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...

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".

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

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

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.)

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.

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).

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).

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 :)

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.

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.

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)

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?

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?