The most important thing to fix WitE's playability

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The most important thing to fix WitE's playability

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 >> The most important thing to fix WitE's playability

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/12/2011 10:09:23 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

I assert that the most important thing needed in WitE is for forts to affect a limited number of hex-sides in providing a defensive bonus.

My preferred method would be for a fort to protect only as many hex-sides as it's fort level (or perhaps it's level +1), but you could argue to give maximal benefit to certain sides and less to others (define a front of a unit and it protects at 100% there, and less at other sides).

I have never heard of a military unit digging ad-hoc defenses being taught to prepare forts for a 360-degree attack. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you start with the obvious avenues of approach, and as time and resources dictate, you then work on integrating larger avenues and omni-directional protection.

From my experience in the military, usually if you have that long, you're probably attacking before you start worrying about 360-degree defense.

I've resigned all but my last game (various sides) because I think game design is beating me (as Axis), not opponents, and you can call that arrogant if you like, but as the Soviet, I got my German opponent to quit on Turn 15 even though I was playing with a -10 handicap on Morale, Admin, and Fortification.

I never took 3 million casualties.

I would challenge any of the site's best German players to beat me with those handicaps, but frankly I'm not having enough fun to start another game right now. Maybe later, or maybe I should take my whiney whine whine and leave you all alone.

But I wanted to put that out there as my unsolicited opinion. Do with it what you will.

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

Post #: 1

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/12/2011 10:51:20 PM

Krec

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/9/2001
From: SF Bay Area
Status: offline

You are over thinking,� try and enjoy the game for what it is not what you think you want.� Learn the game and play accordingly.� I see alot of post about what players want the game to do ,� figure out how to play the game with the rules it was design with and go from there. If you dont like it play something else, what can i say.� I too have played some games that played differently then what i had envisioned, i shelved them and moved on.

� this is not one of them imo

_____________________________

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Patton

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 2

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/12/2011 11:30:33 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Well, I do know how to play the game, from both sides.

The way I feel about it now is that I spent the last 7 months figuring how the game engine worked, and learning how to optimize my efficiency whichever side I'm playing.

One could argue that I'm a better Soviet player than a German one, but I think the general consensus is that the German has much more pressure in 1941/42 than his Soviet counterpart. So I think it's fair to say I'm just a good player, for either side (not great - I'm only saying I'm proficient).

I spent all this time figuring out the mechanics - how to maximize air effectiveness, how to maximize German supply to the front-line units, what avenues are good advances for the German, what terrain is good for defense of the Soviet, etc.

And after figuring out how to optimize everything, I'm left with the conclusion, as I said before, that it's game mechanics that beat the German, not skilled Soviet play (I'm not going in to that because I think we've all talked a great deal about ZOCs, rail capacity, the simple way a combination of linebacker/linear gives the Soviet every ability to dictate the course of the German advance, etc.). All I'm asking is for forts to do what I think the realistically do - protect a limited approach area.

It boils down to how easy it is for a smart Soviet player to avoid being encircled. As I said to my Soviet opponent: The only thing the Soviet has to do is ensure he doesn't do anything after Turn 10 that gets 500,000 Soviets isolated, and he knows he can ride it out until late 1942 and take the initiative. There really is no issue with Soviet production: rail capacity is sufficient to protect at least as much industry as the Soviets did historically (and I don't consider this 'broken').

The only way to beat the Soviets is casualties, and the game mechanics make it really easy for the Soviet to avoid repeating his historic predecessor's casualty figures. That's it - that's the problem with the game.

Making forts less omni-directional (and I would add scaling - such that if a brigade creates a level 3 fort, a Corps can't derive the same benefit from it) would enable the German to move with better operational initiative. Right now, it's incredibly easy for the Soviet to steal that initiative.

