Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (Full Version)

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



Message

NagyGL -> Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (1/31/2016 3:10:59 PM)

I am considering investing into a Gary Grigsby wargame for the first time, but seeing the serious commitment needed (both money and time-wise), I thought it wise to seek for the input of the community.

My background: I usually play simpler games such as OOB:Pacific, TOAW and Panzer Corps. Now I am interested in getting into more realistic stuff. I am sure I can handle complexity... but I do not have an infinite amount of time to play.

I am considering buying WitE, WitW, WitP:AE or none of them. I watched some Let's plays and read some reviews (my impressions are indeed positive for these games, with WitE seeming to be the most popular), but I still have some questions left:

1. What is the realistic time commitment of - let's say - one campaign in net hours? Is there a significant difference between these three games time-wise? (Important to me to see if I can balance this with my other commitments.)

2. I may want to play PBEM later. With which game do I have a higher chance to find opponents? Are all three communities active?

3. I have an interest in naval warfare as well, which WitP:AE has plenty and WitE has none. What about WitW? What about land warfare in WitP:AE - is it well implemented?

4. I would also ask which do you consider as the best game technically (UI, bugs, lag)?

I know that answers may differ in the WitW or WitP community, so I tried to ask questions that can be answered objectively. Still, if you have any - even subjective :) - advice, please do not hesitate to let me know.



loki100 -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (1/31/2016 3:24:57 PM)

This is hugely subjective (and I don't play WiTP) but

- a campaign in WiTE (vs AI will probably take you 6+ months), a campaign in WITW 3+ months. PBEM for WiTE - year (more or less), WiTW say 6 months. Both have lots of shorter scenarios some that you can easily play in an afternoon

- naval war in WiTW is pretty abstract. The allies have task forces that are sort of a mix between transport assets and naval squadrons, the real focus in WiTW is the air war

- both are pretty active PBEM, easy enough to find opponents

- both are pretty mature in terms of UI etc. WiTW is the more recent iteration of the WiTE game engine and has better air and logistic rules. Crashes etc are so rare as to be a non-issue.



Mehring -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (1/31/2016 3:58:48 PM)

Depends on play style, but if you get to understand and savour micromanaging the game's finer details a 1941 WitE PBEM campaign going to full term could burn 800 hours+ at an unhurried pace. How long it takes to complete depends how many turns you and your opponent can do a week. The downside to this is that patches sometimes fundamentally alter the goal posts so you might say, as Russia, evacuate east all the heavy industry you need under one game version only to find it's insufficient when you upgrade. Games don't always go to term though. Well worth it if you have the time and plenty of players spend less time.



Commanderski -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (1/31/2016 8:47:56 PM)

1. For a full campaign in WITE it can take 6 months or more, a lot shorter in WITW. For a full grand campaign in WITP I've heard it can take as long as the real war, up to 4 years.

2. You won't have any problems finding an opponent for any of those games. The AI for WITE and WITW is the best there is and will give you a very good fight. Once you have played on the Normal levels to get the hang of the game mechanics you can adjust the various aspects of the opposing AI and it will make it very challenging for you. I think the vast majority of people play against the AI and a lot of us have been playing since it first came out.

3. For naval activity WITP is where you want to go. WITW is mainly troop transports for their naval activity.

4. The longer the game has been around the more refined it is. A new patch is coming out for both WITE and WITW very shortly and the number of patches are not that frequent anymore so it shouldn't interfere with any campaign games if you start them.

If you have any questions on any aspects of the game and post them on the forum you will usually get a quick answer and more than one response.

Hope to see you more regularly on the forum.



NagyGL -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/1/2016 8:29:47 PM)

Thanks to you all for the quick response. Based on these I lean towards WITE / WITW with a slight edge to WITW due to the air warfare and the shorter campaign time you mentioned (and maybe the theater as well). Still, I take my time and dig around here a bit then :)

As for WITP...

quote:

For a full grand campaign in WITP I've heard it can take as long as the real war, up to 4 years.


