RE: 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

SuluSea -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 10:53:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp



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.


Agree with this here.

Generally I'd like to see the ability for the GHC to be able to optimize their industry not to the level of WITP/Japan but maybe 10 to 20% better trimming
the fat away with some historically bad performers. WITE going the
way of Decisive Campaigns where much stuff is abstracted and or assumed because of historical plausibility
IMO would be heading in the wrong direction for WITE.

To respond to the OP. My favorite game is WITP, most played game the past year has been WITE (because of action per turn and combatants) but if I had to recommend a game out of the three it would be WITW as it is closer mechanically to what you will see in WITE 2.0.

Best of luck in your choice.



swkuh -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 11:43:26 AM)

Useful discussion, thoughts are appreciated.

Main issue IMHO is discrepancy between Soviet/Nazi unit formation opportunities/arrival schedules. Seems all +Soviet.

Suggestions following would be small (even "eye candy") but contributing to player interest.

production: variation of all equipment and deployment (as like aircraft.)
troops & units: replacements rate and reinforcement schedules
equipment: development/deployment schedules

Each have negative consequences and although difficult to determine, must be considered. Perhaps would be too controversial. But, after all, its a game.



NagyGL -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 11:55:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wheat

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

...

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


Thanks for the kind words! This seems to be my conclusion as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

To respond to the OP. My favorite game is WITP, most played game the past year has been WITE (because of action per turn and combatants) but if I had to recommend a game out of the three it would be WITW as it is closer mechanically to what you will see in WITE 2.0


Thanks, this is also a consideration. As WITE 2.0 is coming it makes sense for me to buy into WITW now and maybe WITE 2.0 later, as I have no specific and strong preference for the Eastern front.



invernomuto -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 12:47:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NagyGL
As WITE 2.0 is coming it makes sense for me to buy into WITW now and maybe WITE 2.0 later, as I have no specific and strong preference for the Eastern front.


If you decide for WITW, I might suggest you to buy also Operation Torch. Torch to Tunisia is a very interesting scenario IMHO (less unit density, lot of logistical constraint, both side can make offensives).
Moreover, it adds the option of a cooperative multiplayer to the game...




solops -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 12:57:51 PM)

OP,

For time and playability, try From Eagle Day To Bombing the Reich. It will not get you your naval fix, though.



Revthought -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 2:10:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought
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.


Correct; however, not necessarily Wermacht policy. DC:B--another theatre wide operational game--handles this in this way. With relationships. As overall commander you can make choices about how much you are going to go along with the SS. If you refuse to cooperate, your relationship with Hitler, Himmler, and others tanks.

If it gets bad enough, you will be replaced. Even if it's just bad, this will harm your ability to ask for oil allocations and transfer of units between AG. It will also effect how much influence you have with Hitler regarding the goals he sets (and if you do not try to accomplish these you're sacked).

Or you could take the middle ground and just lodge a protest and let it slide.

On the converse side, what you get for protecting the civilian population as best you can is less partisans. And this doesn't mean that as a whole that nazi policy is actually ignored, it just abstracts that on a day to day basis, the Wermacht is treating the civilians better--maybe you stop the practice of revenge killing in a town somewhere--you do enough to ensure that fewer people see resistance as the only alternative.

In DC:B treating civilians as well as you can does not eliminate partisans. It just reduces their strength.

And this is already in a game, which falls into the same family as WiTE!. WiTE is still the better game, but DC:Bs inclusion of the "politics" of theater command is the most innovative thing this genre has seen in years. I reccomend you play it before you say it just cannot be done..

PS. On this point it was also a matter of policy that the military did not enjoy operational freedom, yet in WiTE you can do whatever you want, including moving whole Panzer Groups between Army Group. This is totally "unrealistic" too.



quote:

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.


No, but I see no problem (as stated above) with the commanding general lodging a protest, or even saying, "we are not going to integrate your death squads in any way to the army" then living with the potential consequences.

quote:

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.


Sure; however, I think this is really superficial in as much as we (or at least I) am not saying "give players total control." You cannot have Germans churning out T-34s for instance, or "deciding" to put the reich on a total war footing in 1941. Choosing the "more pz iv's" option will not negate the Soviet advantage in any real way--AND you could link it to a decision/relationship system like DC:B where the worse your relationship with high command, the less likely it is your "reccomendations" about production will be given any merit.

What's more it such a system, broadly, would help remove the current fantasy aspects of this game. For instance, I will move whole panzer groups if I want, I will pursue any objective I want, I will just abandon major cities, I will play like there was never any such thing as "no step back" orders for either side.

In essence, ahistorical play would still be possible; however, like in real life, if Stalin says "defend Kiev to the last drop of blood," and the player ignores this, he might save his men and material, but there will be consequences[/I] that the player will have to live with.