_____________________________

(in reply to Krec)

Post #: 3

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/12/2011 11:55:01 PM

IdahoNYer

Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline

I would also agree that forts are an issue, but not an isolated one to be fixed with a "frontal facing" benifit. To me, it is still too easy to foritify and it doesn't "cost" anything. Deciding to adapt a static fortified defense should be a the expense of using a mobile defense.

The ultimate fix for me would be allow units to continue to fortify when stationary to level 2. Any unit in that hex with a level 1 or 2 fort can benifit from the fortification. For units to construct, or gain benefit from level 3 and higher fortifications, they need to be in static mode. This now would make it a tough decision whether or not to fortify - fight a static defense at the expense of mobility, or fight a mobile delaying action (as most of the carpet or checkerboad defenses portray)

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 4

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 12:01:23 AM

Ridgeway

Posts: 139
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Well, I do know how to play the game, from both sides.

The way I feel about it now is that I spent the last 7 months figuring how the game engine worked, and learning how to optimize my efficiency whichever side I'm playing.

One could argue that I'm a better Soviet player than a German one, but I think the general consensus is that the German has much more pressure in 1941/42 than his Soviet counterpart. So I think it's fair to say I'm just a good player, for either side (not great - I'm only saying I'm proficient).

I spent all this time figuring out the mechanics - how to maximize air effectiveness, how to maximize German supply to the front-line units, what avenues are good advances for the German, what terrain is good for defense of the Soviet, etc.

And after figuring out how to optimize everything, I'm left with the conclusion, as I said before, that it's game mechanics that beat the German, not skilled Soviet play (I'm not going in to that because I think we've all talked a great deal about ZOCs, rail capacity, the simple way a combination of linebacker/linear gives the Soviet every ability to dictate the course of the German advance, etc.). All I'm asking is for forts to do what I think the realistically do - protect a limited approach area.

It boils down to how easy it is for a smart Soviet player to avoid being encircled. As I said to my Soviet opponent: The only thing the Soviet has to do is ensure he doesn't do anything after Turn 10 that gets 500,000 Soviets isolated, and he knows he can ride it out until late 1942 and take the initiative. There really is no issue with Soviet production: rail capacity is sufficient to protect at least as much industry as the Soviets did historically (and I don't consider this 'broken').

The only way to beat the Soviets is casualties, and the game mechanics make it really easy for the Soviet to avoid repeating his historic predecessor's casualty figures. That's it - that's the problem with the game.

Making forts less omni-directional (and I would add scaling - such that if a brigade creates a level 3 fort, a Corps can't derive the same benefit from it) would enable the German to move with better operational initiative. Right now, it's incredibly easy for the Soviet to steal that initiative.

The problem with this analysis is that the hexes themselves are artificial. A line of contiguous hexes would not represent a zig-zagging line. but rather a continuous front. Attacks from 2 or 3 adjacent hexsides should represent a basically "frontal" assault, and I don't think that there should be any reduction in fort benefits because of that. However, where a unit has genuinely flanked a position, so the attack is coming from opposite directions on the same hex, I would agree that there should be some sort of bonus/penalty. I suspect, though, that this is not the type of situation that concerns you.

I think you hit the nail on the head in another thread where you noted that the chances of an outright German "win" are slender against an experienced Soviet player, and that this is quite consistent with "real life." Let's face it, the Russians made some monumental mistakes that an experienced player will not make, and they still won the war quite handily. Their KIA/MIA numbers were over 3mm at the end of 1941, with an additional 1.5mm or so wounded. That is well beyond what most German players expect to achieve in 1941.

My point is that the Russian campaign is not a "fair" fight. The Russians will likely "win" no matter what. Hence the victory conditions, where the Germans can win, as long as they lose more slowly than they did historically. I am not sure why people have such a problem with this -- it is what it is.

