Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But a World War II game that doesn't involve Germany in the Soviet Union is a fantasy game.

A non Soviet campaign or a Germany does better than expected campaign could be added in addition to a historically accurate could all co-exist. It would give players variety to suit their tastes.

warspite1

A matter of taste of course - the latter would be palatable personally, the former not at all.

Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was.

Then one can argue that Greece and the Balkins should be off limits for any potential Allied invasion in 43+. The Americans would never tolerate it. They were suspicious of Churchill believing he was more interested in preserving empire. The other reason to recapture as much of Eastern Europe before the Soviets was something that simply didn't resonate with the American public or political and military leadership.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But a World War II game that doesn't involve Germany in the Soviet Union is a fantasy game.

A non Soviet campaign or a Germany does better than expected campaign could be added in addition to a historically accurate could all co-exist. It would give players variety to suit their tastes.

warspite1

A matter of taste of course - the latter would be palatable personally, the former not at all.

Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was.

Then one can argue that Greece and the Balkins should be off limits for any potential Allied invasion in 43+. The Americans would never tolerate it. They were suspicious of Churchill believing he was more interested in preserving empire. The other reason to recapture as much of Eastern Europe before the Soviets was something that simply didn't resonate with the American public or political and military leadership.

warspite1

Churchill's wish to pursue a Balkan strategy was nothing to do do with preserving Empire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

No - they thought, with justification, it was putting off Overlord - NOT pursuing Empire (which we never had in the Balkans).

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

No - they thought, with justification, it was putting off Overlord - NOT pursuing Empire (which we never had in the Balkans).

Fair enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: miller41

I am treating Germany's position in this game like i do Japan's in WITE-AE. You are going to get overwhelmed in the end, so winning to me is fighting the good fight and making the allies take longer. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, as some players like advancing and conquering but Germany in 43 just is not in a position to do that except locally. The joy I get out of all these games is the chance to tinker with historical outcomes. I have read about all of these campaigns since I was a kid playing boardgames like Battle for Germany, and love military history, so getting a chance to do this on a computer is worth it and these are well made games by people who do there best to make them realistic and playable. Not to many publishers doing that these days

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But a World War II game that doesn't involve Germany in the Soviet Union is a fantasy game.

A non Soviet campaign or a Germany does better than expected campaign could be added in addition to a historically accurate could all co-exist. It would give players variety to suit their tastes.

warspite1

A matter of taste of course - the latter would be palatable personally, the former not at all.

Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was.

Then one can argue that Greece and the Balkins should be off limits for any potential Allied invasion in 43+. The Americans would never tolerate it. They were suspicious of Churchill believing he was more interested in preserving empire. The other reason to recapture as much of Eastern Europe before the Soviets was something that simply didn't resonate with the American public or political and military leadership.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But a World War II game that doesn't involve Germany in the Soviet Union is a fantasy game.

A non Soviet campaign or a Germany does better than expected campaign could be added in addition to a historically accurate could all co-exist. It would give players variety to suit their tastes.

warspite1

A matter of taste of course - the latter would be palatable personally, the former not at all.

Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was.

Then one can argue that Greece and the Balkins should be off limits for any potential Allied invasion in 43+. The Americans would never tolerate it. They were suspicious of Churchill believing he was more interested in preserving empire. The other reason to recapture as much of Eastern Europe before the Soviets was something that simply didn't resonate with the American public or political and military leadership.

First of all, there was no *empire* to preserve in the Balkans, Second, the American way of war at the time was the shortest, most direct, way to win the war. Through France was the best way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mesquite5

I would love to see some what if scenarios, such as "no huge Axis loss at Stalingrad", "retreat of Afrika Korps from Tunisia","victory at Stalingrad", or maybe "better handling of the Luftwaffe prior to this game." Not far fetched.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

My point in the above no Balkans invasion was in reference to the "Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kelblau

On paper everything is better, and I am sure that a lot of work went in WitW. But something (what? that is the key question) just does not feel right : no tension, no excitement, not much interest. I do not regret putting some money in it however, because it fuels the development of the system and having WitW behind us brings us one step closer to the good game I trust WitE II will be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sitito

quote:

i dont quite understand why the devs did not develop in a row the whole western campaing game (39-45).......Now its a plum to sell thousands of dlcs and modules...Much more profit. So dont be too much excited about wite 2. First they have to sqeeze the western golden goose eggs with a module of naval system; poland, france, Weseberung, Greece, Africa...Thats how the world works today...You transform a 100$ product in one of 300$.

quote:

They didnt do that in the pacific. Dont remember seeing WIPT 41-42, and then 43-45. Well that was many years ago when the business was still pure.

quote:

warspite1

That's quite a cynical post.

