RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (Full Version)

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



Message

herwin -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/14/2011 6:47:11 PM)

Drive on Stalingrad had similar problems, which made it unplayable.

The issue seems to be that the line gets fortified too quickly and easily. Then the Soviets have been given a crowbar to overcome the fortifications on the German side. It doesn't smell like what we know from playing OCS and reading the post-Cold-War histories. (Or in my case from reading the Soviet military literature.) Model the logistics, and you probably will do better.

The German anti-infantry defence relied on a combination of firstly a light infantry screen anchored by MGs to acquire targets for the artillery and block the advance of the Red Army infantry and, secondly, artillery to suppress and kill the Red Army forces once they took cover. The anti-tank defence relied on direct fire AT weapons, and was more important than the infantry or artillery in defining the front covered by a division.

The Red Army attack relied on quantity, which had a quality all of its own.



Ketza -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/14/2011 7:36:21 PM)

Actually the more that I think about after reading some very passionate musings by the players the most important thing is that Matrix continues to improve this amazing game.

I can see myself playing this for a very long time and can hardly wait for the ramblings of players lamenting about how overpowered the allied airforce is in 1944 [8D]



karonagames -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/15/2011 12:30:21 PM)

quote:

Good to see you back BigA!


Back lurking, but not playing.....yet.



molchomor -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/15/2011 11:04:41 PM)

I think axis players give up as the replayability is simply too low due to the inflexible nature of the axis side. You see early on how things will turn out and there is not much to do about it, to change the trend once the Soviets get the initiative. Examples: No possibility to adjust production to the current most critical needs. No bonus whatsoever by capturing oil/fuel/resources, so scratch that option too. No possibility to adapt your air strategy to the current situation and actually use your air superiority (e.g. switching from bombing airfields to breaking those armored Soviet spearheads with concentrated tankbuster plane divisions that currently kill nothing wearing a tin foil hat or better). No possibility to help minor allies holding collapsing frontlines by giving them increased exports (e.g. most of my Romanian airgroups have 0 planes and have so for a long time (years), my Finns lack armaments that I have mountains of etc.). Boosting "firebrigade" units in some spots are difficult as they will refuse to use proper and available German equipment (instead craving the one or two captured SU-122s in the pool, while ~300 tigers and king tigers are collecting dust in showrooms in Berlin).

Conclusion: This is a very good historical simulation, and that is what it is.





Wild -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 12:17:13 AM)

Agreed, and in my opinion that is what it should be. For others mileage may differ.



kirkgregerson -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 4:26:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: molchomor

I think axis players give up as the replayability is simply too low due to the inflexible nature of the axis side. You see early on how things will turn out and there is not much to do about it, to change the trend once the Soviets get the initiative. Examples: No possibility to adjust production to the current most critical needs. No bonus whatsoever by capturing oil/fuel/resources, so scratch that option too. No possibility to adapt your air strategy to the current situation and actually use your air superiority (e.g. switching from bombing airfields to breaking those armored Soviet spearheads with concentrated tankbuster plane divisions that currently kill nothing wearing a tin foil hat or better). No possibility to help minor allies holding collapsing frontlines by giving them increased exports (e.g. most of my Romanian airgroups have 0 planes and have so for a long time (years), my Finns lack armaments that I have mountains of etc.). Boosting "firebrigade" units in some spots are difficult as they will refuse to use proper and available German equipment (instead craving the one or two captured SU-122s in the pool, while ~300 tigers and king tigers are collecting dust in showrooms in Berlin).

Conclusion: This is a very good historical simulation, and that is what it is.





Amem!
+1

The part about having Rom air groups with 0 planes(Italians even worse situation) is really annoying the crap out of me. Especially since I have some German air frames in the hundreds for the pool. Is this WAD? If not it's ridiculous and how about patching thse types issues before coming up with some lipstick on the UI. I could give a damm about the new new UI feature for showing HQ lines links on the map (shift Z or something). How about working on some of the issues/bugs that people keep complaining about? I'm just not sure what or why some things with WitE are not getting priority. Very frustrating. I know the devs are reading this, have seen no action recently on the major issues people are demonstrating. I'll just have to hope play testing with testers is why some fixes are taking longer. Which I can understand with a game this complex.



saygame -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 5:07:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

Wouldn't you need a historical 1941 for a historical 1942 to develop? I don't think the Germans would have been able to launch a second campaign season as successfully as they did if the Soviets didn't lose so many troops in 41 in the first place.