The best analogy I can draw is to Battle of the Bulge games (which I enjoy to no end). In a properly constructed game, the Germans are never getting to Antwerp, and they will be lucky to sniff the Meuse. And that is exactly the point.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 5

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 12:08:19 AM

Ketza

Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

To me the two biggest issues are:

Forts not costing anything past level 1 or 2. (I really like the static mode idea to get to level 3 and beyond)

Ants in forts that cause as much casualties and expenditure of resources to dislodge as do larger units.

(in reply to Ridgeway)

Post #: 6

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 12:47:29 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

For the record, I'm not interested in making a game the Germans can win in 1941, 1942, or 1943.
I'm interested in a game that is fun to play in 1942, 1943, and 1944.
THIS game is not fun to play past 1941.
And if you've ever played the Soviet, you know it's not much fun to play in 1941 (though it gets better as time goes on).

_____________________________

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 7

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 2:25:04 AM

henri51

Posts: 1151
Joined: 1/16/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I assert that the most important thing needed in WitE is for forts to affect a limited number of hex-sides in providing a defensive bonus.

There are some (and I am one of them that think that there are bigger problems than forts that need to be fixed). As I have posted a number of times, it seems to me that the WEATHER is the main problem, because

1)if a player chooses historical weather,it gives the Soviets a huge advantage because a) they know exactly when the blizzard will happen and end, and b) 1941 was the worst Winter in 50 years.

2) if a player chooses random weather, he may get mud in July and Snow in June, both of which are unrealistic.

If the weather were fixed, there might not be a need for changing the fort rules.

Another thing missing is the lack of what-if scenarios. The game seems to support the view of History as completely predictable which, whether it is true or not (and I think it is not), does not make for a replayable game.

Henri

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 8

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 2:38:04 AM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

What makes the game replayable is playing some one differant but because we all play our own way. IF with random weather you get 1 or 2 early mud turns fine but Snow in summer is Crazy if i got that would stop playing.

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to henri51)

Post #: 9

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 2:59:14 AM

Ridgeway

Posts: 139
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

For the record, I'm not interested in making a game the Germans can win in 1941, 1942, or 1943.
I'm interested in a game that is fun to play in 1942, 1943, and 1944.
THIS game is not fun to play past 1941.
And if you've ever played the Soviet, you know it's not much fun to play in 1941 (though it gets better as time goes on).

I don't understand what this means.

If you do not want to play on the defensive as the Germans from late '42-44, I don't know what to tell you.

Some people would find satisfaction in snuffing out those Soviet offensives.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 10

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 3:01:28 AM

Ridgeway

Posts: 139
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: henri51

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I assert that the most important thing needed in WitE is for forts to affect a limited number of hex-sides in providing a defensive bonus.

There are some (and I am one of them that think that there are bigger problems than forts that need to be fixed). As I have posted a number of times, it seems to me that the WEATHER is the main problem, because

1)if a player chooses historical weather,it gives the Soviets a huge advantage because a) they know exactly when the blizzard will happen and end, and b) 1941 was the worst Winter in 50 years.

2) if a player chooses random weather, he may get mud in July and Snow in June, both of which are unrealistic.

If the weather were fixed, there might not be a need for changing the fort rules.

Another thing missing is the lack of what-if scenarios. The game seems to support the view of History as completely predictable which, whether it is true or not (and I think it is not), does not make for a replayable game.

Henri

Random weather is BS given the "all-or-nothing"" way that the game models weather. But remember, in fixed weather, both sides know what is coming.

(in reply to henri51)

Post #: 11

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 3:30:17 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

For the record, I'm not interested in making a game the Germans can win in 1941, 1942, or 1943.
I'm interested in a game that is fun to play in 1942, 1943, and 1944.
THIS game is not fun to play past 1941.
And if you've ever played the Soviet, you know it's not much fun to play in 1941 (though it gets better as time goes on).

I don't understand what this means.

If you do not want to play on the defensive as the Germans from late '42-44, I don't know what to tell you.

Some people would find satisfaction in snuffing out those Soviet offensives.

