quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin
Welp I wish I had some comfort for you. It seems like you are saying Hey I took Sicily despite losing most of my army! I win!! But it doesn't look like you are putting that victory in the context of the rest of the war where all of those guys that got thrown away for the "victory" in sicily were needed to fight in france and Germany etc.

The thing is I didn't lose most of my army. They were pretty beat up but no units actually were destroyed. I just had higher casualties than the Allies had historically. Apparently it was enough to give the Axis a points victory even though they lost the whole island. I see what you're saying about context and I did put my victory into context with the rest of the war. Even in a complete war scenario, I can replace my losses and the Axis can't. The Allies can afford a war of attrition. The only thing they would have to worry about are the political repercussions of sustaining high casualty rates. As I said, any American commander throwing away American lives would have been replaced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin
Welp I wish I had some comfort for you. It seems like you are saying Hey I took Sicily despite losing most of my army! I win!! But it doesn't look like you are putting that victory in the context of the rest of the war where all of those guys that got thrown away for the "victory" in sicily were needed to fight in france and Germany etc.

The thing is I didn't lose most of my army. They were pretty beat up but no units actually were destroyed. I just had higher casualties than the Allies had historically. Apparently it was enough to give the Axis a points victory even though they lost the whole island. I see what you're saying about context and I did put my victory into context with the rest of the war. Even in a complete war scenario, I can replace my losses and the Axis can't. The Allies can afford a war of attrition. The only thing they would have to worry about are the political repercussions of sustaining high casualty rates. As I said, any American commander throwing away American lives would have been replaced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zakblood

i still haven't got actively involved in the game and the discussions as yet, as i still don't own the game either, it's a Christmas present from my girlfriend so will have to wait a while longer, but my take on this thread and topic are as follows...

the price is good and fair... for the amount of time and effort that's gone into it and still is, and will be for the next 4 to 5 years at least, with patches and fixes and upgrades etc...

you can't put a price on support, not at any cost!

while the game on release may not be perfect for every ones taste, it's not full of bugs etc either, for me it's still maybe a tad too hard for the beginner like me as i still haven't managed to finish one battle in WITE so i know this won't be a part time game either, so may just sit there on my drive for a few months or year maybe or so, which is no problem either for me or my games, as time can always be found later for good stuff, and by then a few more issues may have been ironed out, changed or updated etc... or a patch or 2 down the road, after some more tweaking, as these games always need the tweaks and lets be honest the developers always tinker a lot anyway so i'm just glad it's at least been released as they do tend to keep adding and altering bits etc as they are all gamers as well, and are never truly happy with anything released either and are alwasy thinking of doing more stuff, which is the main reason we all like there games[;)]


so lets keep up the fight, with the right people, in game and not on the forums and say merry Christmas to all involved and a big thank you and hope you all have a happy new year, as you all deserve it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: sitito
Which is the objective base to say that the price is fair? Someone pointed this to me before and he was right. Why not 800$ for a 3 years of hard work? Why? it’s very subjective. And u don’t even have the game. First try the product, then divide the cost for the hours of fun and enjoyment. That’s how i rate the worth of a product. Wite was cheap using this parameter. Very cheap. A bargain. Witw is too high. And I don’t really need to force me to play this hours and hours as I wrongly said before. No. With one week i know exactly my feelings playing this game. The sensation of boredom will remain. As a german and as the allies. Again we are in the subjective realm. For me it’s a desing and timeframe issue. And i know its hard for the guys who had work with passion in this game to read these things. I know and im not smiling saying it. Im not coming here to say like a child “uuu don’t like don’t like uuu’ Nooooo. When they announce witw I thought that the whole scale was a mistake and was wrong for the kind of game they were planning. Maybe when War in Europe is ready, in global is a superb product..dont know, maybe. But at the end, in my opinion, I was correct for this concrete game. It’s a good western front 43-45 simulation game, with a lot of improvements such as logistics (a 10 out of 10) and air warfare, deep and plenty of new stuff and tweaks, and bugs aside, a really fine work… (have to say that the ia turns runs quite slowly in my pc) but lacks something crucial for me: enjoyment and fun, which wite had in tons. No matter the complexity of the games, all can be reduced to a matter of pleasure and enjoyment. And if im taking my FREE time to come here and tell the devs this its because I love their previous jobs and I don’t want they think that everyone is in love with the new baby and they are on the right path. No. For me no. The scale also don’t suits fine for France ’40 (a campaing of 6 turns?), Yugoslavia (2 turns?), Greece, Poland and of course for North Africa. No way. With the same Wite scale will become boring campaings. Its not a matter of being a german fanboy and when the blitzkrieg arrives everything is going to be fine. No. it’s a scale desing matter. Western and eastern fronts are completely different. But hey if everyone is happy with the game, have fun. Im back to other things also in the eternal search of wargaming fun. Lots of products in the market. its not a big drama. And If the devs are sure of their ideas and with the progress of war in Europe I wish them good luck. I hope they hit a home run. Sincerely. Im very thankful for the endless hours of satisfaction they have provide me in the last decade. Probably more than my wife has [:D].... Honey, if u are reading this, obviously i was kidding...[:-] [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

quote:

