Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: So...sell me on this..:-)

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: So...sell me on this..:-) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 1:17:04 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		ok my bad. I thought he got banned.

_____________________________


(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 31
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 1:26:32 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		We're shooting for War in the West 43-45 to be released sometime in 2013, so no, it's not anytime soon. We do hope to eventually produce WitW 40, WitW 41-43, WitE 2.0 and WiE (if we live that long and there is enough demand). If you learn WitE you will be far along (probably 66-80% of the way) in understanding WitW. The air war in WitW is much more involved, and the logistics/rail system is more realistic, but overall the game will feel very familiar to those that have played WitE.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 32
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 2:16:06 AM   
entwood

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 7/22/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Im an awful wargamer. Dont recall winning many if any PBEMs...yet Im like a bug to fire I cant resist. Im also a long time WITP player...(and yeah I suck at that :P)...how suitable is this game for PBEMs? and does it have any similarity to WITP as far as unit scale? The one thing I despise about WITP is the unrealistic ground combat in places like China and Burma (in my opinion at least). Is it more realistic here given that there are no navy units to toy with?

Thanks Ill hang up and listen.


OP. don't be afraid to include your own thoughts. Despite some earlier and there-still-exists angst, it is possible to persuade the dev's to change the game where they cost-effectively can and being able to convince them to do so...Do not surrender on this, I am seeing it happen.

Next up is Russian Runaway, I hope.



< Message edited by entwood -- 5/12/2012 2:19:37 AM >

(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 33
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 4:55:06 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson
...but the land warfare is very very good.


In all honestly, I don't think it can be said that land warfare is "very very good" in this game.

In fact it is very difficult to understand what is going on, with all sorts of mysterious factors increasing and/or decreasing your combat power in relation to the enemy, resulting in very random combat results. While this sounds "realistic," many, including me, find it opaque and frustrating.

In addition, fortifications seem more or less irrelevant if your enemy uses pioneers and artillery.

Also, I think that many will agree that in 1941 the Sovs are too weak, and then later (at least by 1944 if not sooner) the Germans become too weak.

And logistics modeling is almost non-existent.

And while this is apparently being addressed in an upcoming patch, brigade and regiment sized units possess a rather astounding capacity to absorb punishment. And surrounded units immediately lose all combat power and ability to defend themselves.

And so on and so on...

Therefore, while I think the game is enjoyable and a worthwhile purchase, I have to say that the flaws described above, and others, mean that the game is far from perfect.

< Message edited by 76mm -- 5/12/2012 4:59:05 AM >

(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 34
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 5:05:16 AM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 230
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline 		I am not sure I would agree that logistics is non existent, it does seem to play a part, but as 76mm says, a lot is "under the hood" so to speak, so it is sometimess hard to figure out WHY something just happened(Why that unit that says its strength is 28, ie 280, on the combat result has a strength of 190, etc..but I actually do not hold that part against it, I somewhat like the randomness, in real life, you really never know how your unit will perform, so if there is some sort of randomizer affecting it here, I actually like it.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 35
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 5:10:32 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

some sort of randomizer affecting it here,

heh, I'm all in favor of some randomization (?), but the variability here is both very wide and ill-understood, which can make it very frustrating. Wait until you watch the CVs of about twenty fortified hexes fall by about 90% on a single turn for unknown reasons and see if you don't get frustrated.

And OK, while logistics is not completely ignored (after all, isolated units lose all combat power!), generally the system is really simplistic and forgiving for the attacking side.

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 36
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 5:13:02 AM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 230
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

some sort of randomizer affecting it here,

heh, I'm all in favor of some randomization (?), but the variability here is both very wide and ill-understood, which can make it very frustrating. Wait until you watch the CVs of about twenty fortified hexes fall by about 90% on a single turn for unknown reasons and see if you don't get frustrated.

And OK, while logistics is not completely ignored (after all, isolated units lose all combat power!), generally the system is really simplistic and forgiving for the attacking side.

I feel better with you saying this, as it is something I have yet to figure out in this game, and was assuming it is simply my newness at it...but yes, logistics seems quite the puzzle...there is little mention of how it really works in the manual, and I have spent countless "mini-games" of 3-4 turns trying to figure out the pattern lol.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 37
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 5:18:01 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline 		Many of the German players have logistics all figured out, I think there are many threads on the topic.