Not what I said.
At present, the German's glory days end at Turn 18. This is a-historic.
I want a game that reflects the uncertainty and fluidity of 1942 and 1943.
I want a game that doesn't transition from blitzkrieg to trench warfare on Turn 18 (yes, an exaggeration).
I want a game that doesn't give the Soviet the ability to create Kursk-style defensive bulwarks in 1942 from Leningrad to Rostov.

I blame forts because I feel they offer the best chance to create a solution to the early onset of trench warfare that might possibly be programmable, and because they don't restrict what the Soviet can do with his forces (the way weird-to-implement 'not one step back' mechanics might).

It's already a ****ty game for the Soviet player in 1941. I just had a German quit on Turn 15 after 8 weeks of real-life playing. You think I feel vindicated in my time investment as the Soviet? And this isn't a dig against my opponent, who is a great great person to play against. He's not having fun. The idea of playing future turns fills him with dread (great marketing association to have).

I'm ready to resign my game as Axis on Turn 6 because I can already see the linebacker defense reaching back in 3 layers. I look to my future turns with dread: What's the point of continuing when I can see interlocking ZOCs in every swamp and rough hex between Vitebsk and Moscow, from Gomel to Leningrad? My opponent is smart: he knows how the mechanics work best. He's doing what I do (queue Charlie Sheen: "WINNING")

The Soviet will protect his force and inflict Death by a thousand level 2 and 3 forts.

The German simply does not have the manpower (which is historically accurate) to punish the Soviet in similar fashion when on defense, particularly when retreats are causing so much massive loss to his important battle elements (artillery).

I pick forts because I think it's realistic and because I think it's something that can actually be implemented.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ridgeway)

Post #: 12

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 3:56:10 AM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I'm ready to resign my game as Axis on Turn 6 ...

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 13

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 4:07:46 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I'm ready to resign my game as Axis on Turn 6 ...

Helpful.
Enlightening.

I used to think the game was fun. But that was really just naivete of everyone learning the Gary Grigsby model. Now everyone knows the model.

Now, pretty much every Soviet player has defense down. On Turn 6 of the last game I have going, I've realized this, and I really don't want to continue playing WitE. Now that the model is disected and understood by Soviet players (and I'm one of them), it's no longer fun for me. Your mileage may vary.

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 6/13/2011 4:37:40 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 14

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 5:50:03 AM

HRL58

Posts: 61
Joined: 5/22/2011
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Making forts less omni-directional (and I would add scaling - such that if a brigade creates a level 3 fort, a Corps can't derive the same benefit from it) would enable the German to move with better operational initiative. Right now, it's incredibly easy for the Soviet to steal that initiative.

Another way is to have a limited number of special contruction units (like the FDB:s, which have to be moved/railed around) to be able to build fortifications above level 2.

Level 3/4 forts should also cost one or two AP:s (to simulate the use of all the concrete and steel).

I think this should limit the heaviest fortifications to the strategic areas and positions they where meant for.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 15

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 6:01:29 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

The tough part is that we see some good German players that are doing very well, and many comments are that with HQ build up the German players are too strong. It's hard to deal with that issue and your feeling that the German situation is too difficult. I really don't think we know enough about 1942 in 1.04 yet because we haven't had many games with good German players and good Soviet players get that far. More games may show us that high level forts need to be more of a decision with costs then something that is automatic, but this would require interface and AI changes, so it would not be an easy change. For that kind of change to be made we've got to see more evidence that this is a problem.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 16

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 6:04:09 AM

Uxbridge

Posts: 1505
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

At present, the German's glory days end at Turn 18. This is a-historic.
I want a game that reflects the uncertainty and fluidity of 1942 and 1943.
I want a game that doesn't transition from blitzkrieg to trench warfare on Turn 18 (yes, an exaggeration).
I want a game that doesn't give the Soviet the ability to create Kursk-style defensive bulwarks in 1942 from Leningrad to Rostov.

