Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno

Yeah, he's done a pretty good job. But the jig is up. Well played though.

Yes, serious discussions often involve editing and retracting, then blaming errors on punctuation, etc. Blaming others/putting words in their mouths. You must be a politician?

Well played, Sir. Well played.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

I am a politician actually so being diplomatic "just **** off".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senno

Knew it. Only a politicial would change his own quote and then deny it while blaming someone else. Well, that's an unfair generalization, trolls do that as well....

But your composure is deteriorating. Spelling errors, now expletives. Classic. Are you really going to stick with it? No reason to be angry though, I congratulated you on the excellent troll. 5 pages, well played.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815


There are so many threads on this forum questioning so many aspects of this game that they are too many to repeat now.(very much tongue in cheek, because so much is good about this game, with apologies to Gary Grigsby, Joel Billings and all the rest at 2by3 Games who I congratulate on WITE but just wish it was better). Punctuation and grammar hopefully correct without the need for editing, this time, previous edits a combination of my poor typing skills coupled with the requirement for accuracy drummed into me at school . The Jötunn

quote:

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

I have no interest in Norse mythology at all just "Googled" "troll" and presuming that was your interest and to what you were referring. I have no idea what relevance it has to my posts or the comments by others in this thread (Wiking Division?).

quote:

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

I have no interest in Norse mythology at all just "Googled" "troll" and presuming that was your interest and to what you were referring. I have no idea what relevance it has to my posts or the comments by others in this thread (Wiking Division?).

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

hm, propably my english is to bad... could you explain it?

oh, you still did not say a word about the game and its "problems" from the pov of a lot people here. Is everyhing wad?
Could you explain me and the others why we are just not able to recognize the "truth"?
after all, you said that everything is fine and the historical results are "best german play"...

as i said... this problem is serious and i think the customers should know exactly what they buy. I want a huge sucsess for matrix to make more good games (i hopefully will buy and play)
In the moment we have game-balancing themes in wite and we had em in witp admirals edition. here scenario2 solved a lot problems, but the pacific war was really onesided. Do you belive the war in russia was the same?

probably, not as one-sided as the historic Pacific War. But rather one-sided in any case.

I have not said that historical results are best german play, I said it was rather lucky for the Germans to be in a position to launch a powerful Case Blue. With perfect historic Soviet and German "play" after 22 June 1941, I think Axis would be probably in a worse position than the one it had in June 1942. But well, this could lead to some lengthy debates, and perhaps they are a little bit off-topic

The game: Ok, your purpose is warning future costumers. You can be right in all you have said about the problems of the game. I have seen a lot of harsh criticism to this game, but somehow the common denominator of all them was the goal of making the game better. I did not observe that goal in your post, but now I see that you have a philantropic interest in future costumers, and that is very OK

PS: Checking your post record, I have found that you are the author of the enlightened opinion that the Dutch people deserved the World Soccer Cup South-Africa 2010 more than the Spanish people. Please believe me there is nothing personal between us: blame Iniesta and Casillas, not me!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi


and this is exactly why i thougt, the dutch should win the cup and NOT the spanish guys. Your attitude and behaviour is it, i dislike.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well, if 90% of the spanish people defend the doping criminal bycical "hero"... in this point the "spanish" people have a problem.

But i wasn´t the guy who brought up soccer/sports. I just slapped the "spanish" behaviour about fair sports that sadly the majority of spanish people support.

You asked, you got what you deserved.
But again i ask, what criminal doping behaviour of spanish "heros" (bycical and soccer) and the overall defence of this behaviour has anything to do with the problems in this game.

You still need to explain yourself about this.

The discussed point was "how should this game handle blizzard" or "what can the customer expect if he spend his money for this game.

you made your point about the silliness of wargaming, cause the historical results should not be the average, only the "best way" for one side.
So you made clear, that i no longer am interested in the things you said.
Thank you... the green button help me :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

v1.03 Blizzard survival guide published in the War Room.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well, first of all - most players (customers) disagree.

A game with the historical result being the "best" one side can reach is broken.
Cause it has so deep attitude to disagree to the history that it can´t seen as realistic.

It doesn´t matter wich side, wich time wich conflict.

Here in WitE you basically say "each axis player has to accept that if he play the gc41, he will get kicked worse than history cause I (or the programmer) think, that the historical result should only be the 1 out of 1000 result.

