RE: Testing WITE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message


Rosseau -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 2:34:18 AM)

I think we can all respect the OP's question. What scares me a lot more is when the developers consider the game "finished" and stop issuing patches. Or never release even one patch. It's happened here...




Senno -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 2:52:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rosseau

I think we can all respect the OP's question. What scares me a lot more is when the developers consider the game "finished" and stop issuing patches. Or never release even one patch. It's happened here...


Well, I'm having trouble respecting the question given his unreasonable demand for a disclaimer on the product.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

Matrix, or 2by3 games, should have have said this is a not fully developed and possibly flawed product on release and asked those of us who bought it to help in its testing, not sold it to us as a "finished product".



Is this a reasonable request? Maybe it's just me. But I can't imagine working on a project for 10 years, and having someone show up and disagree on some issue and then demand that I put a disclaimer on the product that it is not fully developed and possibly flawed. It's just an incredible demand. But, maybe it's just me.




Mynok -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 2:56:45 AM)

Seems quite obvious to me that they do not consider it a finished product since they are still working hard on it. What they did was their normal MO and get it to the point where the only way to improve it was to put it out for 'testing at large' and keeping tweaking it based on feedback. They do this will all their games that I'm familiar with. It's a proven method that has generated some true classics.






Rosseau -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 4:00:39 AM)

I didn't take the "disclaimer" thing seriously, Senno [;)]




Aurelian -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 4:01:36 AM)

I dunno.....

It worked right out of the box. That doesn't mean that it's perfect, what complex computer game is? Certainly there is no GO program I know of that can play on a full sized board.

How's this for a flawed game? SSI's Gettysburg: Turning Point, (IIRC), Amiga version. Couldn't play the second day scenario at all. Move a unit and it jumps across the map.

The AI? The Union AI would advance north like lemmings. The Confed AI? Send Bufords cavalry into the rear and pick off artillery batteries. The AI sent every unit it had chasing Buford.....

WiTE isn't broken. It isn't deeply flawed. 2by3 isn't anywhere near as big as Activision or EA. They can't spend untold hours looking for each and every flaw. They can't keep a game in development for years.

Duke Nukem Forever in Development any one?

I'm having fun with it as is. It *will* get better. In no small part due to the efforts of those who bought it and report on possible problems.




randallw -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 7:35:05 AM)

People want each side to have a good chance to win; isn't that sort of mutually exclusive?




Gandalf -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 10:51:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

People want each side to have a good chance to win; isn't that sort of mutually exclusive?


No it isn't mutually exclusive. Historically, the first year (1941), the Germans should have a reasonable chance of just possibly taking Moscow OR Leningrad AND while doing so actually SERIOUSLY damage the Russian army (meaning there isn't a HUGE overwhelming army buildup possible if one or both of these objectives are achieved. The second year (1942) decided that the Germans were NOT going to win (but still a possible draw using mobile defense tactics) since they blew they chance at Stalingrad. The third year (1943) decided that the Germans were going to lose since they blew their accumulated equipment on a failed offensive at Kursk. No initiative left for them from that point on.

This game has it such that the German player in almost all 1941 starting campaign games can't hardly even manage a draw to set up the second year. What this results in is a boring (yada yada) game that doesn't come close to historical performance. Unless something is done to redress this only the fanboy grognards will continue to play it. Personally, I like the game design and interface mechanics but for me it's shelfware until something is done about this historical imbalance. I can have much more entertainment playing the less complicated but more historical "performance feeling" game Russo-German War released by Schwerpunkt a few years ago.

edit> If I remember correctly, several East front games solve the Soviet Army size issue by seriously disrupting the production and/or manpower allocation for the loss of Moscow/Leningrad in 1941 and especially if both are taken. This occured in SPI's game even if you successfully "railed" the industry out before it was overrun.