ORIGINAL: sitito
Which is the objective base to say that the price is fair? Someone pointed this to me before and he was right. Why not 800$ for a 3 years of hard work? Why? it’s very subjective. And u don’t even have the game. First try the product, then divide the cost for the hours of fun and enjoyment. That’s how i rate the worth of a product. Wite was cheap using this parameter. Very cheap. A bargain. Witw is too high. And I don’t really need to force me to play this hours and hours as I wrongly said before. No. With one week i know exactly my feelings playing this game. The sensation of boredom will remain. As a german and as the allies. Again we are in the subjective realm. For me it’s a desing and timeframe issue. And i know its hard for the guys who had work with passion in this game to read these things. I know and im not smiling saying it. Im not coming here to say like a child “uuu don’t like don’t like uuu’ Nooooo. When they announce witw I thought that the whole scale was a mistake and was wrong for the kind of game they were planning. Maybe when War in Europe is ready, in global is a superb product..dont know, maybe. But at the end, in my opinion, I was correct for this concrete game. It’s a good western front 43-45 simulation game, with a lot of improvements such as logistics (a 10 out of 10) and air warfare, deep and plenty of new stuff and tweaks, and bugs aside, a really fine work… (have to say that the ia turns runs quite slowly in my pc) but lacks something crucial for me: enjoyment and fun, which wite had in tons. No matter the complexity of the games, all can be reduced to a matter of pleasure and enjoyment. And if im taking my FREE time to come here and tell the devs this its because I love their previous jobs and I don’t want they think that everyone is in love with the new baby and they are on the right path. No. For me no. The scale also don’t suits fine for France ’40 (a campaing of 6 turns?), Yugoslavia (2 turns?), Greece, Poland and of course for North Africa. No way. With the same Wite scale will become boring campaings. Its not a matter of being a german fanboy and when the blitzkrieg arrives everything is going to be fine. No. it’s a scale desing matter. Western and eastern fronts are completely different. But hey if everyone is happy with the game, have fun. Im back to other things also in the eternal search of wargaming fun. Lots of products in the market. its not a big drama. And If the devs are sure of their ideas and with the progress of war in Europe I wish them good luck. I hope they hit a home run. Sincerely. Im very thankful for the endless hours of satisfaction they have provide me in the last decade. Probably more than my wife has [:D].... Honey, if u are reading this, obviously i was kidding...[:-] [:D]

Your problem is that you read (presumably) the description of the game, bought it, and then started a thread saying you were disappointed by the game, and cited having won the training scenario (except you didn't), then called the game boring.

Your reason for it being boring? Wrong scale for the Western Front. You then (having wanted the chance to attack as Germany) correctly pointed out that even France, the Balkans, and so on will be too short in this system so a 1940 expansion wont help.

Why am I thinking of someone who has bought a Porsche 911, and then complains about a lack of boot (trunk) space and high running costs; "I can get to the supermarket much more cheaply and carry the shopping much better in a Toyota"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bamilus

Just butting in to say I am thoroughly NOT disappointed. I bought WITE on release but was always intimidated by the game. The set-up of the WITW manual, tutorial videos, and player's guide are a huge step up from WITE (although WITE still has a great manual and is a great game!). Honestly, the manual/player's guide should be a benchmark for future wargames. Brilliantly done and very professional. Also thoroughly enjoying the game. Cheers to everyone who helped develop, produce, and test this game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
'Just had higher casualties...'
So, capturing and holding ground is the only thing that is important? Have you even read accounts of WW2? You do know that by Aug/Sept 1944, the British army was disbanding units to provide replacements? That Hitler would have done a whole lot better if he had allowed a more flexible defence (trading land for troops)? Based on your remarks, I do not see how you can relate to any wargame that isn't an even, fair fight. I was going to cite a couple of RL even fights (at army level), but I am struggling. North Africa 1941 (post-Rommel's arrival) to Late 1942 might be viewed as fair/even. But in reality it was anything but. It might have looked as if it swung evenly to and fro, but it was Allied all the way. Rommel did well when other factors weakened the British (diversion to Greece etc, with only Tobruk as a real exception). Once he did well, the Allies just increased strength again. Logistically Germany never had a chance in the Eastern Med, unless they had taken Malta, and even then they would have just extended the war. Ultimately the Torch landings would have sorted whatever was happening in Egypt (or Syria or where ever they had got to by then)

Thus I think you are over simplifying things. WW2 was an economic war. The armies (and Airforces) were just the point of application. Once Hitler invaded USSR (a vaste sink into which the entire resources of the USA could probably have been sunk without decisive result), he was never going to win (even just against UK - that was quite nicely stalemating by 1942, thanks to Uncle Joe). The only variable was would it take more or less time, more or less casualties than history.