I think Gradenko hit it right smack dab on the head way back in this thread with this two sentence post. [&o]

To expect that one may elimnate the (many and massive) Soviet errors committed alongside accurate rearview mirror historical vision and still expect a historical '42 German offersive carrying to the Caucauus is, to me, ludicrous.

If one desires a '42 German offensive affording close to what actually happened one has to either play the '42 scenario (which has those '41 results factored in inherently) or the game system must "straight jacket" players into committing Soviet errors alongside Soviet limited command and control. Same goes for German strategic blunders and their historical effects as the campaign progressed as well.




herwin -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 7:19:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: molchomor

I think axis players give up as the replayability is simply too low due to the inflexible nature of the axis side. You see early on how things will turn out and there is not much to do about it, to change the trend once the Soviets get the initiative. Examples: No possibility to adjust production to the current most critical needs. No bonus whatsoever by capturing oil/fuel/resources, so scratch that option too. No possibility to adapt your air strategy to the current situation and actually use your air superiority (e.g. switching from bombing airfields to breaking those armored Soviet spearheads with concentrated tankbuster plane divisions that currently kill nothing wearing a tin foil hat or better). No possibility to help minor allies holding collapsing frontlines by giving them increased exports (e.g. most of my Romanian airgroups have 0 planes and have so for a long time (years), my Finns lack armaments that I have mountains of etc.). Boosting "firebrigade" units in some spots are difficult as they will refuse to use proper and available German equipment (instead craving the one or two captured SU-122s in the pool, while ~300 tigers and king tigers are collecting dust in showrooms in Berlin).

Conclusion: This is a very good historical simulation, and that is what it is.





Amem!
+1

The part about having Rom air groups with 0 planes(Italians even worse situation) is really annoying the crap out of me. Especially since I have some German air frames in the hundreds for the pool. Is this WAD? If not it's ridiculous and how about patching thse types issues before coming up with some lipstick on the UI. I could give a damm about the new new UI feature for showing HQ lines links on the map (shift Z or something). How about working on some of the issues/bugs that people keep complaining about? I'm just not sure what or why some things with WitE are not getting priority. Very frustrating. I know the devs are reading this, have seen no action recently on the major issues people are demonstrating. I'll just have to hope play testing with testers is why some fixes are taking longer. Which I can understand with a game this complex.


AIR, all the Axis allies used German planes.



Tarhunnas -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 8:47:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: molchomor

I think axis players give up as the replayability is simply too low due to the inflexible nature of the axis side. You see early on how things will turn out and there is not much to do about it, to change the trend once the Soviets get the initiative. Examples: No possibility to adjust production to the current most critical needs. No bonus whatsoever by capturing oil/fuel/resources, so scratch that option too. No possibility to adapt your air strategy to the current situation and actually use your air superiority (e.g. switching from bombing airfields to breaking those armored Soviet spearheads with concentrated tankbuster plane divisions that currently kill nothing wearing a tin foil hat or better). No possibility to help minor allies holding collapsing frontlines by giving them increased exports (e.g. most of my Romanian airgroups have 0 planes and have so for a long time (years), my Finns lack armaments that I have mountains of etc.). Boosting "firebrigade" units in some spots are difficult as they will refuse to use proper and available German equipment (instead craving the one or two captured SU-122s in the pool, while ~300 tigers and king tigers are collecting dust in showrooms in Berlin).

Conclusion: This is a very good historical simulation, and that is what it is.





Amem!
+1

The part about having Rom air groups with 0 planes(Italians even worse situation) is really annoying the crap out of me. Especially since I have some German air frames in the hundreds for the pool. Is this WAD? If not it's ridiculous and how about patching thse types issues before coming up with some lipstick on the UI. I could give a damm about the new new UI feature for showing HQ lines links on the map (shift Z or something). How about working on some of the issues/bugs that people keep complaining about? I'm just not sure what or why some things with WitE are not getting priority. Very frustrating. I know the devs are reading this, have seen no action recently on the major issues people are demonstrating. I'll just have to hope play testing with testers is why some fixes are taking longer. Which I can understand with a game this complex.


As a onetime developer, even game developer, I understand that some things are easy to do (HQ lines for example i guess), while other things require more work or more testing to make sure they do not have unintended consequences. I am sure our input is read and appreciated, but there are probably no easy fixes for a lot of things that annoy us players. Add to that that some things annoy some people more while others are annoyed about other things, it is hard to satisfy everybody. That said, I think some more feedback from the developers like "We have seen this problem and we will see if there is some way to fix it, no promises, no timeframe" would alleviate a lot of the frustration.



speedy.gh -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 9:18:42 AM)

As the German opponent of Heliodorus04 in the -10 handicap game, I want to state that I didn't asking for stopping the game. It was you the one asking for finishing the game, despite I was willing to go on. By the way, I have already isolated Leningrad in turn 15 and was adjacent to Moscow that turn. Despite of this facts, I agree with many of the things you say, but it is not fair saying you get me to quit.