I don't feel that the $80 price was a waste of money, BUT I do think the game was NOT ready for prime time (meaning it is still solidly in a beta state as far as comparitive historical performance is concerned.)




alfonso -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 11:58:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

People want each side to have a good chance to win; isn't that sort of mutually exclusive?


No it isn't mutually exclusive. Historically, the first year (1941), the Germans should have a reasonable chance of just possibly taking Moscow OR Leningrad AND while doing so actually SERIOUSLY damage the Russian army (meaning there isn't a HUGE overwhelming army buildup possible if one or both of these objectives are achieved. The second year (1942) decided that the Germans were NOT going to win (but still a possible draw using mobile defense tactics) since they blew they chance at Stalingrad. The third year (1943) decided that the Germans were going to lose since they blew their accumulated equipment on a failed offensive at Kursk. No initiative left for them from that point on.

This game has it such that the German player in almost all 1941 starting campaign games can't hardly even manage a draw to set up the second year. What this results in is a boring (yada yada) game that doesn't come close to historical performance. Unless something is done to redress this only the fanboy grognards will continue to play it. Personally, I like the game design and interface mechanics but for me it's shelfware until something is done about this historical imbalance. I can have much more entertainment playing the less complicated but more historical "performance feeling" game Russo-German War released by Schwerpunkt a few years ago.

edit> If I remember correctly, several East front games solve the Soviet Army size issue by seriously disrupting the production and/or manpower allocation for the loss of Moscow/Leningrad in 1941 and especially if both are taken. This occured in SPI's game even if you successfully "railed" the industry out before it was overrun.

I don't feel that the $80 price was a waste of money, BUT I do think the game was NOT ready for prime time (meaning it is still solidly in a beta state as far as comparitive historical performance is concerned.)


Please define good and reasonable...
If good is above 50%, randallw is right in his acid remark...[:)]

And remember that a win for Axis (in the game) is not conquering Russia and knocking out the Soviets in disarray. Any game starting at 22-6-1941 that allows that 50% of the time would be horribly flawed from a historical point of view.

My opinion is that during the first year the Soviets made more blunders than the Axis. Germany was somewhat lucky to arrive at the situation historically found in June 1942. If at that point, she cannot knock-out the Soviets (with Soviet reasonable performance), it was also impossible in June 1941 (with Soviet reasonable performance). Maybe the moment in which Germany had the highest chance of destroying the Soviets was July-August, after the frontier battles. I doubt than even then the probability of doing so was above 50%.




Angelo -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 2:05:51 PM)

The game should be won or lost by the skill of the players involved. Not by arbitrary rules imposing a set outcome.

This is a stratetic game and there should be a reasonable expectation of winning the war for both sides not just the Russians, especially in the 41 grand campaign.





alfonso -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 2:35:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Angelo

The game should be won or lost by the skill of the players involved. Not by arbitrary rules imposing a set outcome.

This is a stratetic game and there should be a reasonable expectation of winning the war for both sides not just the Russians, especially in the 41 grand campaign.




I do not understand you here, because I don't know what is reasonable and winning.

If reasonable is around 50% and Axis winning is destroying the Soviet Union, I disagree.




MengJiao -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 3:08:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

Many of you are misrepresenting my comments. I love this game but just think it wrong for a company to sell a game, for a pretty hefty price, and then expect us, "the players", to make it right on a forum. How many people who paid their money, don't visit the forum every day like I do to find the patches, are playing a flawed game? Forget the questions of game balance, but units arriving at the wrong time, UI problems etc. SORRY for Ģ70 I do expect a game of this sort to be up to scratch on release. This is not a console shoot-me-up game.

PS. From a thread above can someone tell me what a "MMO" game is? And to Senno, why is it being a weekend so strange, it is when we have most time, and as Matrix and 2by3 are so amateur I would have thought it is most likely it is when their personnel are available to comment


Console FPS games get a lot more testing than niche games. If you want a canned game, there are plenty of console games out there.
Inthe niche game world (which extends even to Shogun2), players are expected to participate in building the game via comments, scenarios and mods.