By some measures, Russia won the second world war - yes they suffered hugely, but look where they ended up by 1947-8. In control of all of eastern Europe and large areas of the rest of the world (influence in Vietnam, Korea, China etc). They had reached the height of their power and influence, and were much better positioned than at any time in their history. USA second, UK third, Axis last. Now, it is rather lucky for us all that the USA (and allies) then comprehensively won the cold war but thats a different topic...

WitW gives the chance to alter that (as Allies), or delay/alter it as Axis. The war could easily have gone on a couple of years longer. It could possibly have been shorter. The Allies really got Italy wrong, and defeating Kesselring rather than dancing to his tune is probably the best way. All of this makes for a good game in my book.

However if its not your boat, bad luck. However I do not think WitW is anything other than we were promised, and does not suffer (IMHO) from not covering 1940-1943)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Well you could play Germany for the Allies to capture Berlin [:)] That is different historically. Plus there are many other strategic options that are in the game that you can do differently as either side.

Can the Germans 'win' at this point, no. But you can do better than the historical record.

But no matter what game you play, the Allies always have the 'I win' button in the A-Bomb. Only in HoI can you start early enough to really have an impact on things. Otherwise as soon as the Germans crossed the Polish border in '39, they lost the war. Just no one knew it yet [:)]

So unless a game has some way to keep the US sidelined (and supplying goods to Japan) no matter what you do in a game, you will lose as the Axis.

So even in games that start in '39 all you are still doing is trying to do better than history. So I'm not sure why you are complaining about this one when it is doing the same thing. Other than not letting the Axis run even more amok than what they did historically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skacee
Hello all,
I have to say, that I played this game till 3 am morning as a Germans - the West Wall scenario, because it was so much fun and Allies got their Stalingrad (Arnhem) debacle.

After it I am not so negative about predetermination to lose as a German - at the end 44 they still could hurt significantly Allies.

The Allies launched quite succesfull Market Garden operation and reached Amsterdam on the way. But it cost them whole mobile group of 3-4 corps, because the got surounded and slowly destroyed by "weak nad boring to play" divisions via determined bold counterattack.

I dont have the impression that as a German I have to sit a go back to German at all.
At the end the kicking side was Germans. What I like was the maneuvring and tactical play which was not possible in real history due the leaders. Definitelly not boring, nor dissapointing with a lot of possibilites.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



1939: Germans have the initiative and Allies can only respond.
1940: Germans have the initiative and Allies can only respond. Any signs of French initiative will be met with cries of "ahistorical" until beaten down with a nerf bat.
1941: Germans think they have the initative...but Allies are allowed to make stupid mistakes to give them that illusion.
1942: Nothing to see here, move along.
1943: War in the West.

Not sure exactly at what point in the war you have allies = axis. I think what we have here is a classic example of initiative envy.

It's war. You do what you can with what you have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



1939: Germans have the initiative and Allies can only respond.
1940: Germans have the initiative and Allies can only respond. Any signs of French initiative will be met with cries of "ahistorical" until beaten down with a nerf bat.
1941: Germans think they have the initative...but Allies are allowed to make stupid mistakes to give them that illusion.
1942: Nothing to see here, move along.
1943: War in the West.

Not sure exactly at what point in the war you have allies = axis. I think what we have here is a classic example of initiative envy.

It's war. You do what you can with what you have.

So I guess you make the exact same moves that were made historically when you play. The minute you make your first move the game becomes ahistorical if you do just one thing different. The Germans did have the initiative and the Allies did respond. But under the right set of circumstances the Allies could have actually won. What if the Allies attacked while Germany was still in Poland? What if the Allies were better prepared in France in 1940? What if the Allies hadn't made "stupid mistakes" in 1941? Those are the types of things that I play war games to explore. I don't see those same type of what ifs being able to be explored in WiTW. I see an Allied side, loaded for bear, constantly on the attack and an Axis side on the defensive hanging on for dear life. There's nothing to really explore. There's no "Can you save Germany and turn the tide of the war" moment. The Axis can't invade or bomb strategically. The best you can do is shift units around, counterattack and hope to inflict "better than historical" casualties" to gain a points win. It's gaming the system and you still lose the war. It doesn't mean that WiTW is a bad game or that I hate it. I'm playing the hell out of it. I just don't think there's enough to keep me interested during this time period.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zakblood

well 47 this year tbh but already retired so nearly 50, so middle aged, too much time and plenty of gaming still left to do

[;)][8|][:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: zakblood

i'm disappointed as i still haven't got it yet[:(]