Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (Full Version)

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



Message


apoll -> Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/5/2014 8:59:10 PM)

Hello. I thought I'd post to let those who are considering whether to get this game know that it is really worth the entry price; one doesn't see these sort of games come along too often, especially one with a printed manual. My advice, having got it and started learning it, is that if you like strategy and realism, don't hesitate: jump in. And I'm not a slavish 'fanboy'; I carefully weigh up game purchases, especially ones with a decent price tag ($120 here in Australia for the manual and game)! But I 'm enjoying really getting to grips with the mechanics of the game; can't wait for the manual to arrive. So it is well worth the price IMHO.

To the developers: the video tutorials are really helpful, and i think you should do more, both as an aid to getting g into the game, but also as a showcasing of the game for those considering it. My two bob's worth.

One question: I think it is possible to lose as the Allies? Right? Make bad choices, and the AI, let alone a human opponent, will punish tho bad choices? Haven't had it long enough to find out....

Apoll






Joel Billings -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/5/2014 9:21:46 PM)

Thanks for the comments. Yes, it is possible for the Allies to lose. In fact, you might find it hard to win a victory even though you may end the war on time. Victory isn't all about getting to Berlin (although that's a big part of it). Now if you expect the Germans to invade England you've bought the wrong game. For that, you'll have to wait for a future product. [:)]




Gilmer -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/5/2014 10:13:32 PM)

I bought it yesterday, but my two days have been filled up with interviews and phone interviews. I'm going to take a look at it tonight.




apoll -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/5/2014 10:41:13 PM)

Well yes....Joel...I don't expect the Germans to invade...not in 1943...or anytime after that. [;)] a future product, hey? That means you're going to do an add in which deals with the first part of the war in the west? When the Allies had their back to the wall. That would also involve a heavy air component...re-fighting the Battle of Britain...to see if you could do any better (I expect so...given hindsight) and it would necessarily involve a heavy naval component, since one if th main reasons the Germans were dissuaded from seriously contemplating invasion was the presence of the RN. DLC or stand alone product? C'mon....you can't drop that hint without some explanation! [:)]

Regards,

Apoll




kfmiller41 -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/5/2014 11:06:56 PM)

I think that game (early war) if made would work really well under this system, it is deep enough for the hardcore but it can be gotten into by new players[:D] and there are very few games covering that period.




Joel Billings -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/5/2014 11:12:14 PM)

We've said that we do hope in the future to create an early war game. It's on our list, and yes, it will by necessity involve a larger naval component (but not WitP level).




warspite1 -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/5/2014 11:34:19 PM)

Well I know it's early doors and WITW has only just one out BUT please - whatever you do, don't make the naval game too abstract; like task forces or suchlike. Individual fighting ships PLEASE [;)]




Numdydar -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/5/2014 11:47:40 PM)

That's odd Warsprite since you like WiF which has an abstracted naval system. There are many ways to do a naval system well that does not require individual ships. Especially in a weekly turn system.

Just guessing that they would build on the air system which behind the scenes uses 1 day 'turns'. So they would need to come up with something that would be the same are running two back to back two three day turns without any input from a player. Would you really want individual ships involved? I would not. Especially since the disparity between the Allied naval forces and Axis in the ETO is so large. If it was not for the air arm of the Axis in the Med, the entire Italian navy would have whipped out as soon as war was declared [X(]




warspite1 -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 12:00:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

That's odd Warsprite since you like WiF which has an abstracted naval system. There are many ways to do a naval system well that does not require individual ships. Especially in a weekly turn system.

Just guessing that they would build on the air system which behind the scenes uses 1 day 'turns'. So they would need to come up with something that would be the same are running two back to back two three day turns without any input from a player. Would you really want individual ships involved? I would not. Especially since the disparity between the Allied naval forces and Axis in the ETO is so large. If it was not for the air arm of the Axis in the Med, the entire Italian navy would have whipped out as soon as war was declared [X(]
Warspite1

WIF has individual ships - every ship from light cruiser up that fought in WWII. The system in WIF works very well for a strategic game - and so you get the best of both worlds, individual ships in a highly manageable, playable system.

As for the disparity - that simply isn't true. Yes the Kriegsmarine was small - but capable of tying down a large part of the RN in home waters or springing a surprise - Norway. But the Med was a different story altogether. With the assets at their disposal the RM should have given the RN a much tougher time. Swap Cunningham with Campioni and the Med in 1940/41 would have been extremely difficult place for the British. Why the Med war hasn't been properly war gamed (land and sea) I don't understand.

