Slitherine

quote:

For a full grand campaign in WITP I've heard it can take as long as the real war, up to 4 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NagyGL
Thanks to you all for the quick response. Based on these I lean towards WITE / WITW with a slight edge to WITW due to the air warfare and the shorter campaign time you mentioned (and maybe the theater as well). Still, I take my time and dig around here a bit then :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NagyGL

As for WITP...

quote:

For a full grand campaign in WITP I've heard it can take as long as the real war, up to 4 years.

Just... Wow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

Yeah, WITP Grand Campaign start from 7th dec 1941 and ends in 1946 (or before, if Japan surrenders).
There are daily turns instead of weekly turn as in WITE/WITW, so a PBEM game can take a lot of time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann

wite has the shortest learning curve and best playability in a shift from the operational games. witw is a tough play - theres a lot of waiting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann

Witw has a very cumbersome AI air interface. you can wait 15-20 minutes for the air to complete each turn. For an air aficionado its heaven but for someone transitioning from tactical you'll pull your hair out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NagyGL
But what do you mean by the waiting? (For the AI? Or in PBEM? Or many turns before the real action starts?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NagyGL

All right... So, I just summarized this to myself, comparing WITE and WITW:

WITW:

+ Needs approx. half the time to complete a campaign
+ Has better logistics rules
+ Has a new air warfare model...
- ... but which is, for some, more hassle than fun
- Have a bit less active PBEM and community
- Confined to defend / attack depending on the side played

WITE:

+ Easier to learn
+ Has an epic scope
+ Need to defend or attack changes dynamically (like in history)
- Misses air & logistics improvements of WITW
- Takes 2x time due to scope and amount of pieces to move

And of course: theater can be a + / - on either side as per personal preference.

Is this basically it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

We are not working on expanding WitW to cover France 1940. We are working on WitE2.0.

I think we would all like a grand european campaign from 1940 - 45 but the challenges to deliver it are considerable so don't hold your breath.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

We are not working on expanding WitW to cover France 1940. We are working on WitE2.0.

I think we would all like a grand european campaign from 1940 - 45 but the challenges to deliver it are considerable so don't hold your breath.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

To push the timeline back to 1940 (or 39 for that matter) means that you have two key tasks:

- Developing a naval module that fits and works. This is no easy task. The addition of the WitW changes to air, amphib and logistics took 4 years.
- Expanding the data. This is not only historical land and air data but also adding all the naval data. Even using an EF Box you still need all the data.

Excepting North Africa and the Med - 1941 to late 1942 is not the most exciting period without the Eastern Front. WitW 40-45 would be easier than Europe but WitE2.0 is currently more deliverable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

To push the timeline back to 1940 (or 39 for that matter) means that you have two key tasks:

- Developing a naval module that fits and works. This is no easy task. The addition of the WitW changes to air, amphib and logistics took 4 years.
- Expanding the data. This is not only historical land and air data but also adding all the naval data. Even using an EF Box you still need all the data.

Excepting North Africa and the Med - 1941 to late 1942 is not the most exciting period without the Eastern Front. WitW 40-45 would be easier than Europe but WitE2.0 is currently more deliverable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

Perhaps you cant tell us yet but are you thinking about adding big strategic decisions to Wite 2?. I think it is the biggest flaw of wite, as the lack of strategic decisions makes most games too repetitve. Example what Ia am talking about: production decisions: do the germans go for a new powerful tank (panthers and tigers) or they stick with improving the panzer iv? The later would give more tanks but less powerful. Political decisions: what is your stance towards the native population? Agressive could give you more resources but also more partisans to deal with. Less agressive would mean less resources but less partisans also. Do you prioritize reinforcements or the making of new units?. All those are just examples of decisions which might give each game a different feeling each time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

Perhaps you cant tell us yet but are you thinking about adding big strategic decisions to Wite 2?. I think it is the biggest flaw of wite, as the lack of strategic decisions makes most games too repetitve. Example what Ia am talking about: production decisions: do the germans go for a new powerful tank (panthers and tigers) or they stick with improving the panzer iv? The later would give more tanks but less powerful. Political decisions: what is your stance towards the native population? Agressive could give you more resources but also more partisans to deal with. Less agressive would mean less resources but less partisans also. Do you prioritize reinforcements or the making of new units?. All those are just examples of decisions which might give each game a different feeling each time.

