RE: Im the only one disappointed?

RE: Im the only one disappointed? (Full Version)

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

Message

warspite1 -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 1:25:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 But a World War II game that doesn't involve Germany in the Soviet Union is a fantasy game. A non Soviet campaign or a Germany does better than expected campaign could be added in addition to a historically accurate could all co-exist. It would give players variety to suit their tastes. warspite1 A matter of taste of course - the latter would be palatable personally, the former not at all. Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was. Then one can argue that Greece and the Balkins should be off limits for any potential Allied invasion in 43+. The Americans would never tolerate it. They were suspicious of Churchill believing he was more interested in preserving empire. The other reason to recapture as much of Eastern Europe before the Soviets was something that simply didn't resonate with the American public or political and military leadership. warspite1 Churchill's wish to pursue a Balkan strategy was nothing to do do with preserving Empire.

warspite1 -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 1:30:03 AM)
.

sfbaytf -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 1:30:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 But a World War II game that doesn't involve Germany in the Soviet Union is a fantasy game. A non Soviet campaign or a Germany does better than expected campaign could be added in addition to a historically accurate could all co-exist. It would give players variety to suit their tastes. warspite1 A matter of taste of course - the latter would be palatable personally, the former not at all. Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was. Then one can argue that Greece and the Balkins should be off limits for any potential Allied invasion in 43+. The Americans would never tolerate it. They were suspicious of Churchill believing he was more interested in preserving empire. The other reason to recapture as much of Eastern Europe before the Soviets was something that simply didn't resonate with the American public or political and military leadership. warspite1 Churchill's wish to pursue a Balkan strategy was nothing to do do with preserving Empire. May be true, but at the time to many in the American camp it was believed to be the case or part of the motivation and perception is often reality. Times and attitudes were far different back then. The special relationship between the British and America we share today was not the same back then.

warspite1 -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 1:33:27 AM)
No - they thought, with justification, it was putting off Overlord - NOT pursuing Empire (which we never had in the Balkans).

sfbaytf -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 1:35:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 No - they thought, with justification, it was putting off Overlord - NOT pursuing Empire (which we never had in the Balkans). Fair enough.

dereck -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 2:01:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 No - they thought, with justification, it was putting off Overlord - NOT pursuing Empire (which we never had in the Balkans). Fair enough. Though Churchill - and the British - included politics in war which the US didn't. Churchill forsaw Stalin taking over eastern Europe and wanted to prevent it. (At least my take on it)

warspite1 -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 2:30:47 AM)
Churchill understood Stalin that is certain - and he certainly did not want Greece falling under Russian "influence" in the post-war world. But I think the biggest driver for Churchill's strategy was a fear of launching a cross-channel invasion too early. Churchill was all too aware of what meeting German troops in an unprepared state (Norway, France, Greece, North Africa) could end up like.

sfbaytf -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 2:40:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: miller41 I am treating Germany's position in this game like i do Japan's in WITE-AE. You are going to get overwhelmed in the end, so winning to me is fighting the good fight and making the allies take longer. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, as some players like advancing and conquering but Germany in 43 just is not in a position to do that except locally. The joy I get out of all these games is the chance to tinker with historical outcomes. I have read about all of these campaigns since I was a kid playing boardgames like Battle for Germany, and love military history, so getting a chance to do this on a computer is worth it and these are well made games by people who do there best to make them realistic and playable. Not to many publishers doing that these days[;)] It takes a certain type of player to play a losing side. I could never do it in WitP-AE and don't think I could in WitW in its current form. I do love playing the losing and disadvantaged side in h2h Combat Mission games and will gladly play them against some opponents I know and trust who will honor the no reporting of the game just so they can run up their scores. At least I get to see some mayhem and its fun to inflict it. I don't quite get the same feel with high level strategic sort of games. The feedback and feel is just different.

dereck -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 2:40:28 AM)
That is so true. Although it (in my opinion) looked like Churchill leading the Americans by the nose he and the British chiefs of staff were very correct that the allies weren't ready for a cross-channel invasion in 1942 or 1943. Another reason why Churchill resisted the cross-channel invasion until the very end was the British memory of the casualties they took in WWI and the fear of repeating that.

bairdlander2 -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 3:05:15 AM)
It is possible to "win" as Axis based on points.

