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: Stepping away...

 
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 2 >> RE: Stepping away... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Stepping away... - 10/23/2021 3:18:34 PM   
821Bobo


Posts: 2311
Joined: 2/8/2011
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
It really doesn't matter if LW is flying F-2 or F-4, they will maul VVS badly anyway. If not, you are doing something wrong.

(in reply to GibsonPete)
Post #: 31
RE: Stepping away... - 10/23/2021 4:23:23 PM   
metaphore

 

Posts: 238
Joined: 9/4/2021
Status: offline
...

< Message edited by metaphore -- 10/23/2021 4:26:57 PM >

(in reply to Joch1955)
Post #: 32
RE: Stepping away... - 10/23/2021 4:26:29 PM   
metaphore

 

Posts: 238
Joined: 9/4/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joch1955

quote:

ORIGINAL: metaphore
His point was all about game mechanics and sloppy coding, not fighter quality, and his frustration came from another dodgy answer used to divert the blame into supposed game balance effect: "we won't fix it because it would give an advantage to this side blah blah blah" or, in this case, "the rules are the same for both players so it's not broken"... which is a moot excuse when consequences for each side are not the same.


Well I don’t see that at all, “sloppy coding” is a bit harsh. As Denniss pointed out, F4 production in July was just starting up. The F2 was still the main production model and around 250 were produced after Barbarossa began. All we are talking about is including F4s in some units in June and maybe tweaking the reinforcement schedule.

The WitX series are very complex and track every AC, AFV, Artillery piece, etc. in the theater. There are bound to be errors/guesstimates in the OOB. WW2 was a very well documented war, but often when you try to track down details, you find the info is not there. IMHO however, the Devs are committed to this series and will eventually fix any errors pointed out to them.

As I said, this is a tempest in a tea cup and nothing to get worked up about. As it is, the F2 wipes the floor with the VVS. I have been checking the Air Combat results for June-July and whenever VVS fighters run into 109s, even the E model, they suffer massive losses. This is even the case with the MIG-3 which was arguably the best Russian fighter in 41 and on paper roughly equal to the 109. This is because the LW skill level is much higher than the VVS one. Having more F4s would not change the results.


Again, I do think that you are still missing the point about what is not correct with the production system as it was implemented.

One should ask himself, before coding, if all possible cases were actually covered by studies. This is supposed to be a simulation of something existing. So, how were organized the production lines? Did we have one single line per factory or multiple ones? Did we have only one model in production or multiple models of the same aircraft/tank/equipment running at the same time? Was overlapping in production a possibility or not?

Consequently, if the answer given to such an issue when it's happening in game is "sorry guys but we didn't cover such case in our code but, as it's the same issue for both players, you'll have to be happy with it". can't be taken for a serious answer.

This F2/F4 issue was simply an example of something that will impact one side more than the other, because this side was producing a lot less of each stuff, but with multiple models at different places or production lines.

Then, when something was upgraded, the whole production would not be halted (Bf 109 in August in our example), because, in reality, any previous model (F2 in our example) was still in production at Factory "x" line #a alongside the change in new model (F4) at Factory "y" line #b which could have been stopped the time necessary for retooling.

Sauron example given being:
- F4 production started in May
- F2 production was stopped in July

But, in our actual game with the current system: 0 Bf 109 are delivered in August (F2 or F4)

While, of course in reality, both F2 and F4 models were delivered in June, July, August, etc.


The point was that, as this game is a so-called simulation, it should at least try to simulate it because there is an impact to be felt with many other pieces of equipment during the campaign.


< Message edited by metaphore -- 10/23/2021 4:39:18 PM >

(in reply to metaphore)
Post #: 33
RE: Stepping away... - 10/23/2021 4:28:50 PM   
erikbengtsson


Posts: 126
Joined: 3/29/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nix77


quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

The Luftwaffe being "bled white" of 109's in late summer, early fall of 1941? How on earth can that possibly happen?


The air war is still being looked into, and if you mean bleeding dry the Luftwaffe in human control, that's absolutely possible, depending on how you use them. With AI control, first turn losses are 500ish German aircraft iirc, and that's still a sustainable number. With some tweaking and human intervention, the losses can fall well below 100. Do that tweaking every turn and you won't be "bleeding white".