I blame forts because I feel they offer the best chance to create a solution to the early onset of trench warfare that might possibly be programmable, and because they don't restrict what the Soviet can do with his forces (the way weird-to-implement 'not one step back' mechanics might).

I side with this point (for the record I have no experience of playing; base view of other's experiences), but I don't think forts are really the culprit. I still blame the 2-1 retreat provision for Axis units as the real loss of the more mobile 1942-43 front. Redress this and it will be possible for Axis units to push the Soviets out of forts even during this period.

A rule where level 3+ forts can be created only if units are in static mode looks promising, also.

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 17

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 9:42:35 AM

Chris10

Posts: 114
Joined: 6/7/2011
From: Germany,living in Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Now, pretty much every Soviet player has defense down. On Turn 6 of the last game I have going, I've realized this, and I really don't want to continue playing WitE. Now that the model is disected and understood by Soviet players (and I'm one of them), it's no longer fun for me. Your mileage may vary.

The thing that you use an obvious point to back your conclusion that the there is a serious "flaw" in the game mechanic is bugging me a bit. All PC strategy games work according the same pattern. Some with more complicated rules others with less but once the player has understood to full extend the mechanics they are no challenge anymore as they are only static systems unable to act- and react in a real dynamic form. Very few exceptions to this rule are due to an enormous diversity of involved opponents who for themself create different scenarios all the times or very simple ones with high random factors or simply chess

This is the first thing to understand with PC games and every player should be aware of this to avoid asking impossible things. On the other hand: Once humans will be able to programm real learning and creative AI and have the hardware to execute the lightyear long routines in an acceptable timescale, oh wait...Sci-Fi.

< Message edited by Chris10 -- 6/13/2011 9:54:01 AM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 18

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 9:45:59 AM

saintsup

Posts: 133
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: La Celle Saint-Clouud
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

At present, the German's glory days end at Turn 18. This is a-historic.
I want a game that reflects the uncertainty and fluidity of 1942 and 1943.
I want a game that doesn't transition from blitzkrieg to trench warfare on Turn 18 (yes, an exaggeration).
I want a game that doesn't give the Soviet the ability to create Kursk-style defensive bulwarks in 1942 from Leningrad to Rostov.

I blame forts because I feel they offer the best chance to create a solution to the early onset of trench warfare that might possibly be programmable, and because they don't restrict what the Soviet can do with his forces (the way weird-to-implement 'not one step back' mechanics might).

...

I pick forts because I think it's realistic and because I think it's something that can actually be implemented.

+1 and well said.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 19

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 9:49:02 AM

saintsup

Posts: 133
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: La Celle Saint-Clouud
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris10

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Now, pretty much every Soviet player has defense down. On Turn 6 of the last game I have going, I've realized this, and I really don't want to continue playing WitE. Now that the model is disected and understood by Soviet players (and I'm one of them), it's no longer fun for me. Your mileage may vary.

The thing that you use an obvious point to back your conclusion that the there is a serious "flaw" in the game mechanic is bugging me a bit. All PC strategy games work on the the same pattern. Some with more complicated rules others with less but once the player has understood to full extend the mechanics they are no challenge anymore as they are only static systems unable to act- and react in a real dynamic form. This is the first thing to understand with PC games and every player should be aware of this to avoid asking impossible things. On the other hand: Once humans will be able to programm real learning and creative AI and have the hardware to execute the lightyear long routines, oh wait...Sci-Fi.

i'm pretty sure Heliodorus is talking about human vs human play.

(in reply to Chris10)

Post #: 20

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 9:56:06 AM

Chris10

Posts: 114
Joined: 6/7/2011
From: Germany,living in Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: saintsup
i'm pretty sure Heliodorus is talking about human vs human play.

If thats the case...forget my hasty comment

I jumped nearly to the end of the topic without reading the OT...facepalm...