Then of course there is the not insignificant Battle of the Atlantic......




Numdydar -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 12:14:00 AM)

True but the sub battle was not so much with individual ships but groupings of ships, convoys, wolf packs, etc. While SURF raiders did make life challenging at times, it really was more of a side show but it was enough to tie up forces that could have been better used elsewhere.

Also in WiF CAs and below I thought represented multiple ships, not individual ones. BBs and CVs represented a pair of similar/sister ships versus individual ones.

Regardless I will have to disagree and simply say I do not want a WitP AE naval system in the ETO. The scale of naval ops really would not do it justice as AE does.

Now if we could have a '36 or earlier start for the game AND allow the Axis flexibility in their production, like Hearts of Iron does, then something like what you propose could be more viable. [:)] Since both side could have more of a naval capacity than the historical record.




warspite1 -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 12:19:22 AM)

Then we shall agree to disagree [;)]

As for WIF, with the introduction of Ships in Flames in 1996 and Cruisers in Flames later on, EVERY individual ship down to, and including, light cruiser is represented + many what-if vessels too. Heaven.

Edit: SiF is not optional in MWIF, although CLiF is. If you don't use the latter you only get to command a handful of light cruisers.




Gilmer -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 12:28:14 AM)

Who cranks up the music for the opening? I do.




Numdydar -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 12:32:46 AM)

No wonder I do not play with CiF turned on lol. I find it hard enough to keep fleets organized as it is. I just can't imagine adding even more. Especially in the Pacific [:(]

If I want that level of detail and time sink, I'd just as soon play AE [:)]

One other point to consider is after '42, there was not a lot of naval action in the ETO. Even the battle of the Atlantic was winding down starting in '43. So it just seems like a lot of effort to code something that has a very short impact. Which is the opposite of the PTO.

I think the hardest thing for a '40-41 ETO game is getting the sub war correct. Especially using weekly turns. Just glad it is not me [:D]




Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 12:36:55 AM)

Although it is very early to talk about expansion; I think the first one should be an Operation Torch start; so November 42 or a little afterwards;

this would serve as a transition from a land-air game to one in which many elements of a naval warfare game are in place but in a much limited scope compared to early war.
Of course, this can serve as a learning experience to then go "full naval" on a 39 to 45 game




warspite1 -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 12:48:31 AM)

There was not a lot of surface action after 1942 because of what had happened in 1939 - 42. The whole point is that as war gamers we try and change that! If the game starts in 1939, that's still an awful lot of naval war To be fought - even if things got leaner in the second half.

But of course had Campioni (or Supermarina) had balls, the struggle could have been continued as more RN units would have been sent to the Med to shore up a pretty dire position. Of course the big limiting factor for the RM from 1942 was the lack of oil but early Italian success may have reduced the oil expenditure by practically (if not actually) forcing the RN out of the Med.

Can't see that the difference between playing the Pacific from 42-45 and playing Europe from 39-42 is that different. Sure the battles are not the same (less carriers in the ETO), but the intensity was no less.




warspite1 -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 1:00:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Although it is very early to talk about expansion; I think the first one should be an Operation Torch start; so November 42 or a little afterwards;

this would serve as a transition from a land-air game to one in which many elements of a naval warfare game are in place but in a much limited scope compared to early war.
Of course, this can serve as a learning experience to then go "full naval" on a 39 to 45 game
warspite1

Why would Torch affect the current naval game? You could quite easily have a Torch scenario using the current abstracted system. The need for a proper (whatever that is) naval system comes with a September 1939 or June 1940 start.




Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 1:11:40 AM)

That is precisely why [:)]
I would like them to go "slow"... learn from their mistakes and get a decent naval warfare game eventually.

In all my time playing wargames, there is one game, only one, that had managed to build a decent WW2 naval war game; this is of course, WitP-AE (plus variations like War Plan Orange or the original WITP)

In all other wargames I have tried, and I played many from providers like Matrix and Paradox; the naval component had always been some kind of simplistic, poorly implemented afterthought.
I really hope this doesn't occur with WITW




Missouri_Rebel -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 1:12:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

Who cranks up the music for the opening? I do.