Aurelian -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 3:08:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 But a World War II game that doesn't involve Germany in the Soviet Union is a fantasy game. A non Soviet campaign or a Germany does better than expected campaign could be added in addition to a historically accurate could all co-exist. It would give players variety to suit their tastes. warspite1 A matter of taste of course - the latter would be palatable personally, the former not at all. Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was. Then one can argue that Greece and the Balkins should be off limits for any potential Allied invasion in 43+. The Americans would never tolerate it. They were suspicious of Churchill believing he was more interested in preserving empire. The other reason to recapture as much of Eastern Europe before the Soviets was something that simply didn't resonate with the American public or political and military leadership. First of all, there was no empire to preserve in the Balkans, Second, the American way of war at the time was the shortest, most direct, way to win the war. Through France was the best way.

sfbaytf -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 3:19:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 But a World War II game that doesn't involve Germany in the Soviet Union is a fantasy game. A non Soviet campaign or a Germany does better than expected campaign could be added in addition to a historically accurate could all co-exist. It would give players variety to suit their tastes. warspite1 A matter of taste of course - the latter would be palatable personally, the former not at all. Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was. Then one can argue that Greece and the Balkins should be off limits for any potential Allied invasion in 43+. The Americans would never tolerate it. They were suspicious of Churchill believing he was more interested in preserving empire. The other reason to recapture as much of Eastern Europe before the Soviets was something that simply didn't resonate with the American public or political and military leadership. First of all, there was no empire to preserve in the Balkans, Second, the American way of war at the time was the shortest, most direct, way to win the war. Through France was the best way. No disputing any of the above, but at least in some accounts Americans were suspicious of the British motives at the time. My point in the above no Balkans invasion was in reference to the "Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was." That is correct, but I took it as meaning that WitW should not have alternative campaign scenarios where players could explore alternative campaigns. May just be a complete misunderstanding.

KWG -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 3:38:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mesquite5 I would love to see some what if scenarios, such as "no huge Axis loss at Stalingrad", "retreat of Afrika Korps from Tunisia","victory at Stalingrad", or maybe "better handling of the Luftwaffe prior to this game." Not far fetched. Can these and other suggestions be made in the editor?

Aurelian -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 6:40:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf My point in the above no Balkans invasion was in reference to the "Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was." The invasion of Russia was inevitable. It is what Hitler wanted, spelled out in his first and I think second book. All his writings and such through out the pre war years pointed to it. Russia had everything Germany did not have. Living space for an overcrowded nation, resources to feed the industries. Tens of thousands of acres of farmland to feed the people. (The book Wages of Destruction goes into great detail about that.) An invasion of the Balkans was not, and could not be. The British could not go it alone, and the US was not going to divert the resources away from a cross Channel attack. If anything, baring a D-Day, the emphasis could of very well shifted to the Pacific. Something that Admiral King, who controlled the landing craft, wanted. And are the Balkans even playable in this game? Are the divisions that were there in the game? I don't have it yet so I don't know. How are you going to deal with the Soviet advance into the Balkans when that happens? If and when War in Europe comes out, you'll be able to do what you want.

Kel -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 9:30:05 AM)
On paper everything is better, and I am sure that a lot of work went in WitW. But something (what? that is the key question) just does not feel right : no tension, no excitement, not much interest. I do not regret putting some money in it however, because it fuels the development of the system and having WitW behind us brings us one step closer to the good game I trust WitE II will be.

LiquidSky -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 9:54:32 AM)
I can't see how anyone could be disappointed in the game, it hasn't been out long enough to become disappointed...

sitito -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 10:33:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kelblau On paper everything is better, and I am sure that a lot of work went in WitW. But something (what? that is the key question) just does not feel right : no tension, no excitement, not much interest. I do not regret putting some money in it however, because it fuels the development of the system and having WitW behind us brings us one step closer to the good game I trust WitE II will be. Amen. I suscribe nearly all your points. Same thinking here. But i dont agree in everything: i dont quite understand why the devs did not develop in a row the whole western campaing game (39-45)Theyve got the map and the system ready... It will have give the much needed alternance and excitement to the product. They didnt do that in the pacific. Dont remember seeing WIPT 41-42, and then 43-45. Well that was many years ago when the business was still pure. Now its a plum to sell thousands of dlcs and modules...Much more profit. So dont be too much excited about wite 2. First they have to sqeeze the western golden goose eggs with a module of naval system; poland, france, Weseberung, Greece, Africa...Thats how the world works today...You transform a 100$ product in one of 300$. Not being critic or crying. Nobody put me a gun in the head when a bought the game. Im big enough to choose my decisions. But thats how things are...sadly. Its witw 43-45, half campaing, mutilated, and without naval system and production worth 80$?? [:-]