My post was a reaction to one of the original poster's claims that I thought was a bit over the top. ;)

(in reply to Nix77)
Post #: 34
RE: Stepping away... - 10/23/2021 4:43:04 PM   
metaphore

 

Posts: 238
Joined: 9/4/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

My post was a reaction to one of the original poster's claims that I thought was a bit over the top. ;)



Yeah, it was over the top, and probably out of frustration :)

(in reply to erikbengtsson)
Post #: 35
RE: Stepping away... - 10/24/2021 8:18:38 AM   
Nix77

 

Posts: 561
Joined: 10/2/2016
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: metaphore

But, in our actual game with the current system: 0 Bf 109 are delivered in August (F2 or F4)


Actually F2 will be delivered to units in August unless you've managed to wreck all of them from the pool. F4 will be produced in August, but will only be delivered to units in late August, once there's enough in the pool. T10 seems to be the first turn when AI starts upgrading them automatically to the units, while in September (T12) you can do this manually.

And by the way, I tested what happens if I change first production month as June for the F4. Both F2 and F4 WILL be produced in June, and in my test game JG received F4 upgrade in July already.

Since only the chassis production is factory-based, you can have concurrent production of different models of same chassis, but the chassis pool will be the limiting factor.

So actually there's no problem at all with Bf-109 production. If you feel the F4 should be present in start of Barbarossa, just change the start month, or add some to the pool. Not a big deal.

I noticed however there's a slight hiccup in the Bf-109 production: on turn 3 for some reason always only 25 Bf-109F-2 are produced instead of the full capacity of 42 pcs, even though there are chassis available in the pool. And also if I set the F4 production to earlier month, neither of the Bf-109 models get produced AT ALL on turn 3. Turn 4, production resumes normally.

EDIT: I think I got it, the game doesn't want to empty the Bf-109 chassis pool completely, so on T3 it leaves a buffer in the pool (25 pcs), and only part of the aircrafts are produced. If I added the F4 production to the equation, the chassis pool got sucked dry completely on T2, so on T3 nothing gets produced. Keep this in mind if you're fiddling with production rates & dates :)

< Message edited by Nix77 -- 10/24/2021 8:23:50 AM >

(in reply to metaphore)
Post #: 36
RE: Stepping away... - 10/24/2021 5:22:46 PM   
Joch1955

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 9/5/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: metaphore

But, in our actual game with the current system: 0 Bf 109 are delivered in August (F2 or F4)




As Nix77 pointed out, that is wrong, F2s will continue to be produced in August and until F4s are produced and the production model is flexible enough to produce both F2s AND F4s at the same time. I suspected as much since, as I recall, it was not an issue with Wite1.

So there is nothing wrong with the production model in the simulation as designed.

(in reply to metaphore)
Post #: 37
RE: Stepping away... - 10/24/2021 7:47:42 PM   
Zemke


Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
I am certainly not an Air expert in this game, just the opposite. Until recently, I was only using AI-controlled air, but to play PvP, I switched to manual control.

Frankly, the whole Air Model seems too complicated, not very intuitive, and a lot of clicks to get something close to what you want, and even then, you don't know if the computer is going to do what you tell or not, or it seems that way.

I routinely put fighters on Air Superiority, yet it seems not much happens, or the results seem rather bland. I can see bombing results, I got that, I can see Naval Interdiction results, I get that.

I would almost prefer an old SPI NATO game box system where each player puts his Air blindly against the other player and you see what level of Air Superiority is gained or is it contested, and that affects everything else.

What I would also like is I want my CAS Air units to support certain attacks above all else, priority. For example to make a breakthrough attack on the ground you need to clear out 3 hexes across ideally. To do that you need to push those first-line units out of the way, and usually, this will require some CAS Air support, but I don't want to use up all my Air Support on those "battlefield setting the conditions" attacks, I would prefer to be able to use the air for the critical must-win attacks. I don't think the game does that very well, it just flies all the CAS that can fly each battle till there is no longer any CAS to fly.