< Message edited by Chris10 -- 6/13/2011 9:59:22 AM >

(in reply to saintsup)

Post #: 21

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 11:02:21 AM

56ajax

Posts: 1950
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Carnegie, Australia
Status: offline

I can well understand this game not being fun to play, or being a foregone conclusion for the experienced player. Afterall it is an historical game and we all know the historical result; what seems to be lacking is a mechanism that somehow enforces some of the historical decisions made during that period. For example, I think it was Stalin who ordered his armies to hold Kiev and lost 600,000 in the process (or Hitler to hold Stalingrad etc). We as players would not do this, we know historically what is coming so we high tail it out of there....

Now I'm pretty certain tht the Russians didnt retreat all the way to the leningrad/moscow/stalingrad line because they felt like it; they were ordered to, rushed troops to the front and tried to stop the Geramns much further West but couldnt....

perhaps the Game needs some type of Hitler/Stalin political mechanism which somehow penalises the player for eg abandoning Kiev; this is already partly calulated into the Victory Points, but perhaps some Admin point penalty as well, or Kiev falls, morale drops by % etc...

still the experienced player will work out the mechanics of the new rule, and over time play it to maximum advantage, just like a good General....

(in reply to Chris10)

Post #: 22

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 11:08:58 AM

Empire101

Posts: 1950
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline

I agree with all your points heliodorus04. The German player must still have some sort of tangible idea that he could still win and pull the iron out of the fire upto around the middle of 43. Those immense 'Stalin Lines' ( although at level 4 they feel like Maginot Lines ) really should cost something in terms of supply, or the static idea from IdahoNYer which is a great idea.

Ketza also has a point about the ants ability to inflict the same casualties as a larger unit.

Has anyone tried a game downgrading the Forts in the Game options? The Fort Build Level can be altered for both sides. Now I have'nt tried this yet properly, as I'm currently playing the AI with its Fort level only reduced to 90. If on the other hand the Fort Build level was set to say 50 for both sides.....??

I know this raises the issue of slowing down Level 1 and 2 Forts vis a vis 3 and 4 Level Forts, but this could be a possible short term solution for this awesome game.

henri51 also raised the problem with the weather. I've already mentioned this in another post. henri51 is right to mention that historical weather favours the Soviets as they know exactly when to strike, and on the random side of weather, who wants mud or snow in June??? ( well the Soviet player might... one can imagine Uncle Joe Joe shouting 'EAT THIS ADOLF', with mud in June

)

Anyway, back to henri51's point. I have already mentioned this in another post. Both sides Airforces took a great deal of interest in the weather. Could a possible meterological report be incorporated into the game that gives the player a break down of possible types of predicted weather for the following gameturn?
For example, the first week in October the chances of Clear weather 50%, Mud 40% and Snow 10% etc

This does'nt solve the problem but at least the High Command would have some idea of what is possibly coming and adjust their plans accordingly, or gamble away with the drive on that objective 'just over the horizon'.

< Message edited by Empire101 -- 6/13/2011 11:23:06 AM >

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 23

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 11:18:40 AM

Empire101

Posts: 1950
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: johntoml56

I can well understand this game not being fun to play, or being a foregone conclusion for the experienced player. Afterall it is an historical game and we all know the historical result; what seems to be lacking is a mechanism that somehow enforces some of the historical decisions made during that period. For example, I think it was Stalin who ordered his armies to hold Kiev and lost 600,000 in the process (or Hitler to hold Stalingrad etc). We as players would not do this, we know historically what is coming so we high tail it out of there....

Now I'm pretty certain tht the Russians didnt retreat all the way to the leningrad/moscow/stalingrad line because they felt like it; they were ordered to, rushed troops to the front and tried to stop the Geramns much further West but couldnt....

perhaps the Game needs some type of Hitler/Stalin political mechanism which somehow penalises the player for eg abandoning Kiev; this is already partly calulated into the Victory Points, but perhaps some Admin point penalty as well, or Kiev falls, morale drops by % etc...

still the experienced player will work out the mechanics of the new rule, and over time play it to maximum advantage, just like a good General....