warspite1 -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 11:12:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sitito quote: i dont quite understand why the devs did not develop in a row the whole western campaing game (39-45).......Now its a plum to sell thousands of dlcs and modules...Much more profit. So dont be too much excited about wite 2. First they have to sqeeze the western golden goose eggs with a module of naval system; poland, france, Weseberung, Greece, Africa...Thats how the world works today...You transform a 100$ product in one of 300$. quote: They didnt do that in the pacific. Dont remember seeing WIPT 41-42, and then 43-45. Well that was many years ago when the business was still pure. quote: warspite1 That's quite a cynical post. Look at the sheer scale of the European War. Surely modelling 1941-45 in the Pacific is a much "easier" proposition than Europe 39-45 with all the vagaries contained within...what happens if the timescale goes off track? There are a huge number of variables to model and program, from the very first attack on Poland, then there is Norway, the Low Countries, France, The Balkans, intervention in the desert - before you even get to Barbarossa. So many options, so many possibilities - how long would it take to devise systems for that and then to play test everyone of them? Maybe the developers thought, no way could we get something out and working on something that size within 10 years (The infinitely less problematic and relatively straightforward WITW took 4-years if I have read correctly). In addition to the land "stuff", the economy, there is the politics to devise and model, there is a whole new naval system to work out. So was the decision purely all about the evils of making money [When the business was still pure. Really??] or was it about the real world and the need for companies to keep cash flow rolling in while they develop new, and ever more complex games for our enjoyment? Taking the second point, my understanding is that the highly complex monster WITP-AE came from the already established WITP. So a) in terms of money, the company was already earning and b) it made the Admirals Edition easier as they were not starting from scratch. Not being a critic? Yes you are; and that's fine if that's how you feel but then don't make out you are not. How things are? Yes in the real world companies need to make money and where the returns are limited (because of a niche product) that means the cost in production has to be tightly managed. There is nothing new in that. That's simple economic reality.

SigUp -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 11:14:26 AM)
Get real man. 2by3 consists of how many full time people, three? You are asking Gary, Pavel and Joel to develop another naval system for another couple of years with no new income generating product in between? They didn't do that with WITP? I guess you must have missed the progression from Uncommon Valor to WITP to WITP-AE with War Plan Orange in between. [8\|]

sitito -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 11:19:55 AM)
Yeas you're right im being cinical and critic. Its true. But i think there is a solid base in what a think. A know its a complex subject. And i know that 2by3 its not Ubisoft. Right. But c'omon 5 more games in the western? or 4?

warspite1 -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 11:20:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sitito quote: ORIGINAL: Kelblau On paper everything is better, and I am sure that a lot of work went in WitW. But something (what? that is the key question) just does not feel right : no tension, no excitement, not much interest. I do not regret putting some money in it however, because it fuels the development of the system and having WitW behind us brings us one step closer to the good game I trust WitE II will be. Its witw 43-45, half campaing, mutilated, and without naval system and production worth 80$?? [:-] in my humble and idiotic opinion...of course. 40$ would have been the right amount...but m8 they saw the sky open when wite came out and it turned into a massive hit... warspite1 And in response to your edits: Who says $40? Based on what? What market research are you privvy to to "know" that and, by implication, Matrix are fleecing the specialist war gaming public (such that it is) with rip-off pricing?

sitito -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 11:31:52 AM)
Maybe im wrong guys. Dont know. Maybe u are right. Its possible im seeing this subject with the wrong eyes. I will think about. Sincerely. I see your points. No real base for the 40$ and yes didnt think too much about before witp...Maybe it was a very simplistic and stupid view for my part. And trully dont being cinical.