You should replace it with this brilliant song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJiR-3vOuZQ




Gilmer -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 1:38:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel


quote:

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

Who cranks up the music for the opening? I do.



You should replace it with this brilliant song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJiR-3vOuZQ


Boo! Haha.




sfbaytf -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 2:09:56 AM)

Anytime GG releases something its time for celebration. While Europe was not as big a naval theater as the Pacific, I would really love to see WitPAE or better naval combat come to Europe.

Come on now the hunt for the Bismarck? I would even venture to guess die hard WitPAE fanboys would enjoy seeing a wolfpack preying on a convoy. I would pay for a good naval add-on.




sfbaytf -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 2:13:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We've said that we do hope in the future to create an early war game. It's on our list, and yes, it will by necessity involve a larger naval component (but not WitP level).


Absolutely. I have both of the HPS Total War in Europe games and haven't seen anything since.

and no I don't agree with the naval component not being on a WitP level. I want better than WitPAE!




Grotius -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 5:36:58 AM)

I'm also hoping for a WITP-style naval system for the 1939-43 installment(s) of WiTW. That said, I recall Gary Grigsby saying that the toughest thing with coding WITP was the AI. AIs struggle with more complex gameplay mechanics, and an intricately-detailed naval model like WITP probably presents greater AI challenges than the land or air models in WITW.

Still, I don't demand a genius AI opponent; I just want a sparring partner. I hope they go for the full WITP-style treatment.




Erik Rutins -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 12:12:12 PM)

What will happen in the future remains to be seen, but IMHO the decision to keep the naval model abstract and model the amphibious landing TFs in WITW was the right one for the time period. As we go earlier, we'll need to add more to the naval model. I'm sure that whatever Gary comes up with for any future release will be well thought through and tested as the new air model was for this one.

Regards,

- Erik




Great_Ajax -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 2:18:56 PM)

Boo! Roll Tide!

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel


quote:

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

Who cranks up the music for the opening? I do.



You should replace it with this brilliant song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJiR-3vOuZQ





Numdydar -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 3:07:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

There was not a lot of surface action after 1942 because of what had happened in 1939 - 42. The whole point is that as war gamers we try and change that! If the game starts in 1939, that's still an awful lot of naval war To be fought - even if things got leaner in the second half.

But of course had Campioni (or Supermarina) had balls, the struggle could have been continued as more RN units would have been sent to the Med to shore up a pretty dire position. Of course the big limiting factor for the RM from 1942 was the lack of oil but early Italian success may have reduced the oil expenditure by practically (if not actually) forcing the RN out of the Med.

Can't see that the difference between playing the Pacific from 42-45 and playing Europe from 39-42 is that different. Sure the battles are not the same (less carriers in the ETO), but the intensity was no less.


Well the main naval actions did not get started in the West until France fell. So you are really looking from about Aug '40 - '42 to really have an apples to apples comparison to the PTO.

The point I was making is that given X amount of coding time, it seems that time spent in other aspects of the '39-42 period of the ETO would be a better use of resources than trying to recreate an AE experience that would only cover a brief period of time in the ETO. That's all.

While I have NO insight into 2by3, I would suspect that whatever naval system they develop would follow along the same lines of the land and air systems. Where individual ships would be assigned to some type of 'container'. Whether it be a TF or maybe a naval 'region'. So naval individual 'assets' would be represented but not at the level and functionality of AE.

Of course how they would 'fit' any naval system into a weekly turn given that most naval actions are over in hours will be interesting to see how they do it. [:)]




Numdydar -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 3:12:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We've said that we do hope in the future to create an early war game. It's on our list, and yes, it will by necessity involve a larger naval component (but not WitP level).


Absolutely. I have both of the HPS Total War in Europe games and haven't seen anything since.

and no I don't agree with the naval component not being on a WitP level. I want better than WitPAE!


The reason AE works so well is the daily turns. Since, as far as I know, all the main WitW add on periods will have to fit into the weekly turn system. While they could possibly add smaller 'extra' games with a different scale, the main extension will have to maintain a weekly cadence.




wodin -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 3:22:55 PM)

I'd buy this as we get little wargaming for this period.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We've said that we do hope in the future to create an early war game. It's on our list, and yes, it will by necessity involve a larger naval component (but not WitP level).





warspite1 -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 4:09:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

There was not a lot of surface action after 1942 because of what had happened in 1939 - 42. The whole point is that as war gamers we try and change that! If the game starts in 1939, that's still an awful lot of naval war To be fought - even if things got leaner in the second half.