Just... Wow.



invernomuto -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/2/2016 1:14:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NagyGL
Thanks to you all for the quick response. Based on these I lean towards WITE / WITW with a slight edge to WITW due to the air warfare and the shorter campaign time you mentioned (and maybe the theater as well). Still, I take my time and dig around here a bit then :)


I own both. Ostfront for me is more fashinating than France and Italy BUT WITW is better with its updated logistic model and the more advanced air warfare. I would recommend WITW.
My two eurocents :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NagyGL

As for WITP...


quote:

For a full grand campaign in WITP I've heard it can take as long as the real war, up to 4 years.


Just... Wow.


Yeah, WITP Grand Campaign start from 7th dec 1941 and ends in 1946 (or before, if Japan surrenders).
There are daily turns instead of weekly turn as in WITE/WITW, so a PBEM game can take a lot of time.





Hermann -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/2/2016 3:06:51 PM)

wite has the shortest learning curve and best playability in a shift from the operational games. witw is a tough play - theres a lot of waiting. witp is a huge stretch .



NagyGL -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/3/2016 4:45:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

Yeah, WITP Grand Campaign start from 7th dec 1941 and ends in 1946 (or before, if Japan surrenders).
There are daily turns instead of weekly turn as in WITE/WITW, so a PBEM game can take a lot of time.


That's ~1600 turns in PBEM. That explains a lot :)



quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann

wite has the shortest learning curve and best playability in a shift from the operational games. witw is a tough play - theres a lot of waiting.


I think I understand your point about WITE (you think about "only" land and more simple logistic rules?). But what do you mean by the waiting? (For the AI? Or in PBEM? Or many turns before the real action starts?)

Thanks for the great considerations for all.



Hermann -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/3/2016 6:55:39 AM)

Witw has a very cumbersome AI air air interface. you can wait 15-20 minutes for the air to complete each turn. For an air aficionado its heaven but for someone transitioning from tactical you'll pull your hair out.



RedLancer -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/3/2016 8:58:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann

Witw has a very cumbersome AI air interface. you can wait 15-20 minutes for the air to complete each turn. For an air aficionado its heaven but for someone transitioning from tactical you'll pull your hair out.


If you dial back the execution detail it runs significantly quicker (less than 5 minutes). Post on the WitW forum if you need guidance on how to do it.



invernomuto -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/3/2016 9:19:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NagyGL
But what do you mean by the waiting? (For the AI? Or in PBEM? Or many turns before the real action starts?)


In the Grand Campaign 43-45 you have to manage Allied strategical air warfare.
While most of the air raid can be delegated to the AI (you could only set general prority target in the planning phase and let the AI generate the appropriate Air Directives), in the resolution phase you have to watch a week of raids over Germany and Italy.
However, you could set 4 levels of details: from 1 - no details, where air phase resolution is very quick, to 4 - max details where you will see the raid following the path and every interceptions by enemy CAP.
You can also skip entirely details for some missions (like Recon ones) and you can close the report window for every raid pressing ESC.





Revthought -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/3/2016 2:00:41 PM)

I would also say this to distinguish WiTE and WiTW. In WiTW, depending on the "side" you are playing, you are more or less confined to being on the offensive or defensive the entire game because it only covers the war starting in 1943.

The game campaign in WiTE, on the other hand, gives the Soviet and German player a chance to play on both sides of the ball.



NagyGL -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/4/2016 5:30:00 AM)

All right... So, I just summarized this to myself, comparing WITE and WITW:

WITW:

+ Needs approx. half the time to complete a campaign
+ Has better logistics rules
+ Has a new air warfare model...
- ... but which is, for some, more hassle than fun
- Have a bit less active PBEM and community
- Confined to defend / attack depending on the side played

WITE:

+ Easier to learn
+ Has an epic scope
+ Need to defend or attack changes dynamically (like in history)
- Misses air & logistics improvements of WITW
- Takes 2x time due to scope and amount of pieces to move

And of course: theater can be a + / - on either side as per personal preference.