Look at the sheer scale of the European War. Surely modelling 1941-45 in the Pacific is a much "easier" proposition than Europe 39-45 with all the vagaries contained within...what happens if the timescale goes off track? There are a huge number of variables to model and program, from the very first attack on Poland, then there is Norway, the Low Countries, France, The Balkans, intervention in the desert - before you even get to Barbarossa. So many options, so many possibilities - how long would it take to devise systems for that and then to play test everyone of them?

Maybe the developers thought, no way could we get something out and working on something that size within 10 years (The infinitely less problematic and relatively straightforward WITW took 4-years if I have read correctly). In addition to the land "stuff", the economy, there is the politics to devise and model, there is a whole new naval system to work out.

So was the decision purely all about the evils of making money [When the business was still pure. Really??] or was it about the real world and the need for companies to keep cash flow rolling in while they develop new, and ever more complex games for our enjoyment?

Taking the second point, my understanding is that the highly complex monster WITP-AE came from the already established WITP. So a) in terms of money, the company was already earning and b) it made the Admirals Edition easier as they were not starting from scratch.

Not being a critic? Yes you are; and that's fine if that's how you feel but then don't make out you are not. How things are? Yes in the real world companies need to make money and where the returns are limited (because of a niche product) that means the cost in production has to be tightly managed. There is nothing new in that. That's simple economic reality.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to sitito)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sitito

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kelblau

On paper everything is better, and I am sure that a lot of work went in WitW. But something (what? that is the key question) just does not feel right : no tension, no excitement, not much interest. I do not regret putting some money in it however, because it fuels the development of the system and having WitW behind us brings us one step closer to the good game I trust WitE II will be.

Its witw 43-45, half campaing, mutilated, and without naval system and production worth 80$?? in my humble and idiotic opinion...of course. 40$ would have been the right amount...but m8 they saw the sky open when wite came out and it turned into a massive hit...

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

I'm sort of with the OP a little. The game is great but the scenarios aren't all that compelling to me. With WiTE and WiTP AE, the Axis forces can actually run wild for a year or two. In WiTW scenarios, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Allied side will win. No running wild by the Axis here as the Allies pretty much have the initiative and keep it. There's really no back and forth as in AE or WiTE. Maybe different scenarios in the form of DLC or expansions will change things but until then it is kind of boring playing as the Allies. I've played Operation Husky at least a dozen times as the Allies and never came close to losing. Played it a couple of times as the Axis and got beat pretty badly. Played the Air War scenario. It's almost impossible to lose as the Allies. I know the game has only been out a week, but in my opinion, it needs a better variety of scenarios. North Africa, Norway and France 40 come to mind. There was a lot of back and forth in those campaigns. Punch and counterpunch. In the stage of the war that WiTW currently represents the Axis is overmatched and stays overmatched. It's not as fun as WiTE or WiTP where as the Axis you can throw your weight around but know eventually the Allies can and will turn things around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Many of us involved are volunteers. If I magically added the volunteer element professional hourly rate to pay for every hour us
volunteers have spent on the game then you could probably add at least a zero to the price or double the time to deliver if we went on
strike for improved conditions.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
The choices as Allies are huge, and thus the decisions for Germany are equally huge. Are they going to do Anzio? Or even Husky? Do I contest Sicily seriously or just a fighting retreat... I am playing the 43 campaign as Allies. Based on locating 3 reinforcement PG and a Pzr Div in Sicily, I am completely revising my timetables/plans. I was going to take Sardinia in Mid August, then Italy in Sept. Now I am working out how to trap what is a very strong PzK - almost a full Pz Group (HG, 16Pz, 15PG, 90PG, 29PG, 3PG, not to mention a Pz Bde) in NE Sicily. Not to mention how on earth to shift them with the supplies I can get in... I would reinforce 8th Army but I cant get enough supply in through the damaged ports. I need to move my amphib task forces to NA to a bigger port to prepare to invade the Boot, but this cuts port capacity further. Catania was a mess when I got it, ditto Syracuse. If I take the temporary size 2 ports out before I repair them, Panzer Amree Sicily could probably roll me back in to the sea!

How is that not interesting?

Oh, and love the railway limits. Was shifting 5th Army east to Tunis... 1 corps maxes out the railways! :) You have to walk the rest. Oh how Wite needs the logistic changes in WitW

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

As a moderator can I draw a small line under this discussion.

As someone with a little insight into the process I observe it is driven by what is possible in the time rather than squeezing the last penny out of the wargaming community. Many of us involved are volunteers. If I magically added the volunteer element professional hourly rate to pay for every hour us volunteers have spent on the game then you could probably add at least a zero to the price or double the time to deliver if we went on strike for improved conditions.

That said it has taken three years to add the improved logistics, map, air war, amphib etc beyond WitE. Alongside the programming is hours and hours of research into the data and scenarios. If you add in more functionality, complexity and a wider timescale then the time taken to product release increases exponentially.