This is an excellent point. One of my old board games ( I think it was 'Drive on Stalingrad' ) had just such a mechanism. Once certain objectives had been met, the German player had to roll on a Fuhrer Order table which could seriously change objectives. Now I'm not advocating a Fuhrer rug chewing mechanism, but the 'Not one step back' orders from both dictators had serious consequences for both sides, and this couldpossibly be incorporated into the game.

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh

(in reply to 56ajax)

Post #: 24

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 12:10:13 PM

gradenko2k

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

At present, the German's glory days end at Turn 18. This is a-historic.
I want a game that reflects the uncertainty and fluidity of 1942 and 1943.

Isn't this a symptom of the game giving you as much freedom as it does?

That is, didn't the Germans only get to ride roughshod over the Rodina past "turn 18" because historically, the Soviets made so many mistakes? Mistakes that a Soviet WITE player would not make?

Expounding on that, isn't the situation in 1942 and 1943 a direct result of the Soviet (and to some extent, German) mistakes of 1941? Again, decisions that would not be made by our respective WITE players decades after the fact?

I mean, I suppose I'd be more inclined to agree with you if starting from the actual 1942 scenario also results in an unfluid situation, but if it's only turning out that way because the Soviet player isn't playing along historical lines, then I'd say it's less about mechanics and more about WITE being a game.

The other implication at play here is that other games that deal with the topic subjects the Soviet player to either explicit or house rules to simulate the Soviets committing the same historical mistakes - either the Soviets can't issue all the orders they would have wanted, or the Soviet units are even weaker than they would have been, so that the Germans can still make their historical advances even in the face of complete Soviet freedom.

(in reply to Empire101)

Post #: 25

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 12:17:41 PM

Wild

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

Hi Guys, I for one have thought this game was fun from the very beginning and it's only getting better. I find that knowing the game mechanics makes it more fun not less, because i can devote more thought to strategy rather than how to play.

I have only played against the AI though. Maybe this helps because i don't have players quitting on me, but looking at the AARs it seems there are German players who do quite well against a human.

I don't really know what others expected when they bought this game, but i expected a simulation of the eastern front and in my opinion WITE delivers quite well. It should be hard for the Germans and it is.

As far as replay value, for an WWII junkie like me, i see no sign of getting bored of it.

(in reply to Empire101)

Post #: 26

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 2:22:30 PM

timmyab

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

I've been wondering lately if the higher level forts and fortified zones could be incorporated in some way so that level 3 or higher forts could only be built where there is a fortified zone present.The fortified zones would represent the specialized workforce needed to build higher level fortifications and the ap cost would represent the cost of materials.It would also solve the problem of fortified zones appearing to have very little useful purpose in the game.
It could be done so that you have to pay even more AP's for level 4 and 5 forts.

< Message edited by timmyab -- 6/13/2011 2:28:59 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 27

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 2:23:45 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

The tough part is that we see some good German players that are doing very well, and many comments are that with HQ build up the German players are too strong. It's hard to deal with that issue and your feeling that the German situation is too difficult. I really don't think we know enough about 1942 in 1.04 yet because we haven't had many games with good German players and good Soviet players get that far. More games may show us that high level forts need to be more of a decision with costs then something that is automatic, but this would require interface and AI changes, so it would not be an easy change. For that kind of change to be made we've got to see more evidence that this is a problem.

I certainly appreciate the need to wait for enough data.
But to me, you seem to be saying something that, were I a designer, I would take special interest in finding an answer to:
Why aren't many games making it to 1942?

My writing in this post, I feel, identifies the chief problem:

At the macro level, it's because only 2 things matter to the German (Leningrad and casualties).