Is this basically it? [:)]



No idea -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/4/2016 7:01:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NagyGL

All right... So, I just summarized this to myself, comparing WITE and WITW:

WITW:

+ Needs approx. half the time to complete a campaign
+ Has better logistics rules
+ Has a new air warfare model...
- ... but which is, for some, more hassle than fun
- Have a bit less active PBEM and community
- Confined to defend / attack depending on the side played

WITE:

+ Easier to learn
+ Has an epic scope
+ Need to defend or attack changes dynamically (like in history)
- Misses air & logistics improvements of WITW
- Takes 2x time due to scope and amount of pieces to move

And of course: theater can be a + / - on either side as per personal preference.

Is this basically it? [:)]


I think so, although I havent played WITW, that is basically what I have heard from other players.

One thing, WITW is going to get a new expansion covering the France 1940 campaign (and I guess Norway). However, I think they will just make scenarios, not a grand campaign going from 1940 to 1945. Which is a pity.



RedLancer -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/4/2016 7:33:34 AM)

We are not working on expanding WitW to cover France 1940. We are working on WitE2.0.

I think we would all like a grand european campaign from 1940 - 45 but the challenges to deliver it are considerable so don't hold your breath.



No idea -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/4/2016 7:51:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

We are not working on expanding WitW to cover France 1940. We are working on WitE2.0.

I think we would all like a grand european campaign from 1940 - 45 but the challenges to deliver it are considerable so don't hold your breath.


Ummm... Then I guess I have been dreaming about WITW.



RedLancer -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/4/2016 8:51:35 AM)

It was considered as an option but for good reasons we thought we'd do WitE2.0 next.



Revthought -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/4/2016 3:22:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

We are not working on expanding WitW to cover France 1940. We are working on WitE2.0.

I think we would all like a grand european campaign from 1940 - 45 but the challenges to deliver it are considerable so don't hold your breath.


That would be a great game, but a LOT of work. I think a Western 1940-45 would be easier, where you abstracted the East Front as it is now. Hell, I'd settle for a real naval model for WItW and strategic bombing that nets you more than vps as a result--bombing Uboat Shipyards (or defending/seizing Uboat bases on the ground).



RedLancer -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/4/2016 4:11:37 PM)

To push the timeline back to 1940 (or 39 for that matter) means that you have two key tasks:

- Developing a naval module that fits and works. This is no easy task. The addition of the WitW changes to air, amphib and logistics took 4 years.
- Expanding the data. This is not only historical land and air data but also adding all the naval data. Even using an EF Box you still need all the data.

Excepting North Africa and the Med - 1941 to late 1942 is not the most exciting period without the Eastern Front. WitW 40-45 would be easier than Europe but WitE2.0 is currently more deliverable.



Revthought -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/4/2016 4:22:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

To push the timeline back to 1940 (or 39 for that matter) means that you have two key tasks:

- Developing a naval module that fits and works. This is no easy task. The addition of the WitW changes to air, amphib and logistics took 4 years.
- Expanding the data. This is not only historical land and air data but also adding all the naval data. Even using an EF Box you still need all the data.

Excepting North Africa and the Med - 1941 to late 1942 is not the most exciting period without the Eastern Front. WitW 40-45 would be easier than Europe but WitE2.0 is currently more deliverable.


Yes, thinking about it, you would need to expand the map and possibly add a "strategic" component, though maybe not. You'd really need all of Norway, and probably more of the Mediterranean/Balkans.

But, yes, you are right. Lots of work. Consider me musing about what you could do in the not necessarily immediate future.

Edit.

To properly model the naval war you'd need to add at least some abstraction of the north and south Atlantic.

Also, you have a fine naval mode to work with (with modification of course) in WiTP!



No idea -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/4/2016 4:54:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

To push the timeline back to 1940 (or 39 for that matter) means that you have two key tasks:

- Developing a naval module that fits and works. This is no easy task. The addition of the WitW changes to air, amphib and logistics took 4 years.
- Expanding the data. This is not only historical land and air data but also adding all the naval data. Even using an EF Box you still need all the data.