As a Sov player I have not had the need/opportunity to worry much about it, since all of my games have ended before I have been able to do much attacking.

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 38
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 5:20:07 AM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 230
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Many of the German players have logistics all figured out, I think there are many threads on the topic.

As a Sov player I have not had the need/opportunity to worry much about it, since all of my games have ended before I have been able to do much attacking.

I am curious how your games ended before you attacked much? Why would the German player surrender before you even hit him?

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 39
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 5:34:21 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline 		Various reasons; no one "surrendered" but sometimes they lost interest in continuing. In one game we decided to quit after the umpteeth patch rendered my army impotent (by reducing C&C caps from 30 to 18). I've actually only played a few PBEM games.

Against the AI I reached Berlin before my rail network had reached the Russian border. That doesn't seem right...

< Message edited by 76mm -- 5/12/2012 5:35:56 AM >

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 40
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 5:36:55 AM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 230
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline 		Well if you can forgive me for the way I talked to you in the beginning on here, would love to play you sometime maybe in June or so when I get some more time.
I really am not as big of a jerk as I probably have come across on here sometimes, I promise.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 41
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 5:59:20 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline 		Actually you generally seem eminently reasonable, but one of my pet peeves is the notion that the Germans "almost won the war" or would have won "if only they'd gone left instead of right", etc.

While I have the utmost respect for the Wehrmacht's professionalism and performance, for a variety of reasons, including economic and demographic, it was a completely inadequate tool for the conquest of Russia. As they say, Germany brought a knife to a gunfight and was utterly smashed as a result.

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 42
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 9:58:38 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1312
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Various reasons; no one "surrendered" but sometimes they lost interest in continuing. In one game we decided to quit after the umpteeth patch rendered my army impotent (by reducing C&C caps from 30 to 18). I've actually only played a few PBEM games.

Against the AI I reached Berlin before my rail network had reached the Russian border. That doesn't seem right...


On the issue of supply, I do find the devs have fine-tuned quite a bit since the first version. Just a few things that changed over the patches:
1. loss of morale when below 20% supply. This is really noticeable as the German player early in the war. In fact, I'm air dropping supply which is a novelty. Previously I would only drop fuel.
2. supply needed to digin. You really see the difference between a stretch digging in in good supply versus bad.
3. I find that once you get approx. SP20+ no new replacements reach your units. This is very noticeable during blizzard for the Russians. Supply (ammo) may not stop your attacks but a lack of replacements certainly will! Unless you spend a fortune on merging brigades you'll run out of steam pretty fast in places where you don't have good supply.
4. As the Soviet it is certainly possible to burn your truck pool if you're not careful. I haven't gotten that far but in doing so, you may create serious problems down the road when you want to create Corps which use a lot of trucks.
5. Just had a little experiment. I have 2 divs cut-off in Kursk without an airbase. At the start of my turn they has a CV of 17. I dropped 200 tons of supply on them and the CV went up to 25. It's still much less than the CV 60 or so in supply but there is a difference!

There's going to be more but those are the things that come to mind now.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 43
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 2:41:08 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
In addition, fortifications seem more or less irrelevant if your enemy uses pioneers and artillery.


Hmm, actually this is (or should be) normal. You already hint why To reduce these forts (especially the big ones) you will have to bring pioneers and artillery. So the Soviet player, by having them, is forcing the German to bring more assets.

Just for the record, I always liked (a rare exception among the players) the land combat model in WitP After all, these [WitP and WitE] are operational games, not tactical. What really matters is what precedes combat, in other words, what you have done to prepare the combat itself (which is then automatic): leaders, support, supplies, morale, fatigue, air support / interdiction.

Perhaps the difference is that in WitP you have more varied choices (or variables) to influence the coming action. And every variable has its sub-branches... and these sub-branches have their own sub sub-branches

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 5/12/2012 2:48:27 PM >

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 44
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 2:45:09 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

Hmm, actually this is (or should be) normal. You already hint why To reduce these forts (especially the big ones) you will have to bring pioneers and artillery.


sure, it should help to use pioneers and artillery, but these units should not make fortifications simply melt away, as seems to be the case now. to me anyway, it is overkill.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 45
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 2:57:39 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

Hmm, actually this is (or should be) normal. You already hint why To reduce these forts (especially the big ones) you will have to bring pioneers and artillery.


sure, it should help to use pioneers and artillery, but these units should not make fortifications simply melt away, as seems to be the case now. to me anyway, it is overkill.