Walloc -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 2:13:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill


Main issue IMHO is discrepancy between Soviet/Nazi unit formation opportunities/arrival schedules. Seems all +Soviet.




Sorry, but this isnt correct. Question of being uninformed, has forstered that notion in some.

First there is a paticular strategy u can use against the russian player, targeting PP. Making small pockets post nov 1941 (if u cant make large) keeping chipping away at the number russian units contisniuosly. If u destroy on average and that is ur goal more than the russian gets PP and this been used by players. U find ur self in a negative PP circle which less and les units as russian. If nothing else delying russian army 2.0. No such strategy is avialble vs the german. yes non divisonal units doesnt come back and thats some thing to possibly change but other than that the current system vs historic russian OOB only favors the axis side.

Not to mention if u take the in game historic russian 1942 OOB and compare it to the in game historic russian 1943 OOB the cost of making just the new units that is in difference costs all the PP of that year less 60. So u have 60 pp to replace any(all) destroyed units, change commanders, make FZ and what not for an entire year. Playing by historic OOB vs the now PP system would make it alot easier on the russian player. Are u able to optimize with the current PP system, sure, but so would u with historic OOB. Just a question of which shell of units and how many u place in the Urals at 0% replacements. All things given u would have many many more units than in the current system.


Question of this side can do some thing i cant they gota have an advantage, forst this, instead of looking at what would the alternative be instead and how does that compare.

Kind regards,
Rasmus



swkuh -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 2:43:47 PM)

@Walloc:

You agree, then, that there is a discrepancy +Soviet in this aspect of the game, but you argue that, even so, the German has an outcomes advantage. Maybe so. I'm looking at how the game is played for each side. Perhaps this reflects how the developers imagined the approaches taken by their highest leadership. If so, think this could have been done more transparently, but what do I know?

Appreciate your postings and glad to them again.



SigUp -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 3:03:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

And this is already in a game, which falls into the same family as WiTE!. WiTE is still the better game, but DC:Bs inclusion of the "politics" of theater command is the most innovative thing this genre has seen in years. I reccomend you play it before you say it just cannot be done..

Quote me on saying that a system can't be done. Anyway, again, different games, different systems. Decisive Campaigns was built from ground-up including this card system, this relationship system etc. is just an extension of this. The engine of WitE and WitW don't contain this, so how are you going to implement that? Not to mention that DC works on a higher abstraction scale. You can't just come here and say, this game is doing that so why can't we have the same. It doesn't work this way. The WitE/WitW and the DC families work off different design philosophies.

quote:

Sure; however, I think this is really superficial in as much as we (or at least I) am not saying "give players total control." You cannot have Germans churning out T-34s for instance, or "deciding" to put the reich on a total war footing in 1941. Choosing the "more pz iv's" option will not negate the Soviet advantage in any real way

And what's the gameplay effect then? So basically none. The production system in WitP has an effect on the game because you can tinker with a lot of things, which planes you build, which ones you research, how much you build, which ships to prioritise etc etc. And as I said, do the same degree of freedom for WitE and you knock the power balance around like nothing. With your suggestion the impact on gameplay is minimal, so why waste valuable design and testing time on on a gimmick like this? Time better spent on improving combat system, logistics, air system etc etc. From a equipment-to-unit perspective it would be a far more meaningful change to implement a system of manual direction of equipment change for land equipment. Like an option to prioritise modern equipment to go to certain units/regions, or simply an option to manually swap equipment like AFVs if certain conditions are met.



Revthought -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 9:07:36 PM)

quote:


Quote me on saying that a system can't be done. Anyway, again, different games, different systems. Decisive Campaigns was built from ground-up including this card system, this relationship system etc. is just an extension of this. The engine of WitE and WitW don't contain this, so how are you going to implement that? Not to mention that DC works on a higher abstraction scale. You can't just come here and say, this game is doing that so why can't we have the same. It doesn't work this way. The WitE/WitW and the DC families work off different design philosophies.


Sorry about quoting you as my text. Posting from a phone. :(

Having worked in the video game industry and made video games, I disagree with you. Plus, your wrong. It's built on the DC engine, for which the first two titles contained nothing of the sort. And I'm not suggesting an exact copy of DC:B with card play.

A lot of the mechanics are there already, or present in other GG titles. Not only that, I am not making an argument for patching something like that into this game in any case. This whole conversation centers on, "in the future of the franchise, how could you make the game more fun? Can you add an element of choice and consequence that makes the game more engaging without being fantasy?"

