Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
Despite its flaws, WITE is a pretty unique game. It's not really skippable because there isn't any other contemporary operational-level Eastern Front wargame out there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Sure it's unique, but for me it is eminently skippable

quote:

ORIGINAL: tombo

wow...just seeing this thread.
I have WitE but never really got started. It takes allot of time. I guess from above, i should skip it. Sad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp
It's just that if one wants to play an operational-level East Front war game that encompasses the entire periode from 1941 to 1945 it's hard to pass up WITE.

quote:

And not to quibble, but why do people consider WitE an operational-level game? Despite its divisional scale, given its scope and the decisions allowed to players, I've always considered it to be a "strategic" game (but not "grand strategic")?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Sure, you're right about that.

And not to quibble, but why do people consider WitE an operational-level game? Despite its divisional scale, given its scope and the decisions allowed to players, I've always considered it to be a "strategic" game (but not "grand strategic")?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

What I would like to see is a completely new system for reserves. The current system offers quite ridiculous results. Against the AI I have seen infantry units sprint over 50 miles across two rivers to engage into a battle and then sprint back those 50 miles. All of this across the frontline (though they weren't ZOCed). Especially this jump in and jump out strikes me as particularly strange. So what I would prefer would be a twofold split into tactical and strategic reserves. Tactical reserves have to be within two hexes for infantry and four hexes for motorized units to have a chance to committ directly into a battle. Strategic reserves meanwhile function differently. They have the chance to activate if a breakthrough in a designated part of the front occurs and react by moving closer to that breakthrough spot, putting formerly empty areas under guard. That would help in reducing perfect planning for post-breakthrough moves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tombo

wow...just seeing this thread.
I have WitE but never really got started. It takes allot of time. I guess from above, i should skip it. Sad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Always appreciate forum comments about game design as they instruct my play and increase the fun.

To understand the "core problem" you have to consider what players want and cater those needs.

Agree completely that the shorter scenarios are vital and interesting to enjoy the game. +1 to the development team.

My broadest desire is that the Axis & Soviet forces should "feel" like "my" perception of Eastern front warfare throughout WWII. Given that desiderata, it doesn't matter much (to me) that various pools, casualties, units, TOEs, etc. become unhistorical. Its about combat outcomes, force mobility, terrain, etc. It was never a "balanced" conflict, Axis superior early, Soviets unstoppable later.

It might be possible, but I think trying to achieve this "feel" through detail data is a vanity. What a surprise to learn about the 1:1/2:1 rule (and possibly others) that had to be coded to fake late '41 results. Resolving combat through "shot by shot" reporting? Not for me. Interim & final CV's? Why bother. The way I play the game most outcomes seem right, so some of the fantastic detail is just eye candy. BTW, I appreciate the "eye candy."

What might be useful is more macro force management. The Commander's Report does help, but more like it would be useful.

In short, I don't see a "core problem."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I played WITE alot when it came out, then walked away for a year. I just read the last few pages of this little thread, and I am wondering now if I should walk away again, or sit out until a patch.

WITP-AE took several years, and 2 new releases, to get a point that is stable, playable, and basically a well balanced game with few flaws. It took over 6 years to get to that point with the engine. Is that what we are looking at here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

It is certainly true that many Soviet attacks in 1941 are made not for the attack itself but for "Guards farming".

I am pretty certain the Soviet generals in 1941 did not think "Hmm, i see a weak German/Rumanian unit there, lets attack it with as many divisions as possible so all of them get a better chance at becoming Guards units in a couple of months." As a matter of fact, i suspect they thought more along the lines of "Lets counterattack and drive the invaders back" or even "I know this counteratack is doomed, but if I don't execute it I am doomed...".

So an idea: Why not simply say that victories counting for Guards conversions start accumulating on say 1st november or something? That would at least eliminate Guards farming as a motive for attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: smokindave34

I notified Callistrid that I am going to resign from our game. This is the third game in a row (Sapper, M60, Callistrid) where I have been handled decisively in '41 by solid Soviet opponents and I see no reason to go forward. I decided to stand and fight and have 7 divisions surrounded two turns into the blizzard. I used to be able to handle the axis well enough to produce a competitive game even against very good players (The Pro's) but no longer. This game is extremely challenging to play as axis right now against solid opponents (as other axis players better than I have noted) and I no longer seem to be able to make it into '43 with any real chance of standing up to the Soviets. Excellent game by you Callistrid - sorry to end it on you so quickly! I'll have to hang up my Field Marshall's baton for a while.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Callistrid

This game is over, and Dave was a very good opponent. Fighting on the Germans side is tough. It's enough to make a little mistake, and the war is lost. Let's see what I learn with the Soviet

1. Playing with the Soviet is easy. The sapper an construction brigades build fortification easily, and if you retreat on the first six turns, the saved troops with the reinforcements can hardly hit the advancing German troops. With the new rule the German can't pocket troops, because the encirclement can be broke easily.

2. Mild winter. Strong Soviet defeat the German, weak not. So the successful winter operation depend on how powerful is the Soviet army, not what my opponent did. On my game against Dave there infantry stack in level 2 fortification was easy to beat.

3. Paratroops. I never drop them, but using them could DE devastating. Easy method to break the supply line, or to isolate troops.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Callistrid

4. The Soviet have more rail yard then it should to have. With 100k+ it's easy to transport full fronts to threatened sectors. Using your short transport lines, the German will always face with strong troops in the critical sectors. And the factory evacuation is too fast. In the first seven turn, all what is unorganised sent to the urals.

5. Retreat, retreat, retreat. There is no reason to stand and fight on the first seven turn. Only around Leningrad, but that could be managed. The German could move close to Moscow, but never capture.

6. nonrandom weather. The nonrandom weather is not just a German favors. Because always the Soviet moves second, it's easy to be brave without consequences. You know when will be mud, and when could rest the troops, move forward to refit, or launch attack, when normally never do, because you don't know what will be the next weather.


And the most important. The 2/1 rule. It wag ugly when I start beating the German army around turn 14. The clear terrain gains no bonus defenses, and 6~9 cv into can be hit, without fear. And what is real worse, when you start attacking the front, launch 10+ successful attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

It is certainly true that many Soviet attacks in 1941 are made not for the attack itself but for "Guards farming".

I am pretty certain the Soviet generals in 1941 did not think "Hmm, i see a weak German/Rumanian unit there, lets attack it with as many divisions as possible so all of them get a better chance at becoming Guards units in a couple of months." As a matter of fact, i suspect they thought more along the lines of "Lets counterattack and drive the invaders back" or even "I know this counteratack is doomed, but if I don't execute it I am doomed...".

So an idea: Why not simply say that victories counting for Guards conversions start accumulating on say 1st november or something? That would at least eliminate Guards farming as a motive for attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo


There is no Soviet, "I win button."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

This example really makes the game look farcical. No more need be said.