Excepting North Africa and the Med - 1941 to late 1942 is not the most exciting period without the Eastern Front. WitW 40-45 would be easier than Europe but WitE2.0 is currently more deliverable.


Perhaps you cant tell us yet but are you thinking about adding big strategic decisions to Wite 2?. I think it is the biggest flaw of wite, as the lack of strategic decisions makes most games too repetitve. Example what Ia am talking about: production decisions: do the germans go for a new powerful tank (panthers and tigers) or they stick with improving the panzer iv? The later would give more tanks but less powerful. Political decisions: what is your stance towards the native population? Agressive could give you more resources but also more partisans to deal with. Less agressive would mean less resources but less partisans also. Do you prioritize reinforcements or the making of new units?. All those are just examples of decisions which might give each game a different feeling each time.



Wheat -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/4/2016 6:03:59 PM)

Very thoughtful initial post, good questions. Someone as sharp as you NagyGL will have no trouble with any of these games.

I own WitP:AE and WitE.

WitP:AE is the oldest and has the poorest interface...and omg, I wish it was just dialed back a bit on the complexity.

WitE has a good interface and is pretty easy to manage despite its scope.

Both of the games have a good "flavor", that intangible factor that makes you feel like you're a part of the experience.

Of those two, I would go with WitE.

But your summary post is accurate and I think you might want to go with WitW for a first try.






SigUp -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/4/2016 7:20:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

Perhaps you cant tell us yet but are you thinking about adding big strategic decisions to Wite 2?. I think it is the biggest flaw of wite, as the lack of strategic decisions makes most games too repetitve. Example what Ia am talking about: production decisions: do the germans go for a new powerful tank (panthers and tigers) or they stick with improving the panzer iv? The later would give more tanks but less powerful. Political decisions: what is your stance towards the native population? Agressive could give you more resources but also more partisans to deal with. Less agressive would mean less resources but less partisans also. Do you prioritize reinforcements or the making of new units?. All those are just examples of decisions which might give each game a different feeling each time.

No, just no. This offers so much potential for abuse that balancing this will be a horrible task. Not to mention that games like WitE aren't designed in this scope. If you want all that you should look more towards games like Hearts of Iron.



Revthought -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/4/2016 10:01:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp


quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

Perhaps you cant tell us yet but are you thinking about adding big strategic decisions to Wite 2?. I think it is the biggest flaw of wite, as the lack of strategic decisions makes most games too repetitve. Example what Ia am talking about: production decisions: do the germans go for a new powerful tank (panthers and tigers) or they stick with improving the panzer iv? The later would give more tanks but less powerful. Political decisions: what is your stance towards the native population? Agressive could give you more resources but also more partisans to deal with. Less agressive would mean less resources but less partisans also. Do you prioritize reinforcements or the making of new units?. All those are just examples of decisions which might give each game a different feeling each time.

No, just no. This offers so much potential for abuse that balancing this will be a horrible task. Not to mention that games like WitE aren't designed in this scope. If you want all that you should look more towards games like Hearts of Iron.


Two things. First I think the politics added to a theater command game as seen in the DC:B decision system is genius. Something like that would only make WiTE/WiTW better. Second something like what he's suggesting about production already exists in WiTP. I don't see how it's a stretch to ask for a production system that's more responsive to player input and on map resources for WiTE.



SigUp -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/4/2016 11:05:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Two things. First I think the politics added to a theater command game as seen in the DC:B decision system is genius. Something like that would only make WiTE/WiTW better. Second something like what he's suggesting about production already exists in WiTP. I don't see how it's a stretch to ask for a production system that's more responsive to player input and on map resources for WiTE.

Let's revist those points then. What was mentioned as specific example was the treatment of the native population, problem here is, how far do you allow people to go without drifting into absolute fantasy? The mistreatment of the population as Untermenschen was core nazi policy. You can't just come here and say, what if they had treated them better. Because if you did you would be changing the very nature of the nazi regime. Change its very nature and you don't have a war in the first place. Now, I'm superficially aware of what Deceisive Campaigns Barbarossa does but that game and WitE work differently in that regard with the card system. You can't just copy it over.