HMSWarspite -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 12:06:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tevans6220 I'm sort of with the OP a little. The game is great but the scenarios aren't all that compelling to me. With WiTE and WiTP AE, the Axis forces can actually run wild for a year or two. In WiTW scenarios, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Allied side will win. No running wild by the Axis here as the Allies pretty much have the initiative and keep it. There's really no back and forth as in AE or WiTE. Maybe different scenarios in the form of DLC or expansions will change things but until then it is kind of boring playing as the Allies. I've played Operation Husky at least a dozen times as the Allies and never came close to losing. Played it a couple of times as the Axis and got beat pretty badly. Played the Air War scenario. It's almost impossible to lose as the Allies. I know the game has only been out a week, but in my opinion, it needs a better variety of scenarios. North Africa, Norway and France 40 come to mind. There was a lot of back and forth in those campaigns. Punch and counterpunch. In the stage of the war that WiTW currently represents the Axis is overmatched and stays overmatched. It's not as fun as WiTE or WiTP where as the Axis you can throw your weight around but know eventually the Allies can and will turn things around. You do know that Husky is the training scenario, right? Have you played it on Challenging AI with FOW on... the GE will retreat immediately to the Etna line and are very difficult to shift economically... First time I played I hadn't really even got them to start evacuating the island by turn 7. But that is beside the point; play a larger campaign. The choices as Allies are huge, and thus the decisions for Germany are equally huge. Are they going to do Anzio? Or even Husky? Do I contest Sicily seriously or just a fighting retreat... I am playing the 43 campaign as Allies. Based on locating 3 reinforcement PG and a Pzr Div in Sicily, I am completely revising my timetables/plans. I was going to take Sardinia in Mid August, then Italy in Sept. Now I am working out how to trap what is a very strong PzK - almost a full Pz Group (HG, 16Pz, 15PG, 90PG, 29PG, 3PG, not to mention a Pz Bde) in NE Sicily. Not to mention how on earth to shift them with the supplies I can get in... I would reinforce 8th Army but I cant get enough supply in through the damaged ports. I need to move my amphib task forces to NA to a bigger port to prepare to invade the Boot, but this cuts port capacity further. Catania was a mess when I got it, ditto Syracuse. If I take the temporary size 2 ports out before I repair them, Panzer Amree Sicily could probably roll me back in to the sea! How is that not interesting? Oh, and love the railway limits. Was shifting 5th Army east to Tunis... 1 corps maxes out the railways! :) You have to walk the rest. Oh how Wite needs the logistic changes in WitW

RedLancer -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 12:08:29 PM)
As a moderator can I draw a small line under this discussion. As someone with a little insight into the process I observe it is driven by what is possible in the time rather than squeezing the last penny out of the wargaming community. Many of us involved are volunteers. If I magically added the volunteer element professional hourly rate to pay for every hour us volunteers have spent on the game then you could probably add at least a zero to the price or double the time to deliver if we went on strike for improved conditions. That said it has taken three years to add the improved logistics, map, air war, amphib etc beyond WitE. Alongside the programming is hours and hours of research into the data and scenarios. If you add in more functionality, complexity and a wider timescale then the time taken to product release increases exponentially.

warspite1 -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 12:18:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Red Lancer Many of us involved are volunteers. If I magically added the volunteer element professional hourly rate to pay for every hour us volunteers have spent on the game then you could probably add at least a zero to the price or double the time to deliver if we went on strike for improved conditions. warspite1 As one of those unpaid volunteers involved (albeit only in a small way) in MWIF, I fully appreciate the effort that goes into the making of these monster games. I may have reacted a little strongly toward the OP but its just too easy to rubbish people's efforts, so felt it necessary to step in. I've said my piece on this subject.

sitito -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 12:22:53 PM)
Thanks for the info Red. Well i was completely out of line. Sorry for adding the new subtopic to the main one. I have to stop thinking that all the companys are like Ubisoft. My mistake. Its unfair.