By the way, the fantasy argument is the biggest hypocritical argument you can make. While I love WiTE you don't get more fantasy than complete and total operational freedom. Moving units between army groups for the Germans and letting them focus on whatever objective they want, particularly in 1941 is a joke when compared to reality. As is letting the Soviet player endlessly retreat without putting up a fight for population centers--Stalin would have more than just removed me from command if I were a Soviet commander in WW2 and did the things I do in game

quote:

And what's the gameplay effect then? So basically none. The production system in WitP has an effect on the game because you can tinker with a lot of things, which planes you build, which ones you research, how much you build, which ships to prioritise etc etc. And as I said, do the same degree of freedom for WitE and you knock the power balance around like nothing. With your suggestion the impact on gameplay is minimal, so why waste valuable design and testing time on on a gimmick like this? Time better spent on improving combat system, logistics, air system etc etc. From a equipment-to-unit perspective it would be a far more meaningful change to implement a system of manual direction of equipment change for land equipment. Like an option to prioritise modern equipment to go to certain units/regions, or simply an option to manually swap equipment like AFVs if certain conditions are met.


Of course there is an effect. That's what you balance the game around, trade offs for decisions. Decisions don't make or break anything, just like in WiTP.

PS. The German player, unless he wins, in 1941or maybe 42 is playing for a win by keeping the Russians out of Berlin for as long as possible. That's no different than the Japanese players position in WiTP.



SigUp -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/5/2016 10:12:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Having worked in the video game industry and made video games, I disagree with you. Plus, your wrong. It's built on the DC engine, for which the first two titles contained nothing of the sort. And I'm not suggesting an exact copy of DC:B with card play.

You had decision cards in Warsaw to Berlin with certain effects enacted when you play them. This relationship system is just an extension of that decision system.

quote:

A lot of the mechanics are there already, or present in other GG titles.

Name me a concrete way of how to implement it. Play a decision a suddenly pop up 20.000 vehicles? That's not how this system works. If you want to convince me, don't go meta by saying "it is possible and it will be better", name me the mechanics that are already there, name me examples of how it could be done.

quote:

By the way, the fantasy argument is the biggest hypocritical argument you can make. While I love WiTE you don't get more fantasy than complete and total operational freedom. Moving units between army groups for the Germans and letting them focus on whatever objective they want, particularly in 1941 is a joke when compared to reality. As is letting the Soviet player endlessly retreat without putting up a fight for population centers--Stalin would have more than just removed me from command if I were a Soviet commander in WW2 and did the things I do in game

You don't seem to get it, operational freedom (to a certain degree) is built into it from the design perspective because it is an operational wargame. Play sports games and you have much more control than a real team on the pitch would have. Play a politics simulation and you have much more control than a real politician would have. And if you want to restrict operational freedom, easy, do it via victory conditions. Take WitW, you don't want to bomb V-weapons sites? Get hit with negative VPs. You don't want to land in Italy in 1943? Get hit with negative VPs. Your invalidation of this argument is rather ridiculous. Using your line of thought I could brush away criticism at giving the Germans a fleet of jet aircraft in 1941 by saying "hypocritical".

quote:

Of course there is an effect. That's what you balance the game around, trade offs for decisions. Decisions don't make or break anything, just like in WiTP.

The effect of adding a few Panzer IV is miniscule. Tell me, how many games have you seen where the German side runs out of tanks? I've seen far more occasions of the opposite being true. The trade-off between time spent on developing and testing such a system and the actual gameplay effect is way out of whack.

quote:

PS. The German player, unless he wins, in 1941or maybe 42 is playing for a win by keeping the Russians out of Berlin for as long as possible. That's no different than the Japanese players position in WiTP.

The Germans in WitE will come far closer to a 260 auto-victory than the Japanese in a stock scenario in WitP AE. Give the Germans potential to optimise production and you may very well push them above that step. The power balance is far different between the Japanese and American sides in WitP. There is a reason why so many people in AE multiplayer play one of those scenarios that significantly beef up the Japanese side.

Frankly, there are so many existing things in the system that could (and some should) be improved that correction of these alone will improve gameplay significantly. And these things should be tackled and ironed out and not some obscure political and production system.



NagyGL -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (2/9/2016 4:31:12 AM)

Thanks for the great hints.


quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

If you decide for WITW, I might suggest you to buy also Operation Torch.


I did just that - waiting for the boxed edition, takes some time to Europe [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: solops

For time and playability, try From Eagle Day To Bombing the Reich. It will not get you your naval fix, though.


Thanks for the suggestion, I have not heard about this before. But I think I like combined arms too much for this [;)]



darkhelix -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (4/2/2016 1:57:03 PM)

How did you get on with WITW?
Was it how you expected? was it harder/ easier?
How much have you played it since you had it?
How long do the 'shorter' scenarios take?
Do you have to wait 'long' between go's? (more than a few minutes)

Thanks



NagyGL -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (4/2/2016 4:43:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkhelix

How did you get on with WITW?
Was it how you expected? was it harder/ easier?
How much have you played it since you had it?
How long do the 'shorter' scenarios take?
Do you have to wait 'long' between go's? (more than a few minutes)

Thanks



Due to being unexpectedly busy with work commitments lately, I have played only approx. 15 hours so far (+ a few hours of reading the Manual while commuting :) ).