But of course had Campioni (or Supermarina) had balls, the struggle could have been continued as more RN units would have been sent to the Med to shore up a pretty dire position. Of course the big limiting factor for the RM from 1942 was the lack of oil but early Italian success may have reduced the oil expenditure by practically (if not actually) forcing the RN out of the Med.

Can't see that the difference between playing the Pacific from 42-45 and playing Europe from 39-42 is that different. Sure the battles are not the same (less carriers in the ETO), but the intensity was no less.


Well the main naval actions did not get started in the West until France fell. So you are really looking from about Aug '40 - '42 to really have an apples to apples comparison to the PTO.

The point I was making is that given X amount of coding time, it seems that time spent in other aspects of the '39-42 period of the ETO would be a better use of resources than trying to recreate an AE experience that would only cover a brief period of time in the ETO. That's all.

While I have NO insight into 2by3, I would suspect that whatever naval system they develop would follow along the same lines of the land and air systems. Where individual ships would be assigned to some type of 'container'. Whether it be a TF or maybe a naval 'region'. So naval individual 'assets' would be represented but not at the level and functionality of AE.

Of course how they would 'fit' any naval system into a weekly turn given that most naval actions are over in hours will be interesting to see how they do it. [:)]
warspite1

Again we will have to disagree [;)]

Firstly, at no point, did I say I necessarily want a WITP-AE game here. I DID say I wanted every warship represented – but, as WIF proved, the two don’t go hand in hand – it’s what system you employ with all those counters that counts. Something less than WITP-AE would work – provided it’s not too abstract like Generic TF counters and the like. That would be a big mistake imo.

Re the comparison between the naval wars in the ETO and PTO, sorry but I think that is wrong too.

The naval actions were very different because of the fleets that each possessed. However, as I say, the naval war in the ETO was no less intense - and just as important for gaming purposes - no less full of possibilities.

quote:

Well the main naval actions did not get started in the West until France fell.


quote:

So you are really looking from about Aug '40 - '42
No – June.

Sorry, but again we are not going to see eye to eye on this. If by "Main" you mean capital ship actions, then yes, given Bismarck and Tirpitz were late to the party and the Regia Marina came in in June 1940, such actions were limited until then. But capital ship action is not the be all and end all of the naval war.

Allied and Axis naval personnel were fighting and dying right from the start. The Royal Navy time and again saved the Army – Norway, France, Greece and Crete. Losses were hideous – and could have been worse. Imagine if German torpedoes had worked in Norway. Assets available to the RN to defend the convoys and the Med suddenly start to look incredibly thin….

Aside from the smaller ship actions, even in the nine months to June 40 there were plenty of larger ship encounters (Graf Spee and the Ugly Sisters) and plenty of (war gaming) potential for more (Deutschland) and, with a little more luck (weather) and less meddling (by the Admiralty) there could have been a major encounters during the Norwegian Campaign (as opposed to “just” the Renown vs the Ugly Sisters then Glorious vs the Ugly Sisters). All this does not include the air vs naval battles and the sub vs capital ships (Royal Oak and Courageous).

Then, once the Italians were in the war the naval war really intensified – and the extent to which it could have intensified further (had Supermarina grown a set) makes for incredibly interesting war gaming possibilities. Then there is the French Fleet and what happens to this.

So in summary, is the ETO worth a detailed naval game? Damn right it is.

Do we need WITP-AE type detail? No, not necessarily.

This is a big decision for an early war expansion imo.





Numdydar -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 4:17:55 PM)

Coming from AE where everything revolves around naval actions, I of course did not consider the actions you listed as being included in naval actions. Which as you point out clearly should be.

So you are correct in that there a lot of naval actions outside of what is typically not seen in AE that would be of critical importance in the ETO.

And through our discussion, we have come to an agreement [:)] in that we both want a naval system that works well for the ETO but not at the AE level. I guess that means I lost since I agreed with you first [:(] ?




Gilmer -> RE: Bought it: Really Enjoying Getting into It (12/6/2014 4:18:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Boo! Roll Tide!

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel


quote:

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

Who cranks up the music for the opening? I do.



You should replace it with this brilliant song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJiR-3vOuZQ




Excellent!!




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75