King of Battle"

(in reply to Angelo)

Post #: 14

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/5/2011 10:25:36 PM

Zorch

Posts: 7087
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

Mussey,

Your post reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon where the PHB says 'Why can't we concentrate across the board?' ;-)

Historicity and flexibility are often incompatible (game vs. simulation).
That said, I prefer a historical situation with optional rules to balance the game.

(in reply to mussey)

Post #: 15

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/6/2011 3:04:05 AM

Wild

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

Lots of great comments guys.

I agree that there would be nothing wrong in having some ahistoical options for players who might want them. I just wouldn't want the developers to spend too much time on that until the game has been fully polished.

Wow, Angelo. I couldn't disagree more. For me this is probably the best game ever made. I certainly don't come anywhere near to feeling cheated, and they are improving it all the time. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

Now bring on War in the West!!!

(in reply to Angelo)

Post #: 16

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/6/2011 3:07:05 PM

Angelo

Posts: 87
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

Lots of great comments guys.

I agree that there would be nothing wrong in having some ahistoical options for players who might want them. I just wouldn't want the developers to spend too much time on that until the game has been fully polished.

Wow, Angelo. I couldn't disagree more. For me this is probably the best game ever made. I certainly don't come anywhere near to feeling cheated, and they are improving it all the time. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

Now bring on War in the West!!!

I like the game or the idea of the game and will still play it occasionally but "the best game ever made" give me a break!

As an operational game Matrix Decisive battles or HPS Panzer series are way better.

And as a strategy game it lacks potical events, strategetic level options and the German side can't even change it's prroduction!

Again if WitE is any indication of what War in the West will be, I ain't buying it.

If steps are taken to make an actual strategic level game with all the trimmings, I'll reconsider. But there is no indication from 2By3 games that the basic game designs will be improved.

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 17

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/6/2011 5:44:40 PM

Panama

Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Angelo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

Lots of great comments guys.

I agree that there would be nothing wrong in having some ahistoical options for players who might want them. I just wouldn't want the developers to spend too much time on that until the game has been fully polished.

Wow, Angelo. I couldn't disagree more. For me this is probably the best game ever made. I certainly don't come anywhere near to feeling cheated, and they are improving it all the time. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

Now bring on War in the West!!!

I like the game or the idea of the game and will still play it occasionally but "the best game ever made" give me a break!

As an operational game Matrix Decisive battles or HPS Panzer series are way better.

And as a strategy game it lacks potical events, strategetic level options and the German side can't even change it's prroduction!

Again if WitE is any indication of what War in the West will be, I ain't buying it.

If steps are taken to make an actual strategic level game with all the trimmings, I'll reconsider. But there is no indication from 2By3 games that the basic game designs will be improved.

Yeah, I think the best game ever thing is a little over the top for me but everyone will have a different best. It is a good game. I do know for certain that I will never again pay $80 for a 2by3 game. Way overpriced. Maybe $50.

_____________________________

(in reply to Angelo)

Post #: 18

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/6/2011 6:52:03 PM

PyleDriver

Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline

There should be a new rule, people that don't have the game, shouldn't say crap about it...

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 19

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/6/2011 8:25:04 PM

mussey

Posts: 683
Joined: 12/2/2006
From: Cleve-Land
Status: offline

Love this game! One of the best. I look at the time I spend enjoying it and understand that I will continue to do so for a long time. My wife just spent $125 for 2 tickets for a Lucy O'Ball thingy at the Palace Theatre - a one-moment-not-so-feel-good-event-that I will cringe-in-the-morning-thingy-feeling. I'm getting my money's worth with WITE. Countless hours!

Now that being said, as this series gets more 'strategic' as compared to 'operational' then more options for random events and politcal what-if's will become neccessary. Let the players decide (at Preferences) what options they want to use or try out. The one in this game currently (unless I'm missing something) is I would like to be able to have Finnish forces attack across that stop line - maybe pay a bunchload of Adm Pts or a consequential possible Finnish govt collapse/coup that takes Finland out of the war. Would be cool to see a possible Turkish intervention. Stuff like this could be optional for each player to decide at start-up. The beauty of the old board games was/is that we could do this kind of stuff, or make new rules if we saw something that just didn't look 'right' in the original rules. (Boy, the things I created with Third Reich in my youth still brings rapture to my heart

).