No, just no. This offers so much potential for abuse that balancing this will be a horrible task. Not to mention that games like WitE aren't designed in this scope. If you want all that you should look more towards games like Hearts of Iron.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Two things. First I think the politics added to a theater command game as seen in the DC:B decision system is genius. Something like that would only make WiTE/WiTW better. Second something like what he's suggesting about production already exists in WiTP. I don't see how it's a stretch to ask for a production system that's more responsive to player input and on map resources for WiTE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Two things. First I think the politics added to a theater command game as seen in the DC:B decision system is genius. Something like that would only make WiTE/WiTW better. Second something like what he's suggesting about production already exists in WiTP. I don't see how it's a stretch to ask for a production system that's more responsive to player input and on map resources for WiTE.

Let's revist those points then. What was mentioned as specific example was the treatment of the native population, problem here is, how far do you allow people to go without drifting into absolute fantasy? The mistreatment of the population as Untermenschen was core nazi policy. You can't just come here and say, what if they had treated them better. Because if you did you would be changing the very nature of the nazi regime. Change its very nature and you don't have a war in the first place. Now, I'm superficially aware of what Deceisive Campaigns Barbarossa does but that game and WitE work differently in that regard with the card system. You can't just copy it over.

As for production, in WitP the power gap between the US and Japan is far bigger than the one between Germany and the Soviet Union. The production there allows the Japanese side to be more creative in how to script its demise. Meanwhile on the Eastern Front a central advantage of the Soviet side was their more efficient production compared to the German side. They were able to churn out far more units with their invested resources than the Germans. Allow the Germans to build and optimise as they desire and you are destroying the historical balance in a way that far exceeds what's being done in WitP. You can't come here and compare apples to oranges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

The key about the decisions I propose (I gave just examples that had come out of my mind, but they could be completely different) is not the ability to make things better for one side or the other, but giving you the ability to adapt to circunstances (for example, if the german player has had several panzer units encircled and destroyed he can probably say goodbye to the game, but what if he can decide to concentrate on P IVs instead of goign for Panthers and Tigers? That would give him more production, thus, he will get his panzer divisions again much quicker)

quote:


Yes I am aware of HoI serie, but I think this game could benefit a lot from a bit of strategic decisions making, not changing its scope or nature, but expanding it a bit.

quote:


PS. Regarding the critique about the political decision I said, yes, I am aware that it is the old "if nazis werent nazis", but there are many things in the game that go against what happened irl or are stretched to make the game more interesting or even possible to play, so why not introducing some political elements? As far as they are plausible, I see no problems. After all, nazi ideology didnt dicatate that kicking slvas out of East Europe had to be done during the war. They could have waited unitl later.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

The key about the decisions I propose (I gave just examples that had come out of my mind, but they could be completely different) is not the ability to make things better for one side or the other, but giving you the ability to adapt to circunstances (for example, if the german player has had several panzer units encircled and destroyed he can probably say goodbye to the game, but what if he can decide to concentrate on P IVs instead of goign for Panthers and Tigers? That would give him more production, thus, he will get his panzer divisions again much quicker)

This is 1941 in Germany, not JIT production on assembly lines. And frankly, bad play (and this is several panzer units getting encircled) should be punished accordingly and not get fantasy-like get-out-of-jail card to soften the impact.

quote:


Yes I am aware of HoI serie, but I think this game could benefit a lot from a bit of strategic decisions making, not changing its scope or nature, but expanding it a bit.

This series is an operational war game. You are changing its scope with all that you want.

quote:


PS. Regarding the critique about the political decision I said, yes, I am aware that it is the old "if nazis werent nazis", but there are many things in the game that go against what happened irl or are stretched to make the game more interesting or even possible to play, so why not introducing some political elements? As far as they are plausible, I see no problems. After all, nazi ideology didnt dicatate that kicking slvas out of East Europe had to be done during the war. They could have waited unitl later.

What you suggested above is not plausible. The Germans were acutely aware of their inability to supply their army and the local population in the east. Their method of feeding their men was based on requisitioning from the local population while letting them starve. You are creating a fantasy setting here.

Frankly, all your ideas fit right into the mold of what Hearts of Iron provides, giving me the impression that you are at the wrong series here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

Giving you options to soften the impact of your mistakes is something fully realistic. It is what everybody does when he realizes he has gotten into trouble. Expanding on the options you might have in such a situation is a good move, imho. Many players end their games (especially as german player) after a handflu of turns simply and plainly because they have commited a few mistakes (and not big ones like the one I mentioned). That is not fun at all, expecially from the soviet player point of view, but I can understand the german player, because he knows he is fu... and he cant do anythign about it.