As for production, in WitP the power gap between the US and Japan is far bigger than the one between Germany and the Soviet Union. The production there allows the Japanese side to be more creative in how to script its demise. Meanwhile on the Eastern Front a central advantage of the Soviet side was their more efficient production compared to the German side. They were able to churn out far more units with their invested resources than the Germans. Allow the Germans to build and optimise as they desire and you are destroying the historical balance in a way that far exceeds what's being done in WitP. You can't come here and compare apples to oranges.



No idea -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 7:17:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Two things. First I think the politics added to a theater command game as seen in the DC:B decision system is genius. Something like that would only make WiTE/WiTW better. Second something like what he's suggesting about production already exists in WiTP. I don't see how it's a stretch to ask for a production system that's more responsive to player input and on map resources for WiTE.

Let's revist those points then. What was mentioned as specific example was the treatment of the native population, problem here is, how far do you allow people to go without drifting into absolute fantasy? The mistreatment of the population as Untermenschen was core nazi policy. You can't just come here and say, what if they had treated them better. Because if you did you would be changing the very nature of the nazi regime. Change its very nature and you don't have a war in the first place. Now, I'm superficially aware of what Deceisive Campaigns Barbarossa does but that game and WitE work differently in that regard with the card system. You can't just copy it over.

As for production, in WitP the power gap between the US and Japan is far bigger than the one between Germany and the Soviet Union. The production there allows the Japanese side to be more creative in how to script its demise. Meanwhile on the Eastern Front a central advantage of the Soviet side was their more efficient production compared to the German side. They were able to churn out far more units with their invested resources than the Germans. Allow the Germans to build and optimise as they desire and you are destroying the historical balance in a way that far exceeds what's being done in WitP. You can't come here and compare apples to oranges.


The key about the decisions I propose (I gave just examples that had come out of my mind, but they could be completely different) is not the ability to make things better for one side or the other, but giving you the ability to adapt to circunstances (for example, if the german player has had several panzer units encircled and destroyed he can probably say goodbye to the game, but what if he can decide to concentrate on P IVs instead of goign for Panthers and Tigers? That would give him more production, thus, he will get his panzer divisions again much quicker) and, above all, giving the game the "ability" to be different each time, because so far there isnt much difference from one to another, with just a few exceptions.

Yes I am aware of HoI serie, but I think this game could benefit a lot from a bit of strategic decisions making, not changing its scope or nature, but expanding it a bit.

PS. Regarding the critique about the political decision I said, yes, I am aware that it is the old "if nazis werent nazis", but there are many things in the game that go against what happened irl or are stretched to make the game more interesting or even possible to play, so why not introducing some political elements? As far as they are plausible, I see no problems. After all, nazi ideology didnt dicatate that kicking slvas out of East Europe had to be done during the war. They could have waited unitl later.



SigUp -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 8:42:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

The key about the decisions I propose (I gave just examples that had come out of my mind, but they could be completely different) is not the ability to make things better for one side or the other, but giving you the ability to adapt to circunstances (for example, if the german player has had several panzer units encircled and destroyed he can probably say goodbye to the game, but what if he can decide to concentrate on P IVs instead of goign for Panthers and Tigers? That would give him more production, thus, he will get his panzer divisions again much quicker)

This is 1941 in Germany, not JIT production on assembly lines. And frankly, bad play (and this is several panzer units getting encircled) should be punished accordingly and not get fantasy-like get-out-of-jail card to soften the impact.

quote:


Yes I am aware of HoI serie, but I think this game could benefit a lot from a bit of strategic decisions making, not changing its scope or nature, but expanding it a bit.