EDIT: I can not analyse and discuss our game (in a meeting now ;-), but will be very please to do so later on in this thread.




heliodorus04 -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 10:53:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: speedy.gh

As the German opponent of Heliodorus04 in the -10 handicap game, I want to state that I didn't asking for stopping the game. It was you the one asking for finishing the game, despite I was willing to go on. By the way, I have already isolated Leningrad in turn 15 and was adjacent to Moscow that turn. Despite of this facts, I agree with many of the things you say, but it is not fair saying you get me to quit.

EDIT: I can not analyse and discuss our game (in a meeting now ;-), but will be very please to do so later on in this thread.



Hmm, maybe there was a translation error, then, because it sure looked to me in the last e-mail you sent that you were the one wanting to quit, which is why I resigned it. You're saying this, in public, is very hurtful to me.



mmarquo -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 12:47:00 PM)

"Since I wrote that I have somewhat embarrassingly broken through the Soviet lines in my 1942 campaign and is now merrily crossing the Don with the panzers in open country, but that is another matter..."

But the game is broken and the Axis can't possibly mount a decent offensive in 1942...and reach Stalingrad... [X(] 


Marquo



Mynok -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 2:41:54 PM)


quote:

Hmm, maybe there was a translation error, then, because it sure looked to me in the last e-mail you sent that you were the one wanting to quit, which is why I resigned it. You're saying this, in public, is very hurtful to me.


You started it.




gradenko2k -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 3:06:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: saygame
quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

Wouldn't you need a historical 1941 for a historical 1942 to develop? I don't think the Germans would have been able to launch a second campaign season as successfully as they did if the Soviets didn't lose so many troops in 41 in the first place.

I think Gradenko hit it right smack dab on the head way back in this thread with this two sentence post. [&o]

To expect that one may elimnate the (many and massive) Soviet errors committed alongside accurate rearview mirror historical vision and still expect a historical '42 German offersive carrying to the Caucauus is, to me, ludicrous.

If one desires a '42 German offensive affording close to what actually happened one has to either play the '42 scenario (which has those '41 results factored in inherently) or the game system must "straight jacket" players into committing Soviet errors alongside Soviet limited command and control. Same goes for German strategic blunders and their historical effects as the campaign progressed as well.

To expound a bit on my previous post, I'd consider it a game mechanics problem if the German player isn't ever able to inflict the same manpower/territory loss as in the historical campaign to put him in the same relative position for a 1942 campaign, even in the presence of a Soviet player who reacts as history did. I'd consider the First Winter rules to be an example of this, as the harsher initial implementation meant that the Germans would always suffer a much worse counter-attack.

I'd also consider it a game mechanics problem if the German player is capable of dealing the same manpower/territory loss as was historical, but cannot manage a 1942 campaign anyway.

However, if it isn't any of these, then the inability of the German player to obtain close-to-historical 1941 results can mostly be chalked up to the Soviet player having the benefit of complete freedom combined with historical hindsight. That the Germans are unable to execute a close-to-historical 1942 and further may be traced back to the Soviets coming out of 1941 much healthier (and they almost always will).

As I've also said before, some games take away the former (freedom-of-movement) from the Soviet player so that they're semi-forced to make semi-historical mistakes anyway, to help the Germans along in obtaining close-to-historical results without directly mucking around with how combat works. An example of this latter concession would be "shock" values, or even WITE's own first-turn rules, though those are much "weaker" relative to how other games do it.

Having said all that, I will admit that the point about rampant Forts-building may be an issue of the "can get to historical 42, but can't manage anyway" variety, since a Soviet player that suffers the same amount of manpower and territory loss as historical might have much more powerful defensive belts across the AGS anyway.



Mynok -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 3:12:00 PM)


There are several AAR examples of Germans making substantial 42 offensives without static'ing 2/3 of their army and without reaching 41 lines. In fact, I've rarely seen an AAR that reaches the 41 lines, especially in the south and Crimea. The north is almost invariably better than historical.



speedy.gh -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 3:21:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

Hmm, maybe there was a translation error, then, because it sure looked to me in the last e-mail you sent that you were the one wanting to quit, which is why I resigned it. You're saying this, in public, is very hurtful to me.


You started it.