The joy of gaming is unique to each individual and hopefully in the future, as the designers work the bugs out they will incorporate more of this into their updates.

_____________________________

Col. Mussbu

The long arm of the law - "The King of Battle"

(in reply to PyleDriver)

Post #: 20

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/6/2011 11:10:32 PM

Commanderski

Posts: 927
Joined: 12/12/2010
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

The joy of gaming is unique to each individual and hopefully in the future, as the designers work the bugs out they will incorporate more of this into their updates.

I couldn't agree more...

(in reply to mussey)

Post #: 21

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/7/2011 1:49:31 AM

Wild

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Angelo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

Lots of great comments guys.

I agree that there would be nothing wrong in having some ahistoical options for players who might want them. I just wouldn't want the developers to spend too much time on that until the game has been fully polished.

Wow, Angelo. I couldn't disagree more. For me this is probably the best game ever made. I certainly don't come anywhere near to feeling cheated, and they are improving it all the time. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

Now bring on War in the West!!!

I like the game or the idea of the game and will still play it occasionally but "the best game ever made" give me a break!

As an operational game Matrix Decisive battles or HPS Panzer series are way better.

And as a strategy game it lacks potical events, strategetic level options and the German side can't even change it's prroduction!

Again if WitE is any indication of what War in the West will be, I ain't buying it.

If steps are taken to make an actual strategic level game with all the trimmings, I'll reconsider. But there is no indication from 2By3 games that the basic game designs will be improved.

Again, i couldn't disagree more.

This game blows decisive battles away. Hands down! I've never played HPS so i can't comment on that.

I think part of the problem is people not understanding the design philosophy behind the game. You can't change production because you are a theater commander, not adolf hitler. It makes perfect sense to me.

Like i said though, different strokes for different folks.

This is my favorite wargame that i have ever played. With WitP a close second. So for me that makes 2by3 my favorite developer.

You might not like the developers philosophy, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong decision. It just means you are more suited to a Hearts of Iron style game, or some such.

< Message edited by Wild -- 4/7/2011 1:50:37 AM >

(in reply to Angelo)

Post #: 22

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/7/2011 1:51:43 AM

Kiith

Posts: 28
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Just to get it out of the way I Purchased WITE because I thought I would get an Eastern Front Wargame. From reading these forums I�d made myself aware of its limitations re production but I knew what I was getting and consequently I'm very happy with my purchase and I feel that I have already got great value for money in only owning the game for a few weeks now.

As to the future I honestly I'd rather see the developers spend their time polishing the existing product rather than inserting new features and what if's. As I'm sure major additions like that would just eat up time and money in the attempt to test and balance them all out.

< Message edited by Kiith -- 4/7/2011 1:52:38 AM >

(in reply to Commanderski)

Post #: 23

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/7/2011 3:06:06 AM

PyleDriver

Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline

Way I figure, I may be wrong, the war in Europe will bring all that in...An AWD with the detail...Agian just speaking my mind...

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Kiith)

Post #: 24

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/7/2011 4:12:23 AM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

If you want history read a book because you won't get it from a game, human players will always push the boundary of what a game allows not history. Trying to limit what a player can or can't do will ruin the game long term, nobody really wants to just repeat history anyway.

*thumbs up* !

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 25

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/7/2011 6:45:07 AM

Angelo

Posts: 87
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote:

ORIGINAL: Angelo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

Lots of great comments guys.

I agree that there would be nothing wrong in having some ahistoical options for players who might want them. I just wouldn't want the developers to spend too much time on that until the game has been fully polished.

Wow, Angelo. I couldn't disagree more. For me this is probably the best game ever made. I certainly don't come anywhere near to feeling cheated, and they are improving it all the time. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

Now bring on War in the West!!!

I like the game or the idea of the game and will still play it occasionally but "the best game ever made" give me a break!

As an operational game Matrix Decisive battles or HPS Panzer series are way better.

And as a strategy game it lacks potical events, strategetic level options and the German side can't even change it's prroduction!

Again if WitE is any indication of what War in the West will be, I ain't buying it.