MengJiao -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 3:11:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Angelo

The game should be won or lost by the skill of the players involved. Not by arbitrary rules imposing a set outcome.

This is a stratetic game and there should be a reasonable expectation of winning the war for both sides not just the Russians, especially in the 41 grand campaign.



There are VPs that make it possible for Germany to Lose the war and for the player to win the game. I don't see why there is an "especially the 1941 grand campaign." The Germans had essentially no chance at all of knocking Russian out of the war in 1941 so if you want a balanced scenario, take 1942 and reinforce the Germans.




MengJiao -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 3:15:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

People want each side to have a good chance to win; isn't that sort of mutually exclusive?


No it isn't mutually exclusive. Historically, the first year (1941), the Germans should have a reasonable chance of just possibly taking Moscow OR Leningrad AND while doing so actually SERIOUSLY damage the Russian army (meaning there isn't a HUGE overwhelming army buildup possible if one or both of these objectives are achieved. The second year (1942) decided that the Germans were NOT going to win (but still a possible draw using mobile defense tactics) since they blew they chance at Stalingrad. The third year (1943) decided that the Germans were going to lose since they blew their accumulated equipment on a failed offensive at Kursk. No initiative left for them from that point on.

This game has it such that the German player in almost all 1941 starting campaign games can't hardly even manage a draw to set up the second year. What this results in is a boring (yada yada) game that doesn't come close to historical performance. Unless something is done to redress this only the fanboy grognards will continue to play it. Personally, I like the game design and interface mechanics but for me it's shelfware until something is done about this historical imbalance. I can have much more entertainment playing the less complicated but more historical "performance feeling" game Russo-German War released by Schwerpunkt a few years ago.

edit> If I remember correctly, several East front games solve the Soviet Army size issue by seriously disrupting the production and/or manpower allocation for the loss of Moscow/Leningrad in 1941 and especially if both are taken. This occured in SPI's game even if you successfully "railed" the industry out before it was overrun.

I don't feel that the $80 price was a waste of money, BUT I do think the game was NOT ready for prime time (meaning it is still solidly in a beta state as far as comparitive historical performance is concerned.)


In a game with any basis at all in history, the Axis player is not going to be very happy with what happens in 1941 since historically the Germans did about as well as they possibly could have in 1941 and still lost the war. I've recommended that Axis players use the 1942 campaign -- which locks in a very good 1941 for the Germans -- and modify it to give the Germans more troops.




Angelo -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 3:45:17 PM)

Are you saying that the Germans can not win the war?

If so, why play the 41 grand campaign? You know the outcome. Whether the Soviets win in June 45 or they win April 45 does not mean much to me, the Soviets still win!

This is different, for example, that the Road to Leningrad scenario where your objective is not to win the war but accumalate victory points.

There is a active thread where the victory conditions for the campaign game is being discussed. It might shed some light on the subject.




MengJiao -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 3:48:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Angelo

Are you saying that the Germans can not win the war?

If so, why play the 41 grand campaign? You know the outcome. Whether the Soviets win in June 45 or they win April 45 does not mean much to me, the Soviets still win!

This is different, for example, that the Road to Leningrad scenario where your objective is not to win the war but accumalate victory points.

There is a active thread where the victory conditions for the campaign game is being discussed. It might shed some light on the subject.


Yes, the Germans cannot win the war against a reasonable Soviet player. If you want to give the Axis a good shot, you should start in 1942 (which locks in a very good historical 1941) and reinforce the Germans (on grounds they pulled out of Africa early or something).




Angelo -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 3:57:35 PM)

Sorry, MengJiao I was responding to alfonso's post and should have quoted it.

I was also referring to HvH games.

And I'm not convinced that the 42 scenario is any more balanced that the 41 scenario! [X(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MengJiao


quote:

ORIGINAL: Angelo

Are you saying that the Germans can not win the war?