Right. I will copy the e-mails later on (they are at home), as this was a final answer trying to be nice to Heliodorus04 resistance to go on.



gradenko2k -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 3:21:41 PM)

How practical is it to static-mode two-thirds of your army anyway in a 41 campaign that gets to 42? I was under the impression that most of the 1942 scenario units are set to static not because the devs particularly expected that you'd do that in normal play, but more to represent the German commitment of attacking AGS and the Soviets being caught with their pants down on where the attack was going to happen.

As for the in-game performance of AGN vs. AGS, I'd say that's as much influenced by the in-game value of Leningrad as anything else.



Empire101 -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 3:29:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Drive on Stalingrad had similar problems, which made it unplayable.



Perhaps, but it sure was fun rolling on the Fuhrer carpet chewing chart !!! [:D]



kvolk -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 4:18:20 PM)

FYI in the ways to improve game thread post #277 the fort issue is addressed by Sabre21.



speedy.gh -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 5:15:09 PM)

Just to finish this and demostrate I did not get out of the game I will copy the 4 last e-mails we had:

quote:

Heliodorus:

Well, looks like you'll get Leningrad. Nice job.
Did you want to stop playing at this point?
Both of us are short on time right now, and I wouldn't consider it a wasted game if we took our lessons and moved on. But if you are enthused about continuing, we can.


quote:

Speedy:

If it is because my current pace, I’m sorry, but each turn needs a lot of thinking and analysis of the tactical options to be able to advance in a very messy front. This means time and now I’m a bit short of it. I’m getting fun and frustration (same amount more or less) from our current game, but if you want to stop the game, of course, it is ok. This is for fun, it should not be an obligation.



quote:

Heliodorus:

I'm still enjoying our game, I just wish I hadn't taken on an Admin and Morale penalty.

I also just don't have the time to play WitE as much as I thought I would. So if you're okay playing a slow game the way we are with 1 or 2 turns per week, then I can keep at it until the game itself (not our campaign) becomes too repetitive. I'm finding that I've played for 7 months, and maybe I'm tired of it and need to move on to something else, you know?

But I'll keep at our game till I can't face it anymore.


quote:

Speedy:

No, Dane, no problem. We can stop now. It’s been really fun and instructive and it is a good point end it.

Then now I’ll go for reading your AAR about our game.


I think it is pretty clear I did not ask for stopping the game, even though I only pushed very slightly to go on. It is true Heliodorus was playing with a handicap of -10 in admin, morale and forts and my pace was not that quick. Therefore, it was not longer being fun for him and nicely accepted to stop it. That's all.



Ketza -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 5:18:37 PM)

[sm=00000613.gif]



heliodorus04 -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 5:30:59 PM)


I wish Carlos well.
We had a misunderstanding apparently.



Joel Billings -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 6:04:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

As a onetime developer, even game developer, I understand that some things are easy to do (HQ lines for example i guess), while other things require more work or more testing to make sure they do not have unintended consequences. I am sure our input is read and appreciated, but there are probably no easy fixes for a lot of things that annoy us players. Add to that that some things annoy some people more while others are annoyed about other things, it is hard to satisfy everybody. That said, I think some more feedback from the developers like "We have seen this problem and we will see if there is some way to fix it, no promises, no timeframe" would alleviate a lot of the frustration.


Yes, we do read the forum, as do the testers, and most/all issues that get brought up here get talked about in the tester forum and among the dev team. Please realize as stated above that not only are some of the issues raised very difficult to address without risk of breaking other things, there is quite a long development time to make changes, test changes, put them out to the public and then see how they play out. We only now have the first AAR games getting to 1942 that started using a 1.04 version (and during these past 2 months, there have been changes to 1.04 that could impact these results). We are very close to making the latest 1.04 version the official version of the game. In the meantime, testers have already started playing around with some experimental combat/morale code that attempts to address some of the issues that have been brought up having to do mostly with combat after 1941. However, this code impacts 41 as well, and we need to be very careful that in trying to address issues in 42-45 we don't screw up 41. There has also been a lot of discussion regarding forts. There have been many suggested changes in the public and tester forums for how to alter the fort rules. Of course, there are many different views about what's wrong with the forts, if anything. Some want to make low level forts worth less, some want to make high level forts harder to get, some want to make forts limited to x hexsides, some want to make some forts cost APs, some want to reduce fort building in mud, and others want to make sure the Germans don't lose their ability to build forts. It's not like everyone is lining up behind one change. We are looking at it and may make some changes in the future, but forts are only part of the puzzle and need to be considered along with the other changes being worked on. In the meantime, the more AARs of games that start with 1.04 and reach 42 and beyond, the better the chance we will make the right change if/when one is made.