If steps are taken to make an actual strategic level game with all the trimmings, I'll reconsider. But there is no indication from 2By3 games that the basic game designs will be improved.

Again, i couldn't disagree more.

This game blows decisive battles away. Hands down! I've never played HPS so i can't comment on that.

I think part of the problem is people not understanding the design philosophy behind the game. You can't change production because you are a theater commander, not adolf hitler. It makes perfect sense to me.

Like i said though, different strokes for different folks.

This is my favorite wargame that i have ever played. With WitP a close second. So for me that makes 2by3 my favorite developer.

You might not like the developers philosophy, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong decision. It just means you are more suited to a Hearts of Iron style game, or some such.

LOL, more suited to Hearts of Iron! Now that's an insult, Sir! If your wondering then, yes I have played Hearts of Iron 3 and it's one of the worst games I've ever played but it does have a working detailed weather system.

Anyway you have your opinion and I have mine. I purchased the game on the day it came out and can say "any crap" I like about it apparently.

I'm disappointed with some of the games systems and rules which the designers have stated that will not be changed or improved. Fair enough but I show my opinion when I purchase the new game... or not.

WitE is a an average game, maybe above averge in some categories IMHO. But consider it a ground breaking game because it shows that 'monster' games can be designed and played successfully on todays PC's. I hope that a company with more resourses can take up the torch and produce the kind of detailed war simulations that I would buy and love to play.

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 26

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/7/2011 6:31:24 PM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Angelo

LOL, more suited to Hearts of Iron! Now that's an insult, Sir! If your wondering then, yes I have played Hearts of Iron 3 and it's one of the worst games I've ever played but it does have a working detailed weather system.

HOI3 was a great disappointment to me as I really liked the earlier ones. However it certainly did NOT have a working weather system by the time I stopped playing it. It was ridiculously overcomplicated and was utterly disfunctional.

WiTE as a game is quite fixed despite the protestations of some. The differences come from different tactics - a bit like chess in that regard. What I want most is balance and I simply don't know if we have that yet. German tactics will improve over time so the lots of the Russian will probably get harder. Howevr balance for me is the game being decided in 1945 not 1941.

Has anyone actually had a Russian victory yet as opposed to a German surrender? All my PBEM gmes so far have resulted in restarts due to rule changes or my opponent surrendering. My current opponents and I have all agreed we won't surrender and I will only feel able to comment on balance when these games finish probably/hopefully in 2012

_____________________________

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 Angelo)

Post #: 27

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/7/2011 9:40:49 PM

mussey

Posts: 683
Joined: 12/2/2006
From: Cleve-Land
Status: offline

HOI _ I couldn't get into that real-time thing. Totally stressed me out and unenjoyable. This Matrix project should be very interesting as the West gets rolled out. I wonder how the issues we've been discussing above (maximum historicity or maximum flexibility) will be incorporated. Much more politics/diplomacy? Would seem to be unavoidable in a War in Europe sense. But also, different naval rules will be needed including submarine warfare (?). These are things to be savored and enjoyed as time evolves. I'm really, excited about this project!

_____________________________

Col. Mussbu

The long arm of the law - "The King of Battle"

(in reply to sillyflower)

Post #: 28

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/8/2011 3:44:59 AM

Panama

Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

There should be a new rule, people that don't have the game, shouldn't say crap about it...

I do have the game. That's why I say crap about it. Now if everyone just talked about how wonderful and fantabulous it was even though it had flaws exactly how would anything get fixed? I've done my fair share of beta testing games. Fanbois do not help things, they are an obstacle to improvement.

_____________________________

(in reply to PyleDriver)

Post #: 29

RE: Doctrine and what if's - 4/8/2011 4:43:36 AM

Wild

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

It seems to me that your "improvement" is to change the designers design philosophy from a more historical game to a more ahistorical.

This seems to be a matter of personal preference, and i see no reason why your preference is to be chosen over the designers.

As to making ahistorical things optional thats all fine and good but there are only so many resources to go around and i would hope that polishing the existing product would take priority over optional settings.

Oh, and by the way, being a fan of the game doesn't mean that you don't want it improved. Quite the contrary. But improved according to the designer's original intent.

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 30