If so, why play the 41 grand campaign? You know the outcome. Whether the Soviets win in June 45 or they win April 45 does not mean much to me, the Soviets still win!

This is different, for example, that the Road to Leningrad scenario where your objective is not to win the war but accumalate victory points.

There is a active thread where the victory conditions for the campaign game is being discussed. It might shed some light on the subject.


Yes, the Germans cannot win the war against a reasonable Soviet player. If you want to give the Axis a good shot, you should start in 1942 (which locks in a very good historical 1941) and reinforce the Germans (on grounds they pulled out of Africa early or something).





Aurelian -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 4:05:47 PM)

The Germans can win IMHO. Read the victory conditions and plan based on that.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2705668

Notice the outline he gives.




MengJiao -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 4:31:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Angelo

Sorry, MengJiao I was responding to alfonso's post and should have quoted it.

I was also referring to HvH games.

And I'm not convinced that the 42 scenario is any more balanced that the 41 scenario! [X(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MengJiao


quote:

ORIGINAL: Angelo

Are you saying that the Germans can not win the war?

If so, why play the 41 grand campaign? You know the outcome. Whether the Soviets win in June 45 or they win April 45 does not mean much to me, the Soviets still win!

This is different, for example, that the Road to Leningrad scenario where your objective is not to win the war but accumalate victory points.

There is a active thread where the victory conditions for the campaign game is being discussed. It might shed some light on the subject.


Yes, the Germans cannot win the war against a reasonable Soviet player. If you want to give the Axis a good shot, you should start in 1942 (which locks in a very good historical 1941) and reinforce the Germans (on grounds they pulled out of Africa early or something).




No the 1942 scenario is no better for the Axis, but it may be less frustrating. It would also make some sense historically to alter the scenario to give the Axis more troops assuming they pulled out the Afrika Korps and did not send troops into Tunisia.

Plus, both sides get to attack in 1942 (I did a 1942 scenarion starting in April so that the Russians have an offensive up their sleeves).

Anyway, I recommend starting in 1942 for players that find 1941 too frustrating. I found 1941 frustrating just thinking about it.






Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 4:46:55 PM)

Well,

the game is interesting, but as long as it has the major problems i will not buy it (and i bought nearly all other games about the eastern front)

why?

it is simple....

the aproach to the historical results are broken (nobody needs to be offended, just my pov)
why?
For a game the historical results should be the average result. So in the east 1941 a average axis player should reach nearly the same front lines and the same results, if played historically. Same is true for the russian side.
If it is nearly impossible to get as far as the axis did AND the game needs to tweak hard coded better results by the blizzard, it is not good. Point. I bet the crew had a lot very good points about it. But for the people who want to play, both sides should have the chance to do BETTER as historical results.

In the moment everything i read say that the germans are dead after winter, cause the army is anhilated...
maybe they do not tell the truth, because i do not play the game i can only share the experiences they describe.

Sure, we have 20/20... but this is true for both sides... axis players try to avoid the german mistakes and russian players try to avoid the russian mistakes.
Why do we need strange rules that kill the fun and the playability (for the axis side) of the game?

If someone belive, the evil nazis had only luck and in normal circumstances, they should have gone only as far as kiew (or in the case of german wehrmacht-fans, that the russians under all circumstances should be destroyed after 10 weeks) he is wrong.

My opinion is, the players should find out the best way to perform better...

and this game is - as far as i see it so unbalanced, that the historical german results are "near perfect with big mistakes by russian player"... so i have no interest in it. Sadly, i need to wait until "Generals edition" or even for WitE-2
But the big problem with the game will be repeated in WitW, if the team thinks that the historical result is not "average" outcome.

it isnīt important if someone belive that the result x is right or wrong - but in the moment nearly all (!) russian AND axis players stop the aars in the blizzard.