This 15 hours were enough to play the Operation Husky scenario (Allied invasion of Sicily, 7 turns) twice and play Battleground Italy until turn 19. I, however, did not do a lot of micro-management / optimization I could have, as I am immersing myself step-by-step (e.g. I did not reorganize planes between Air HQs and Support Units among divisions until into my third game). Also, these are scenarios with limited scope, a PBEM game covering the whole Western Front would take significantly more time - but others are better prepared to provide benchmarks for that.

Waiting time was a minute or two at maximum, have no complaints there at all.

The game is actually a bit easier to understand than I expected (... if you really read the Manual and browse the WitW forum here, that is), but harder to master due to the amount of choices both tactically and strategically.

Considering all, I like it very much. I enjoy to take an hour to map Order of Battle for myself and think about how to rationalize it. I like that I have meaningful strategic and tactical choices to make (e.g. planning an attack against a city or a front-line). I also like the amount of details that I can discover about units, logistics, order of battle, nationality of units, etc. - all in line with the books I have read about the War in the West, greatly enhancing immersion.

Things I dislike a bit: the air game seems to be a little bit tedious for me (having to do it at the beginning of each turn, but with no spectacular effect) and the action is a bit one-sided so far (Axis units mostly retreating North instead of putting up a fight), but this depends on the scenario I guess.



zakblood -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (4/2/2016 4:48:19 PM)

quote:

How did you get on with WITW?


it was easier than WITE was at the start, then again the development and design has moved on

quote:

Was it how you expected? was it harder/ easier?


easier to learn, just as hard, but not harder to master

quote:

How much have you played it since you had it?


WITE less than 2 weeks in total, WITW i'm a tester so 200+ hours and i gave up counting

quote:

How long do the 'shorter' scenarios take?


shortest, less than a few hours

quote:

Do you have to wait 'long' between go's? (more than a few minutes)


longest wait on a average run of the mill pc i7 mid ranged etc is first turn under 4 mins for longest battle / campaign, a lot less for shorter ones, then each turn is less, first turn is always longest anyway on WITE or WITW



darkhelix -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (4/2/2016 4:49:02 PM)

Thanks for your feedback both. Much appreciated.



NotOneStepBack -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (4/6/2016 9:22:28 PM)

I will give my opinion as I own WITE and WITW. I helped beta test WITW. That said, I think WITE is a better buy and a better game overall.

WITW has a better air model and logistics for sure, but for someone coming from Panzerkorps (which I also love), WITE is a better sell. It will be easier to pick up, there is more action and it will get your feet wet in a more realistic operational game. I also think that while WITW had lofty goals it just doesn't have the same epic feel as WITE, and the scale is so much smaller that it seems like a lot of turns there is little to do in WITW.



Gilmer -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (4/14/2016 12:30:49 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.


+++++10000000!!!!!

I am thinking it is going to be EPIC!!



SheperdN7 -> RE: Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions... (4/23/2016 11:40:56 PM)

I know I'm a little bit late for this but I just want to give my 2 cents as I am an owner of both WITP:AE and WITE. Both games have great communities so finding help or a PBEM game isn't that hard to do. I find that WITE has a better manual (they're both good but WITE explains some things a little easier).

WITP:AE Grand Campaign is more than a thousand turns as each turn is a day BUT!!!!! One thing that I have noticed is that the time that you have to take to complete a turn varies on your goals and objectives, for instance the first turn is DAUNTING but for a few weeks it is actually quite quick (done in 30 minutes or less) then it'll jump up to 6+ hours again. Its very inconsistent. WITE is the opposite. Every turn I do is about 3.5 hours and it is consistently that amount of time.

Way more micromanaging in WITP:AE.

Better air war in AE than in WITE and it gives you more "customization" with your squadrons (ability to rotate pilots and send instructors to teach skills)

AE is focused on air war and naval battles but ground combat is way better in WITE.

I've found that for pure entertainment value I like AE more but keep in mind I think I just feel that way because I'm more familiar with that game.

At the end of the day, they are both 10/10 games and well worth the money. If one is on sale, get it. Doesn't matter which one as they are both AMAZING.

I've never tried WITW but looking at screenshots and threads on that forum it seems like a scaled down version of WITE.

Final thought is that in all the time I've played both games I'ge found that AE is more "unstable" in terms of winning the game. 1 major battle that doesn't go your way can affect the entire war effort for the rest of the game. In WITE, you're "afforded" some strategic mistakes when playing as either side.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.5