Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oloren

Just finished Uranus.. was fun actually. Looking forward to trying some of the other scenarios.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I bought it to support the continued production of turned based operational WWII games despite 1/ these scenarios should have been part of WITE in the first place 2/ As an Eastern Front operational and strategic wargame the WITE is FUBAR anyway. (Thats not FUBAR from a German or Russian point of view btw its the game itself). Hopefully war in the west will be a marked improvement with radical new mechanics (but not holding breath)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
At release, I think this was the best AI for a game of this scale on the computer to date. I don't think that's mentioned often enough. The AI has improved since release.

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Hi Erik,

I play on both Normal and Challenging. My observation on Challenging is that the AI gets assistance (beefing up) but it doesn't seem to make smarter choices - it feels unreal to me. Am I imagining that?

I'll repeat my point that Normal should provide a reasonably competent AI and Easy should be the beginner mode.

My main concerns have to do with the AI logic on any setting:

1. Abandoning good positions for bad.
2. Ignoring cities even when they are victory hexes.
3. Attacking in strange places (e.g. repeatedly (3 consecutive turns) across the Don at Boguchar in this instance).
4. Not attacking sometimes, even when it has overwhelming odds, although perhaps this has been fixed?

And so forth...

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

OK Erik, well I travel on business about 50% of my life, so a solid AI experience is really important for me. The reason I still play WitE is that it remains my dream game - but mainly in my dreams thus far.

I take your point that the AI is probably the best so far for 'a game of this scale'. However, most of my enhancement requests seem fairly fundamental to me:

1. Make the AI defend cities, especially if they are also victory hexes.
2. Make it attack when it has overwhelming local superiority.
3. Restrain it from advancing beyond the ZoC reach of follow-on forces.

I know that huge amounts of effort have gone into fixing many deeply detailed aspects of the game (are there enough '42 Stugs in production in June '42, etc.) but for my purposes that's all secondary.

Those three changes above would pretty much shut me up - for a while at least :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

OK Erik, well I travel on business about 50% of my life, so a solid AI experience is really important for me. The reason I still play WitE is that it remains my dream game - but mainly in my dreams thus far.

I take your point that the AI is probably the best so far for 'a game of this scale'. However, most of my enhancement requests seem fairly fundamental to me:

1. Make the AI defend cities, especially if they are also victory hexes.
2. Make it attack when it has overwhelming local superiority.
3. Restrain it from advancing beyond the ZoC reach of follow-on forces.

I know that huge amounts of effort have gone into fixing many deeply detailed aspects of the game (are there enough '42 Stugs in production in June '42, etc.) but for my purposes that's all secondary.

Those three changes above would pretty much shut me up - for a while at least :)

Didn't Hausser abandon Kharkov before the backhand blow? Maybe Paul Hausser is the role model for the AI?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


Don't want to be negative honestly but WitE does not do small scenarios like Uranus at all well. The suspension of belief is too great. This does not bode well for WitW. An example of this is the entire 6th army which as we know was heavily engaged in the streets of Stalingrad can merrily disengage and move along the axis of its choice (Yup the logistics model aint good). The mechanics of the game do not differentiate between a units circumstance a unit behaves exactly the same way if it is down to 5000 men defending a ten mile front as a 15,000 strong division attacking on a mile frontage.

Personally I think it is a shame that such an in depth game is so weak in too many important areas

quote:

Hausser is the role model for the AI?

quote:

ORIGINAL: comsolut

Not sure if this is a debate about the AI or the value of the expansion.

My own opinion is based on several factors:

1) Shorter scenarios allow me the fun of the game system and the reward of an outcome in a very reasonable amount of real life time.

2) The smaller scenarios allow me to explore the numbers behind the game - micro managing the GC is very time consuming - but digging in what SU's are assigned, specific aircraft, leader ratings, etc in the scenarios has given me greater insight into the GC - and actually made my skill there improve.

3) The smaller advanced year scenarios give me a chance to see how the armies need to evolve

4) The smaller scope allows me to try multiple strategies/tactics to see what may work or what may not. In Decision in the Ukraine I tried 3 different openings with the 60th army and learned from each.

5) And best of all - while waiting for a PBEM turn from my opponent in the GC - I can mess around in the scenarios.

quote:

I just wonder - most of your time here seems occupied with telling everyone the game is utter crap and is no good. I wonder why, if its that bad, you havent moved on long ago and started playing something else. Seriously - if its that bad - why do you bother coming here ?

I dont really see your point above in any case - logistics aside - surely the whole point of the 6th Armies situation in stalingrad was that it wasnt allowed to disengage. Even when surrounded they werent allowed to break out. So - whether the underlying theme of your argument has any validity - you have likely chosen the very worst example in the whole war to illustrate it.

Had the 6th army chosen the correct moment - they might very well have been able to disengage in a manner that kept them in good order.