I was really disappointed that the weather was even worse to WitP (here we have more weather-zones). I hoped for weather-result for each hex instead of zones but i was shocked about the "one weather for all"-Result.
That is - honestly - silly. In the northern area (leningrad) it could be cold with snow and ice and in the southern area it is mud. Even in summer it should be mud, wet,clear, dusty.... in an area about 5-10 hexes...
With blizzard all about the map the gc is not playable... because if you tone down the weather you make a big mistake, but if you do it the way it is, it is also a big mistake.
canīt say that i know how difficulty it is to redo the weather in the game. But to belive that in 2000km distance the weather is the same is , err, i canīt and i wonīt say the words.

Many other things are not customer-friendly, but can be solved. But not so the weather-problem, esp. with blizzard.

So, if someone is frustrated because he give a lot money and canīt play the most interesting scenario, this is a major problem.

The good thing is, that matrix does listen to the users and do solve problems (if they can solve them) so this part of the critism is utterly wrong. Matrix is a company with extremly well known behaviour

So i hope for winter 2011, maybe in this time the game is playable (Grand Scenario!, not the smaller scenarios.... they will work, but they are not my interests for this game (i think they are a nice addon to the "real" game (GC 1941))

But i waited 10 years, so i can wait another one :)




MengJiao -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 4:57:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well,

the game is interesting, but as long as it has the major problems i will not buy it (and i bought nearly all other games about the eastern front)

why?

it is simple....

the aproach to the historical results are broken (nobody needs to be offended, just my pov)
why?
For a game the historical results should be the average result. So in the east 1941 a average axis player should reach nearly the same front lines and the same results, if played historically. Same is true for the russian side.
If it is nearly impossible to get as far as the axis did AND the game needs to tweak hard coded better results by the blizzard, it is not good. Point. I bet the crew had a lot very good points about it. But for the people who want to play, both sides should have the chance to do BETTER as historical results.

In the moment everything i read say that the germans are dead after winter, cause the army is anhilated...
maybe they do not tell the truth, because i do not play the game i can only share the experiences they describe.

Sure, we have 20/20... but this is true for both sides... axis players try to avoid the german mistakes and russian players try to avoid the russian mistakes.
Why do we need strange rules that kill the fun and the playability (for the axis side) of the game?

If someone belive, the evil nazis had only luck and in normal circumstances, they should have gone only as far as kiew (or in the case of german wehrmacht-fans, that the russians under all circumstances should be destroyed after 10 weeks) he is wrong.

My opinion is, the players should find out the best way to perform better...

and this game is - as far as i see it so unbalanced, that the historical german results are "near perfect with big mistakes by russian player"... so i have no interest in it. Sadly, i need to wait until "Generals edition" or even for WitE-2
But the big problem with the game will be repeated in WitW, if the team thinks that the historical result is not "average" outcome.

it isnīt important if someone belive that the result x is right or wrong - but in the moment nearly all (!) russian AND axis players stop the aars in the blizzard.

I was really disappointed that the weather was even worse to WitP (here we have more weather-zones). I hoped for weather-result for each hex instead of zones but i was shocked about the "one weather for all"-Result.
That is - honestly - silly. In the northern area (leningrad) it could be cold with snow and ice and in the southern area it is mud. Even in summer it should be mud, wet,clear, dusty.... in an area about 5-10 hexes...
With blizzard all about the map the gc is not playable... because if you tone down the weather you make a big mistake, but if you do it the way it is, it is also a big mistake.
canīt say that i know how difficulty it is to redo the weather in the game. But to belive that in 2000km distance the weather is the same is , err, i canīt and i wonīt say the words.

Many other things are not customer-friendly, but can be solved. But not so the weather-problem, esp. with blizzard.

So, if someone is frustrated because he give a lot money and canīt play the most interesting scenario, this is a major problem.