I see it this way: the attack is successful, the position is taken, therefore no more forts, no more enemy units there, you are the one occupying the position

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 46
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 3:44:14 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

I see it this way: the attack is successful, the position is taken, therefore no more forts, no more enemy units there, you are the one occupying the position


yeah, but as far as I can tell from the opaque combat system, the forts go away BEFORE combat (hence the dramatic drop from initial or apparent CVs to combat-resolution CVs). Like I say, maybe I'm missing something, but this is how I interpret the CV shenanigans.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 47
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 4:03:33 PM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 230
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline 		I have not really seen that..usually if you play with much detail in the combat reports(I test all the way up so that every shot is pretty much recorded, though when I am just playing, I put it on 3 to get a good idea with less detail and time) it takes a long time for the forts to be reduced, and only usually by 2% each time.
edit..
I dont mean 2% of total fort strength, I mean..level 2..28%...then a shot, drop to level 2, 26%...etc.
Saying that though, the shots which drop fort strength seem to cause a lot of casualties, as well, while I would usually assume that casualties will be quite minimal until the fort strength goes down ,and then be heavy.


< Message edited by kg_1007 -- 5/12/2012 4:09:38 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 48
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 4:16:49 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

I see it this way: the attack is successful, the position is taken, therefore no more forts, no more enemy units there, you are the one occupying the position


yeah, but as far as I can tell from the opaque combat system, the forts go away BEFORE combat (hence the dramatic drop from initial or apparent CVs to combat-resolution CVs). Like I say, maybe I'm missing something, but this is how I interpret the CV shenanigans.


I have to admit that I don't really pay attention to this technical stuff I assume it's working. But the big picture is clear to me: fortified positions should not be impregnable.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 49
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 4:29:19 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline 		Personally, I think forts are a little bit too weak now. Level 2 fortifications are simply blown away before the battle by attacking forces with plentiful engineering and/or artillery support.

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 50
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 5:07:19 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		The attacker (either side) can always contrive to mass enough engineering support to overcome level 2 forts. They are very nearly irrelevant and will only stop sloppy play. Even level 3s are kinda meh.

Terrain >>>>>>> forts now. Engineers can't affect terrain.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 51
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/13/2012 7:34:53 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Here's my post from the other thread:

Re the Stalingrad withdrawal issue. It is one part myth, one part design. Many units destroyed at Stalingrad were rebuilt and sent to the Western Front. These are the units that we have set to withdraw with the assumption that had they not been destroyed, they, or units like them would have been sent to the Western Front. Now there is some disagreement about this because some of the units were being formed in Germany and took on the names of units that had been destroyed in Stalingrad. IIRC the guys working on this replied that many/most of these units were just starting to be formed and that resources did come from the main pool that would have otherwise been available to go east. In the game, if you have a unit destroyed, it is rebuilt by resources otherwise available in the East and if it was set to withdraw it is still rebuilt and then withdrawn. Bottom line is if you don't lose these units at Stalingrad you end up better off than if you lose them, which is as it should be.


Helio, as I 've said before, I'm sorry you are not happy with the game, but no game pleases everyone . Your continuing to hit the same points over and over again (including having this mythical Stalingrad issue on your sig) is not getting you or the game anywhere. I have never used the forum blocking mechanism before, but I am going to use it now as I see you adding nothing to the conversation at this point and are simply wasting a lot of people's time and energy that could be much better spent elsewhere. I wish you the best and hope you find a game to play that you can enjoy.


Look, Joel (though I know you're not reading me). Above I have emphasized in bold/underline a prime example of your cognitive dissonance.

Please forgive me for repeating my (and some others', though not all) prime complaints of the game repeatedly because they unfairly relegate Germany to a bit player in a Soviet re-enactment campaign foisting itself off as competitive Strategic and Operational level game (by a company that claims to be an industry leader in both design and product support).

I don't recall making many complaints against the AI (which is the only opponent against which I can have an enjoyable, competitive game), nor not enjoying the game. This was a thread about PBEM.

It's quite something to accuse me of having the 'mythical Stalingrad issue' in my signature in a thread in which the prior paragraph states that the 'Stalingrad issue' is "part by design."