At the micro level, the ease with which the Soviet can safeguard the casualty total through complete freedom of movement (which I don't want to take away and don't have a solution for) and fortification again steals the German player's hope by Turn 18.

Now, I may be wrong, of course. But my hypothesis is that you're NOT GOING to get 1942 data because of the 1941 situation. Germans will keep quitting.

My position is that you ought to have enough data to see that 1941 is the real problem for 1942.

One thing I always concede is that I'm not a programmer, and I have no idea how difficult stuff is to code, implement, and integrate into the game.

_____________________________

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 28

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 2:26:50 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

The tough part is that we see some good German players that are doing very well, and many comments are that with HQ build up the German players are too strong. It's hard to deal with that issue and your feeling that the German situation is too difficult. I really don't think we know enough about 1942 in 1.04 yet because we haven't had many games with good German players and good Soviet players get that far. More games may show us that high level forts need to be more of a decision with costs then something that is automatic, but this would require interface and AI changes, so it would not be an easy change. For that kind of change to be made we've got to see more evidence that this is a problem.

In my current game I even see tendencies to a "no mans land" where I am sitting in level 3 forts and the enemy is too, and when someone is knocked back from a front hex no one wants to occupy that hex, as without fortifications you are setting yourself up to be clobbered next turn. This leads to 1 or 2 empty empty "no mans hexes" here and there. Surely this cannot be the intention. IMHO forts are having an overly great influence on operations in 1942. (And losing 1500 - 2000 tanks in 4 weeks to the bug didn't exactly help my offensive capabilities).

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 29

RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability - 6/13/2011 2:41:18 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

The tough part is that we see some good German players that are doing very well, and many comments are that with HQ build up the German players are too strong. It's hard to deal with that issue and your feeling that the German situation is too difficult. I really don't think we know enough about 1942 in 1.04 yet because we haven't had many games with good German players and good Soviet players get that far. More games may show us that high level forts need to be more of a decision with costs then something that is automatic, but this would require interface and AI changes, so it would not be an easy change. For that kind of change to be made we've got to see more evidence that this is a problem.

I certainly appreciate the need to wait for enough data.
But to me, you seem to be saying something that, were I a designer, I would take special interest in finding an answer to:
Why aren't many games making it to 1942?

My writing in this post, I feel, identifies the chief problem:

At the macro level, it's because only 2 things matter to the German (Leningrad and casualties).

At the micro level, the ease with which the Soviet can safeguard the casualty total through complete freedom of movement (which I don't want to take away and don't have a solution for) and fortification again steals the German player's hope by Turn 18.

Now, I may be wrong, of course. But my hypothesis is that you're NOT GOING to get 1942 data because of the 1941 situation. Germans will keep quitting.

My position is that you ought to have enough data to see that 1941 is the real problem for 1942.

One thing I always concede is that I'm not a programmer, and I have no idea how difficult stuff is to code, implement, and integrate into the game.

I think you sum it up well Helio!

I have played both sides extensively (more games as the Soviets actually, but way more turns as the German, as German opponents tend to quit). Here is my view:

* I think it it is harder to play the Germans. I am much more confident playing the Soviets than playing the Germans.

* If I play well as the Germans in 1941 and then get through the blizzard to be in reasonable shape for 1942, I will still be met by a Kursk-style defense from north to south that I have to batter my way through. And even if I do that and survive to level 4 there is no way to kill the enemy boss...

My solutions (I have advocated them before elsewhere):

* Some kind of incitament for the Soviets to defend locations like Kiev and Moscow for as long as possible.

* Reduce the extensive fort building (mostly a problem after 1941).

I still think the game is extremely enjoyable! I do think it is a problem that, given reasonably matched players, even if I do extremely well in 1941 as the German compared to the historical Germans, I am still faced with a situation in 1942 where there is no way I can replicate the advance to Stalingrad.

< Message edited by Tarhunnas -- 6/13/2011 2:43:08 PM >

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 30