Banquet -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 12:30:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite The choices as Allies are huge, and thus the decisions for Germany are equally huge. Are they going to do Anzio? Or even Husky? Do I contest Sicily seriously or just a fighting retreat... I am playing the 43 campaign as Allies. Based on locating 3 reinforcement PG and a Pzr Div in Sicily, I am completely revising my timetables/plans. I was going to take Sardinia in Mid August, then Italy in Sept. Now I am working out how to trap what is a very strong PzK - almost a full Pz Group (HG, 16Pz, 15PG, 90PG, 29PG, 3PG, not to mention a Pz Bde) in NE Sicily. Not to mention how on earth to shift them with the supplies I can get in... I would reinforce 8th Army but I cant get enough supply in through the damaged ports. I need to move my amphib task forces to NA to a bigger port to prepare to invade the Boot, but this cuts port capacity further. Catania was a mess when I got it, ditto Syracuse. If I take the temporary size 2 ports out before I repair them, Panzer Amree Sicily could probably roll me back in to the sea! How is that not interesting? Oh, and love the railway limits. Was shifting 5th Army east to Tunis... 1 corps maxes out the railways! :) You have to walk the rest. Oh how Wite needs the logistic changes in WitW Great post. The logistics system in WitW takes what could have been an invade and conquer type wargame and makes it so much more. Perhaps Germany can't win in the sense that it can invade London but there are still so many ways to bog down the Allies. The options available to both sides are fascinating.

Baelfiin -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 1:07:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Red Lancer As a moderator can I draw a small line under this discussion. As someone with a little insight into the process I observe it is driven by what is possible in the time rather than squeezing the last penny out of the wargaming community. Many of us involved are volunteers. If I magically added the volunteer element professional hourly rate to pay for every hour us volunteers have spent on the game then you could probably add at least a zero to the price or double the time to deliver if we went on strike for improved conditions. That said it has taken three years to add the improved logistics, map, air war, amphib etc beyond WitE. Alongside the programming is hours and hours of research into the data and scenarios. If you add in more functionality, complexity and a wider timescale then the time taken to product release increases exponentially. Well Said John

HMSWarspite -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 1:17:29 PM)
To extend the discussion for those worried that it is like WitE Germans in 1943-45 (i.e. slow boring push back); so is WitW less or more flexible/varied in outcome/events than WitE? I would say it is much more varied! In WitE, June 1941, the Germans run amok - huge offensives, huge Soviet losses. But there is one, maybe 2 choices to make for the Germans, and after that it is 'execute the plan - do it right and you might win, do it wrong and you've lost'. The choices are basically 'to Lvov or not to Lvov', and Moscow in late 1941, or hold back, damage Sovs, so its fall in the 1942 offensive is inevitable'. Almost any other choice is a null one. Most of the debates about balance have been around 'can Germany do enough damage to Russia by late 1941 to carry on and win in 1942?' So: to summarise - to win, Ge goes for Moscow and Leningrad. Do it wrong, or be outplayed and thats game over. Likewise the Russian choices are 'slow the Germans down economically without losing 2m prisoners'. Then build up, and nibble back for 2 years from 1943. The choices are roughly 'which side of the head to punch'. There is little scope for creative planning, its all in the execution for both sides. Now, I am aware that WitE has been optimsed for years and hence a lot of dead ends have withered away, whilst WitW has not, but I suspect there will always be choices. To pick one... Calais or Normandy. Over time the idea German defence for each will doubtless be identified. But I don't think both will be possible, and thus we will always have the choice - Germany guesses wrong, and will suffer. Thus the best hybrid defence will emerge. But do the Allies need to Invade in the north in May/June 1944? What about reversing Anvil/Dragoon and Overlord? Is it possible to stop southern France being overrun whilst defending the Atlantic wall? Not a clue. I suspect it might be (at the expense of weakening the wall). But weakening the wall opens Allied options. Unless they committed too much south... What I am trying to say is there is 'one' way to win WitE (for each side) and correct execution is far more important than anything else because the correct plan is a given. I suspect (certainly hope) that there will not be a single plan that works in WitW - I think it will be a case of flexibility, agility and responsiveness that will work - combined with a bit of Lizard-Spock. Convinced your opponent will invade Normandy, and got the courage to secretively weaken PdeC? Go for it, you deserve to win big. The flip side is you will lose big as it should be. I can not see a WitE German saying 'Leningrad and Moscow are for wimps, I am going to surprise Stalin... 1, 2,3rd PzrG vorwarts to Stalingrad. We will be there for Easter 1942!' Well, I might, but my opponent could only lose if he laughs too much to play properly! Just my 2p to get this debate somewhere more interesting... Oh, and this is a completely different game guys, come on in, the water is lovely!

Smirfy -> RE: Im the only one disappointed? (12/13/2014 1:40:41 PM)
Wrong thread mate :)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.609375