If this would be true, nobody who is interested in playing better as historical can ignore such game. And it isn´t important if you play the russian or the axis side.
as axis you could only reach "historical" results, or get slapped arount. as the russian player, it is booooooooooooooooooooring, cause only if the opposite player is "near god" he can achive historical results.

I bet, if you ask 100 customers, 99 will say "no interest in such game"... maybe 95... Even fanboys of one side wouldn´t care about such a game (against ai is different, but in a pbem?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well, first of all - most players (customers) disagree.

A game with the historical result being the "best" one side can reach is broken.
Cause it has so deep attitude to disagree to the history that it can´t seen as realistic.

It doesn´t matter wich side, wich time wich conflict.

Here in WitE you basically say "each axis player has to accept that if he play the gc41, he will get kicked worse than history cause I (or the programmer) think, that the historical result should only be the 1 out of 1000 result.

If this would be true, nobody who is interested in playing better as historical can ignore such game. And it isn´t important if you play the russian or the axis side.
as axis you could only reach "historical" results, or get slapped arount. as the russian player, it is booooooooooooooooooooring, cause only if the opposite player is "near god" he can achive historical results.

I bet, if you ask 100 customers, 99 will say "no interest in such game"... maybe 95... Even fanboys of one side wouldn´t care about such a game (against ai is different, but in a pbem?

When this is fixed, the next important question will be how much better the Germans would have performed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre
Philosophically, I think most of the current debate in the game now is over the relative change from historical caused by the improvement in Russian generalship in the game, compared to better German generalship in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well, first of all - most players (customers) disagree.

A game with the historical result being the "best" one side can reach is broken.
Cause it has so deep attitude to disagree to the history that it can´t seen as realistic.

It doesn´t matter wich side, wich time wich conflict.

Here in WitE you basically say "each axis player has to accept that if he play the gc41, he will get kicked worse than history cause I (or the programmer) think, that the historical result should only be the 1 out of 1000 result.

If this would be true, nobody who is interested in playing better as historical can ignore such game. And it isn´t important if you play the russian or the axis side.
as axis you could only reach "historical" results, or get slapped arount. as the russian player, it is booooooooooooooooooooring, cause only if the opposite player is "near god" he can achive historical results.

I bet, if you ask 100 customers, 99 will say "no interest in such game"... maybe 95... Even fanboys of one side wouldn´t care about such a game (against ai is different, but in a pbem?

Philosophically, I think most of the current debate in the game now is over the relative change from historical caused by the improvement in Russian generalship in the game, compared to better German generalship in the game. The most recent WitE versions seem to give the Russian improvement a great impact, but did marginalize the German improvement. This shows up not only in the Winter 1941 period, but especially in the Summer/Fall 1942 period as well. When one tries to both re-create and change history, the results will always be debatable. Some where down the line it is the decision of the game designers that counts most. I do not see alot of dialogue about what players think better generalship from both sides should have historically resulted in! Most of the comments revolve around the unrealism of the German Army getting crushed in Winter 1941. When this is fixed, the next important question will be how much better the Germans would have performed?

I assume the designers are looking at German victory conditions, but the lack of play until the fall of Berlin may hamper there modifications. I also believe the designers want the game to be fun and challenging. Finally, the historical result was the result of both sides learning as they went along. Players can play the game numerous times, and understand their units much better than historical commanders ever did. Both initial and repeated play should be rewarding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward

quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre
Philosophically, I think most of the current debate in the game now is over the relative change from historical caused by the improvement in Russian generalship in the game, compared to better German generalship in the game.

The German generals seem to be the most improved, they are able to see the future and know EXACTLY when a blizzard will strike!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
really? in the moment they can think what they want, it doesn´t matter.
on the other side, the russian generals exactly knew that the strongest winter in history will happen and so the unprepared germans (the russians did not know the missing preperations) can be crushed without a problem

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

quote:

ORIGINAL: bednarre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well, first of all - most players (customers) disagree.

A game with the historical result being the "best" one side can reach is broken.
Cause it has so deep attitude to disagree to the history that it can´t seen as realistic.

It doesn´t matter wich side, wich time wich conflict.

Here in WitE you basically say "each axis player has to accept that if he play the gc41, he will get kicked worse than history cause I (or the programmer) think, that the historical result should only be the 1 out of 1000 result.

If this would be true, nobody who is interested in playing better as historical can ignore such game. And it isn´t important if you play the russian or the axis side.
as axis you could only reach "historical" results, or get slapped arount. as the russian player, it is booooooooooooooooooooring, cause only if the opposite player is "near god" he can achive historical results.