The good thing is, that matrix does listen to the users and do solve problems (if they can solve them) so this part of the critism is utterly wrong. Matrix is a company with extremly well known behaviour

So i hope for winter 2011, maybe in this time the game is playable (Grand Scenario!, not the smaller scenarios.... they will work, but they are not my interests for this game (i think they are a nice addon to the "real" game (GC 1941))

But i waited 10 years, so i can wait another one :)



The basic problem isn't with the game, it's with the fact that most Axis players don't want to accept the fact that the Germans did extraordinarily well in the historical 1941 and winter 1942. This makes it very frustrating for Axis players to play campaigns starting in 1941.

It will at least be less frustrating to start in 1942.




alfonso -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 5:11:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Angelo

Are you saying that the Germans can not win the war?

If so, why play the 41 grand campaign? You know the outcome. Whether the Soviets win in June 45 or they win April 45 does not mean much to me, the Soviets still win!

This is different, for example, that the Road to Leningrad scenario where your objective is not to win the war but accumalate victory points.

There is a active thread where the victory conditions for the campaign game is being discussed. It might shed some light on the subject.


I am saying that historically it was much more likely for the Axis to lose the war than to win the war. If we believe that this game should be as historically accurate as possible, the only way to give the Axis a 50% chance to "win" is to create victory conditions aimed at that objective.

Another option would be to give the Axis an additional two millions soldiers, or using the Panthers and Tigers from 1941, or begin mass-production of Me-262 in 1942, remove the USA from the game so more production is available for the East Front, or....etc etc etc




Klydon -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 5:31:36 PM)

Part of the issue is the definition of "winning" is different depending on who you ask. If the Germans can't outright defeat the Russians a good percentage of the time, then some will feel the game is "broken" because in their view, they feel the Germans should have been able to do this. Those that feel this way have no interest in measuring German "victory" by how long it takes the Russians to capture Berlin by the end of the game (if they do at all). In addition, this type of player is likely to quit after it becomes clear that the Germans can't win outright. The Russian version of victory is a little more clear cut and that is can you do better than historical to force the Axis out of the war?

The Pacific side is far more clear cut as most Japanese players know they can't win an outright victory and are fine with "victory" as defined by how well the Allies do compared to the time line.

In reality, the German chances for outright victory in the east would have been fairly low although I rate them higher than the chances of Japan to win an outright victory in the Pacific. The chances of a negotiated settlement on the eastern front were higher during 1941/first part of 42 and Stalin even considered this according to one source I have seen recently, but of course Hitler wanted no part of a settlement when he thought the Germans were close to victory. The game doesn't reflect this and I don't know that it should since the Axis player is not playing the role of Hitler and there are other political reasons the Nazi's would have likely never accepted a settlement short of what they planned for Russia anyway.

Bottom line is German players expecting a 40-50% chance of outright victory are deluding themselves. They need to look at the victory conditions and play accordingly.




Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 5:50:51 PM)

Well - it is your opinion that the axis did extraordenary well...

i think (reading a lot books about it) they surprised the russians, achieved very good results cause the german troops performed good, Stalin caused a lot trouble and they had sometimes luck.
But also the huge problems about the real war goals, no war plan and hitlers decisions caused a lot trouble for the germans.

If the russian player do better as historically (that is easy if you have no stalin) but also the germans do better as historically (no hitler, you decide for the whole front!), the germans still should reach historical results, maybe even more (leningrad could fall if the schwepunkt is here, the russians did well in the northern sector, here the germans were just way better as the russians. a good game should reflect this. So if the russian player want to defend leningrad better, with more troops, this should have an serious impact at other parts of the frontline.

Same is with more german failures (in the game), this should improve the russian situation. But if the russians are in better shape, their army should be the difference, not the "blizzard-feature", that destroy the german army, even if the russians do nothing.

I want to play both sides, if i buy the game, so i am no fanboy here. i just see historical results not so singlesided as some others here do.