This series is an operational war game. You are changing its scope with all that you want.
quote:


PS. Regarding the critique about the political decision I said, yes, I am aware that it is the old "if nazis werent nazis", but there are many things in the game that go against what happened irl or are stretched to make the game more interesting or even possible to play, so why not introducing some political elements? As far as they are plausible, I see no problems. After all, nazi ideology didnt dicatate that kicking slvas out of East Europe had to be done during the war. They could have waited unitl later.

What you suggested above is not plausible. The Germans were acutely aware of their inability to supply their army and the local population in the east. Their method of feeding their men was based on requisitioning from the local population while letting them starve. You are creating a fantasy setting here.

Frankly, all your ideas fit right into the mold of what Hearts of Iron provides, giving me the impression that you are at the wrong series here.



RedLancer -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 8:50:39 AM)

These games are operational / military strategic and not grand strategic. Excepting production and the ability to assign additional units to the East I struggle to think of what else might be added.

As for production this is always a hot topic. We are making some production amendments but whether that will include the ability to allow control has not been decided.



No idea -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 9:28:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp


quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

The key about the decisions I propose (I gave just examples that had come out of my mind, but they could be completely different) is not the ability to make things better for one side or the other, but giving you the ability to adapt to circunstances (for example, if the german player has had several panzer units encircled and destroyed he can probably say goodbye to the game, but what if he can decide to concentrate on P IVs instead of goign for Panthers and Tigers? That would give him more production, thus, he will get his panzer divisions again much quicker)

This is 1941 in Germany, not JIT production on assembly lines. And frankly, bad play (and this is several panzer units getting encircled) should be punished accordingly and not get fantasy-like get-out-of-jail card to soften the impact.

quote:


Yes I am aware of HoI serie, but I think this game could benefit a lot from a bit of strategic decisions making, not changing its scope or nature, but expanding it a bit.

This series is an operational war game. You are changing its scope with all that you want.
quote:


PS. Regarding the critique about the political decision I said, yes, I am aware that it is the old "if nazis werent nazis", but there are many things in the game that go against what happened irl or are stretched to make the game more interesting or even possible to play, so why not introducing some political elements? As far as they are plausible, I see no problems. After all, nazi ideology didnt dicatate that kicking slvas out of East Europe had to be done during the war. They could have waited unitl later.

What you suggested above is not plausible. The Germans were acutely aware of their inability to supply their army and the local population in the east. Their method of feeding their men was based on requisitioning from the local population while letting them starve. You are creating a fantasy setting here.

Frankly, all your ideas fit right into the mold of what Hearts of Iron provides, giving me the impression that you are at the wrong series here.


Giving you options to soften the impact of your mistakes is something fully realistic. It is what everybody does when he realizes he has gotten into trouble. Expanding on the options you might have in such a situation is a good move, imho. Many players end their games (especially as german player) after a handflu of turns simply and plainly because they have commited a few mistakes (and not big ones like the one I mentioned). That is not fun at all, expecially from the soviet player point of view, but I can understand the german player, because he knows he is fu... and he cant do anythign about it.

My examples of decisions could be better, but I still think it would make wonders for the game replayability and enjoyment if we could take some strategic decisions. Replayability and enjoyment are never bad for a game. I know those are subjective terms, and that is why I give my opinion.




SigUp -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 10:09:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

Giving you options to soften the impact of your mistakes is something fully realistic. It is what everybody does when he realizes he has gotten into trouble. Expanding on the options you might have in such a situation is a good move, imho. Many players end their games (especially as german player) after a handflu of turns simply and plainly because they have commited a few mistakes (and not big ones like the one I mentioned). That is not fun at all, expecially from the soviet player point of view, but I can understand the german player, because he knows he is fu... and he cant do anythign about it.

Sorry, but that's just a terrible idea. These players were never in it for the long haul anyway. They are the group of German players to approach the game with an attitude "Leningrad-Moscow-Rostov in 1941 or quit". They can't deal with adversity and can't improvise and want everything to go according to plan. You can change whatever you want, once they see that they can't go on a German world conquest they will quit on you. The game goes long enough to correct such small mistakes and still come out with a draw. You are just giving them free excuses by saying they can't do anything about it, since it is not true at all.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375