I bet, if you ask 100 customers, 99 will say "no interest in such game"... maybe 95... Even fanboys of one side wouldn´t care about such a game (against ai is different, but in a pbem?

Philosophically, I think most of the current debate in the game now is over the relative change from historical caused by the improvement in Russian generalship in the game, compared to better German generalship in the game. The most recent WitE versions seem to give the Russian improvement a great impact, but did marginalize the German improvement. This shows up not only in the Winter 1941 period, but especially in the Summer/Fall 1942 period as well. When one tries to both re-create and change history, the results will always be debatable. Some where down the line it is the decision of the game designers that counts most. I do not see alot of dialogue about what players think better generalship from both sides should have historically resulted in! Most of the comments revolve around the unrealism of the German Army getting crushed in Winter 1941. When this is fixed, the next important question will be how much better the Germans would have performed?

I assume the designers are looking at German victory conditions, but the lack of play until the fall of Berlin may hamper there modifications. I also believe the designers want the game to be fun and challenging. Finally, the historical result was the result of both sides learning as they went along. Players can play the game numerous times, and understand their units much better than historical commanders ever did. Both initial and repeated play should be rewarding.

Thanks for your answer.

True - i see the problem also, if you "help" the germans in winter 41 to much, it could cause big problems for realistic gameplay.
The main problem is for me, what should be the "normal" outcome if to similar experienced player do a pbem.
In the moment the russian player do much better as historical (by not "die at the border"), but this cause much stronger german troops in winter41 (if you avoid battle your troops are better - but also the troops of your enemy) and exactly this doesn´t matter in this game

As i wrote earlier:
russian fight and loose lot troops but the german toe goes down? this should cause historical results for winter41.
russian player avoid heavy battles, germans are far better, even in better locations (say leningrad, rostov and a defendable river defence with level3/4-fortifications) - russian attacks in blizzard will be blown away. Blizzard shock should NOT happen (say only 10% of it)
russian wear down germany, has left more troops - german army will be kicked in winter41 and an early russian victory (say mid43 in berlin) is possible and realistic

But still - if the game designer thinks that the historical events in 41 are the "best" the german side can reach - game is not interesting as a gc. Not for me and - as far as i can read the comments here - not for most players.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zort

I will disagree with you that DNO was that good.  Don't want to get into a Europa discussion here.  WitE is a large game and the few testers did what they could.

I for one am having a blast playing the game knowing that fixes were/are going to be done.  Very few computer games are released 100% done, most after it gets into the hands of the players find lots of things that could be better and are patched.

WitE let's you have settings on handicapping etc.  No one that I have seen on the forums (except one AAR) has attempted to change the settings to what they think the other side should have or not and played it and reported back.  Yes the game needs tweeting in some areas.  The designers decided on doing things a certain way and they are now hearing that some players don't like the WAD, ie weather.  Will the game be improved, yea.  You have stated in numerous areas the above, thanks.

To me even though I have whined to my opponent about how bad things are it still is a challenge.  If you don't want to play it don't, same with me and the Europa series (oh yea I was a play tester for Total War that hasn't come out yet).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

that is the 20/20 problem.

If we do weather in zones/Hexes, even if historically, this problem will vanish.
Best solution:
each hex has individual weather with zones, in that weather will range

say "northern north zone (finns above leningrad) is "blizzard" you can get snow,blizzard,fog,light snow, cold...

the differences between the weather "effects" could sometimes minimal (combat values), sometime serious... say, fog cold limited your artillery or shooting efficency... blizzard end all combat (cause even if you wear winter clothes, if you have a winter storm with heavy snowing, -50 Degree Celsius with addition Chill-Factor, NOBODY fights.

I do belive that more weather-effects should be possible in a modern computer game... so clear can be "clear, dusty or clear, clear oder clear with light fog....

in a 10miles map, this should be possible... if you have good recon you know more about the weather in the enemy area.... otherwise you ran into slowing area... even if you think you have enough MP.... this would add more reality and fun to the game.

short:
You have 4-8 zones, each zone has a "master-weather" with individual hex-weather...

if you also manage to do the winter-weather in a way to avoid "blizzard-individual" all the time, you have solved the problem with first winter...

cause russian attacking troops advancing one turn ("knowing" they have another Blizzard-turn) can get into a snow-clear-Hex the next turn and their german enemies can kill em with ease... (cause their combat strength returned a lot)

Is it impossible to implement? Then i hope for "Generals Edition" :)