I think we've shown over the past six months that we are dedicated to improving the game over time as we can based on the results we are seeing. Since we plan on using this game system in future products, we have an incentive to keep improving it. At the same time, we think the game provides hundreds of hours of fun gameplay over many scenarios, both against the AI and other players, and we don't want to screw that up by over reacting to the latest "the game is broken" post. We do appreciate the input that players give us on the forum, and we especially appreciate the AAR's that players post that give us a chance to see the game in action.



Lieste -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 6:28:16 PM)

Forts should greatly reduce the kill/damage effectiveness of indirect artillery, but not so much for direct fire artillery/tanks etc (direct hits are still effective, just harder to achieve with IDF (ISTR a figure of at least x10 for ammunition expenditure on average). No effect on the decisive hand-hand segment if it gets that far - both units are within the same terrain compartment and cover is less important/favours both equally.

This should dramatically reduce the effect of Soviet prepared offensives, while not breaking the ability to launch smaller scale efforts on relatively lightly defended areas with limited artillery support.

Artillery should be very strongly limited by logistic shortages, which should be common-place rather than special cases.



kirkgregerson -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 7:08:05 PM)

I apologize for my comments regarding changes in the battle engine and production, this was out of frustration of my own making. I do understand some changes have to go through a much longer process and can't be changed overnight. We all do need to be grateful and recognize that WitE has a development team dedicated to making changes to help improve the game as well as testers to do the dirty work and answer our questions. These facts give me confidence that WitE will improve over time and patience is a virtue. [:)]

In the future I will try and filter out my frustrations and try and better help facilitate changes with my game experiences, documented historical references, and any larger sampling I'm able to do.

Joel brings up a good point that no matter what changes occur, it's impossible to satisfy every one of us on every aspect of the game. Where there's a general consensus and historical motivations, I feel the changes will eventually occur to benefit us all.

Taking a step back, I think we're all spoiled already with how great a game WitE already has been. Just think where you'd be in your computer gaming if WitE never existed? What would you be playing? IMO, we're all spoiled with WitE.





Ketza -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 8:17:29 PM)

There is a reason why 90% of my gaming dollars get spent at Matrix. Its a solid company that cares about customer service and constantly improving its games.

I think people take the time to make AARs and stay active on the forums because they can all see this game engine has a ton of potential.

If some of us get a little passionate thats a good thing. People get passionate about things they care about and like to see improved because the foundation is there for improvement and long term enjoyment.

If the forums were dead then the game would be dead.



Flaviusx -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 8:40:28 PM)

We are hashing over the fort issue, like Joel sez. (Have been for a very long time, in fact.) It's proving to be remarkably difficult to nail down. Everybody has a different idea on what to do with them, and arriving at a consensus has thus far eluded us.




wpurdom -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/16/2011 10:17:57 PM)

To me the most pertinent criticism in this thread is the equality of ZOC's under all circumstances, regardless of the respective strength, morale, or mobility of the respective units. I recognize that addressing it would probably be a bear, and if addressed, it might have all sorts of balancing issues, but I would like to see either some variation in the effect of a ZOC or some percentage likelihood of an "overrun" negation of zone of control. For a fractional brigade or regiment to have a similar impact to a corps or full-size panzer division just isn't right. A lot of the "army of ants" effects are tied up in this always predictable ZOC effect.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/17/2011 10:42:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
It's not like everyone is lining up behind one change.


Well don't forget about us, the silent or not so loud majority/minority who think that forts basically work fine already.

There are other things in game that need improvement, but forts in my opinion are not one of them.

Don't let the people (German players) who played only till 42 make you nerf the forts, because then those same people will whine again when their German games get deep into 43 and suddenly it's them (Germans) who need forts for the rest of the war.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: The most important thing to fix WitE's playability (6/17/2011 10:47:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: molchomor
I think axis players give up as the replayability is simply too low due to the inflexible nature of the axis side. You see early on how things will turn out and there is not much to do about it, to change the trend once the Soviets get the initiative.


That is correct, but that is something Axis players should know in advance, when starting PBEMs!

The same thing was in WITP - Japanese players knew it's 6 months of rampage, followed by 3 years of slow retreats and catastrophic defeats.

Yet, in WITP most Japanese players accepted that fate before starting the long campaign, and many played (daily turns!) till 43 or 44, until Allies got ahead on VPs or until, in fact, it was them, the Japanese who were winning because of doing better than history. Why can't we have solid group of reliable Axis players who will try to win the war in 45, instead of zerg rushing it in 15 turns?



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875