You want to focus on the "design" part, and highlight your rationale, while simultaneously ignoring the down-stream consequence on strategic control and competitive balance. Meanwhile, you wish to characterize other opinions about the facts as "myth." If you acknowledge the fact as you have above, then to characterize differing opinions as you do demonstrates what I have harped on for some time as problematic (to the game) bias and inconsistency.

There is a reason I chose the signature I have. I choose this Stalingrad withdrawl fact to criticize your game because it is the easiest, least nuanced point around which to show your company's lack of consideration to both strategic control (of Germany) and anti-competitiveness. It is the easiest fact of game design around which anyone with a rudimentary understanding of World War 2, as well as gameplay, can see that the sides are treated unequally.

In a sentence, people can see the problem.
It's taking a lot longer for your team, though.

As for my complaints about price point and discontinued support, and the beta test characterization, that is an attempt to shame your company into fixing the problems of the game we paid a price premium for (which is probably impossible at this point since the code is too rigid to fix easily, and you want to focus on future titles), or discounting a future purchase in acknowledging certain points about your WitE product, your customer base, and your business model.

With regard to the former, when people ask, I will respond. I am not being unfair. Your Stalingrad issue was your design, and you must stand beside it and own it. I am neither lying nor over-dramatizing the point. Methinks thou dos't protest too much.

With regard to the beta test allegations, you can shut my mouth on those simply by figuring out the math and promising us a reward for our loyalty. I honestly do think we deserve financial consideration for your next product, given that we paid $30 more than Blizzard charges for its best-in-category games. If you think your support is sufficient, I could research patch support in the Starcraft and Starcraft 2 series of games, which might go some distance to silence your supporters on how great your product support is.

And while it would be easy to say that Blizzard has more staff and sells multitudes more units, this would bring us back to the beginning: design a more competetive, better playing game, and the rest follows.

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 52
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/14/2012 12:20:59 AM   
Farfarer61

 

Posts: 713
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		Good god, the game is 'priced' just fine. I am amazed and grateful that such a grognard-or-those-who-are-young-but-have discovered-the-joy type Game can even be profitable.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 53
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/14/2012 2:49:01 AM   
Pipewrench


Posts: 453
Joined: 1/5/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

man...guess I touched a nerve. Didn't mean too. My apologies.

Was just trying to discover if this game was suitable for what I was looking for in a game.

From what I can gather the air is not very detailed and neither is production. A shame...but the land warfare is very very good. I have to say it would worry me a lot to have half my army withdrawn suddenly into a vacuum. Are there any other things a player would have to contend with that seem out of kilter.

I guess IM desperate for a new strategy level game on the same vein as WITP...as after 9 years IM suffering some burn out there.



This game is worth the cost. The Leningrad scenario alone will offer you challenges playing either side and serves as a great introduction. Taking the Russians in the 41' Campaign will give you all production detail you desire and more. With every game there are issues but these are being addressed.

(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 54
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/14/2012 4:27:50 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

Good god, the game is 'priced' just fine. I am amazed and grateful that such a grognard-or-those-who-are-young-but-have discovered-the-joy type Game can even be profitable.


Thus why Joel green buttoned him. Vomits the same tired old lines over and over.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Farfarer61)
Post #: 55
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/14/2012 5:01:15 PM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1312
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline 		Yes, he's a crusader remember

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 56
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/14/2012 5:50:45 PM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline 		To OP;

I am not a die hard pro-Axis or pro-USSR player, nor am I a good player, nor do I support Matrix titles blindly just because they are Matrixgames games. I play and buy the games that seem to be interesting, and I've bought this one.

I've played two pbem games, both poorly so, yet I have had hours of fun (well as long as you enjoy pulling your hair out by the handfuls because you realize your own folly ) with it.
Are there issues I am not too happy about? Sure, but then again there are in EVERY game I've EVER played (maybe not Diablo I and II, but that is beside the topic).

This game unlike Witp focuses on the war on land, and that part works like a charm for me, add in the fact that the people in this forum (as in any matrixgames forum I've ever visited) are a friendly and helpful bunch (although each with their different ideas and oppinions ), and you have a good game in my book.

True, you will probably get your nose bloodied in pbem, but that is still the best way to learn, and atleast for me, it has been fun so far (even though my Lebensraum has been extremely small ).


Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 57
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/14/2012 7:56:39 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Yes, he's a crusader remember


Does he wear a cape?

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 58
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: So...sell me on this..:-) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.267