Another problem with the game is the "troops withdraws"... they are historical, but i donīt belive that the germans withdraw critical troops in a moment they can achive a huge victory (say Div X can conquer leningrad but is withdrawn, cause historically this divison (at AGC) was to be replaced by another division. Sounds stupid for me. This is another thing that do favour the sowjet side...

And sorry no - if the game has no functional 1941-scenario, it is not worth to buy it. At last for me.
Other people see it different, but the idea is, to be better as historically, if this is not possible the game IS broken. (it doesenīt matter what side it is that canīt do it "better" as historical)




Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 6:04:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Part of the issue is the definition of "winning" is different depending on who you ask. If the Germans can't outright defeat the Russians a good percentage of the time, then some will feel the game is "broken" because in their view, they feel the Germans should have been able to do this. Those that feel this way have no interest in measuring German "victory" by how long it takes the Russians to capture Berlin by the end of the game (if they do at all). In addition, this type of player is likely to quit after it becomes clear that the Germans can't win outright. The Russian version of victory is a little more clear cut and that is can you do better than historical to force the Axis out of the war?

The Pacific side is far more clear cut as most Japanese players know they can't win an outright victory and are fine with "victory" as defined by how well the Allies do compared to the time line.

In reality, the German chances for outright victory in the east would have been fairly low although I rate them higher than the chances of Japan to win an outright victory in the Pacific. The chances of a negotiated settlement on the eastern front were higher during 1941/first part of 42 and Stalin even considered this according to one source I have seen recently, but of course Hitler wanted no part of a settlement when he thought the Germans were close to victory. The game doesn't reflect this and I don't know that it should since the Axis player is not playing the role of Hitler and there are other political reasons the Nazi's would have likely never accepted a settlement short of what they planned for Russia anyway.

Bottom line is German players expecting a 40-50% chance of outright victory are deluding themselves. They need to look at the victory conditions and play accordingly.



Really... look at the big mistakes of the germans... if you say the russian side will avoid their own mistakes (in this case, why would the russian army rush all these troops in the army, if they do not loose so many troops so early? - another problem, like in WitP - here the allies get the historical numbers, a good japanese player (say he kills 3 Divisions on ships, sink 10 battleships, 20 cruisers, 50 AP, 100 destroyers and 5 carriers with low losses until june 42) has huge advantages, but if this would happen in real live, the americans build even more battleships, cruisers, carriers and - most important - will send more troops (spared for europe) to the pacific), they are the axis not also allowed to avoid their mistakes?
Historically the russians needed a lot help, pressure in the west and millions of losses to defeat the german army, that had made so many mistakes.

Victory is not "Hakenkreuz"-Flag at the ural, but e.g. the dnjeper-line in 1945 defended by german troops in good shape.

in the moment nobody belive that the "best" axis players can do such a thing.

If matrix say "every result that is not german-army-crushed-by-russians-latest-in-june-44 is a failure" the game is broken.

i say:
100% Games, equal skills for both sides:
5% german autovictory
15% german victory (as described by me)
60% draw (russians in berlin around may45/june 45, nearly the historical losses)
15% russian victory (russians in berlin before dday)
5% russian autovictory (russians in berlin latest dec 43

But if a good german player meets an average russian player, the last one should get kicked like a good japanese player can kick an average allied player in witp.

The definition of "kicking around" is flexible - but if the average russian player with mistakes can beat any german player, the game has big problems.

In the moment this happen only in blizzard-time.

Ths problem kill any game, is the same for new games (WitW)...
BEFORE developing the game, the goals of gameplay need a intensive look. And the players should know exactly, what the company belive is "historical" true and what is the average outcome




alfonso -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 6:11:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well,

the game is interesting, but as long as it has the major problems i will not buy it (and i bought nearly all other games about the eastern front)



Just curious...mmm...but...what is the useful purpose of coming into the WITE forum to announce everybody that you are not going to buy WITE?




Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 6:17:33 PM)

hm, wrong question
i am interested in the game.. i played pac war... c64 :)

i said, i do not buy the game as long as it has the big "noho-problems". I hope matrix will solve the problems so i can buy it (as a good customer)

i am also just curious, why do you try to avoid the aspects i spoke about? Maybe you do not like the answers you have to give?

Matrix is a great company, but they have problems with this game. At last if you read the  posts of long-term-players and that nearly nobody do an aar because of the blizzard-problem.

I also wrote that i can only say things about the problems described by users here. So tell me, what is your problem? i am happy if i can help you with it :)




alfonso -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 6:24:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

i am also just curious, why do you try to avoid the aspects i spoke about? Maybe you do not like the answers you have to give?



In reality, even if I agreed with you in everything you said, I would have exactly the same curiosity about your motivations.

Now, knowing there is none, I have zero problems with you.




Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 6:35:53 PM)

hm, propably my english is to bad... could you explain it?

oh, you still did not say a word about the game and its "problems" from the pov of a lot people here. Is everyhing wad?
Could you explain me and the others why we are just not able to recognize the "truth"?
after all, you said that everything is fine and the historical results are "best german play"...

as i said... this problem is serious and i think the customers should know exactly what they buy. I want a huge sucsess for matrix to make more good games (i hopefully will buy and play)
In the moment we have game-balancing themes in wite and we had em in witp admirals edition. here scenario2 solved a lot problems, but the pacific war was really onesided. Do you belive the war in russia was the same?




alfonso -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 6:53:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

hm, propably my english is to bad... could you explain it?

oh, you still did not say a word about the game and its "problems" from the pov of a lot people here. Is everyhing wad?
Could you explain me and the others why we are just not able to recognize the "truth"?
after all, you said that everything is fine and the historical results are "best german play"...

as i said... this problem is serious and i think the customers should know exactly what they buy. I want a huge sucsess for matrix to make more good games (i hopefully will buy and play)
In the moment we have game-balancing themes in wite and we had em in witp admirals edition. here scenario2 solved a lot problems, but the pacific war was really onesided. Do you belive the war in russia was the same?


probably, not as one-sided as the historic Pacific War. But rather one-sided in any case.

I have not said that historical results are best german play, I said it was rather lucky for the Germans to be in a position to launch a powerful Case Blue. With perfect historic Soviet and German "play" after 22 June 1941, I think Axis would be probably in a worse position than the one it had in June 1942. But well, this could lead to some lengthy debates, and perhaps they are a little bit off-topic

The game: Ok, your purpose is warning future costumers. You can be right in all you have said about the problems of the game. I have seen a lot of harsh criticism to this game, but somehow the common denominator of all them was the goal of making the game better. I did not observe that goal in your post, but now I see that you have a philantropic interest in future costumers, and that is very OK

PS: Checking your post record, I have found that you are the author of the enlightened opinion that the Dutch people deserved the World Soccer Cup South-Africa 2010 more than the Spanish people. Please believe me there is nothing personal between us: blame Iniesta and Casillas, not me!






marty_01 -> RE: Testing WITE (3/1/2011 7:48:24 PM)

I actually purchased DNO when it was first released -- I mean literally first released. I bought it by mail order for a whopping $15. First edition was tons of fun -- but I wouldn't call it perfectly polished. GDW did in fact produce several sheets of errata following the games initial release. Incorporating Errata into DNO was simply part of playing the game. We adjusted to the game based upon the various errata issued by GDW and went on our merry way with playing the thing.

Same again occurred after the first release by GDW of Unentschieden. Errata sheets were in fact released by GDW after that games release as well.

There were also many rule changes and rule additions by GDW to DNO along the way as the original DNO\ Unentschieden evolved into the Europa Series -- ala fighter patrol, terror bombing, etc. Re-issue of game maps and game counters for DNO\Unt was also done in later editions of the game. To imply that DNO was somehow flawless out of the box is sort of a distortion of history.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875