Like I said above, I am no expert at Air, this is an Operational level ground combat game, and the air model is of secondary importance in the big picture, but the air should be easier to use or understand. But I may be missing something completely, Air in this game is not very intuitive.



< Message edited by Zemke -- 10/24/2021 7:50:55 PM >


_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to GibsonPete)
Post #: 38
RE: Stepping away... - 10/24/2021 8:14:14 PM   
Zemke


Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
One more post on WitE2 in general:

Many people have brought up good ideas and concerns about how certain things are modeled in the game or executed in the game. I feel like this game has too much focus on minutia detail and data. As the Commander of the entire Eastern front, I don't care about all that detail unless it affects operations, unless there is something that can be done within the appropriate Command level, Theater COmmander. The East Front Commander is NOT going to be able to change production, nor should he be in the business of deciding bomb load-outs; that is just insane to me, but whatever floats your boat.

If I were in charge of the game, I would change a lot of things about the game, but I am not. And that brings me to my main point, the guys working on this game are working their asses off with minimal resources in people, so ALL changes take time to program and test and tweak. Don't forget each change will upset someone, the Soviet Fan Boys, the German Fan Boys, the Data Tweakers, the control freaks, the game system manipulators, amateur east front historians, the military purest, etc. (I fall into the last two categories.)

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to Zemke)
Post #: 39
RE: Stepping away... - 10/24/2021 8:16:32 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
While not on the topic at hand I quite agree with Zemke that right now the air model seems a lot of noise, really a lot of it, for relatively little.
On the other hand it may well add to the micromanagement to have it more precise and detailed (such as to determine what units are to fly as CAS specifically for each battle).

(in reply to Zemke)
Post #: 40
RE: Stepping away... - 10/24/2021 8:24:30 PM   
Zemke


Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
Thanks AlbertN...too many clicks for not much juice!

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 41
RE: Stepping away... - 10/24/2021 9:10:25 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline
Again, I say that 2by3 does not design games for wargamers or for fans of history:
They create games for data miners.

A true data miner doesn't care if a game stress point is realistic, believable, or accurate. All a data miner cares about is whether the stress point is a) repeatable and b) meaningfully exploitable.
You can look at any single weapon system in the game and see clearly that the game is absurdly over-engineered. The players who are considered great are data miners and always have been. The play testers (well, you guys are the play testers; I'm speaking of the ALPHA play testers) were all data miners.

You cannot shove this much data into a Grand Strategy Wargame without expecting the kinds of unrealistic exploits that have been commonplace since WitE(1) and WitW. You can count on 2by3 giving this game a lot of support and patching, but it will be a long time before gameplay isn't overshadowed by unrealistic exploits and/or game-killing bugs.

_____________________________

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 Zemke)
Post #: 42
RE: Stepping away... - 10/24/2021 9:33:03 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 6668
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline
It’s not a grand strategic wargame, it’s a grand operational wargame. Once you spend some time understanding how to manually do the air war (8-16 hours), then you truly will under stand how to manipulate it and put it to use.

GG games have always had vast depth, that is why we play anc buy them, not for simplicity.

_____________________________


Beta Tester for:
Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm
War in the East 1 & 2
WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific
Valor & Victory
DG CWIE 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 43
RE: Stepping away... - 10/24/2021 10:47:15 PM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 8650
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
A few comments:

1. The majority of Air Directives are Ground Support and Recon. Ground Support is defining the Air Directive and then you can turn it on or off through the button or hot key. This also helps you concentrate the Ground Support exactly where you want it. Recon Directives are setup once and then you just adjust them to where you want them each turn. In both cases it is very minimal management after the initial setup and even the setup goes fast once you are experienced at it.

2. Air Superiority is NOT what you think it is. The only use for Air Superiority is to enable a chance of intercepting enemy aircraft far from friendly air bases. On the Eastern front neither side really have fighters with the range to take advantage of this mission. I strongly suggest never using it.

3. If you want fighter interceptions of enemy air action you have two choices. To counter enemy Ground Support directives then you assign your fighters to your Ground Support directives and they will do the job very nicely.

4. If you want fighter interceptions of non-Ground Support directives then base them in a well-supplied air base (use Air Supply if the air base needs more supplies). DO NOT ASSIGN THESE FIGHTERS TO ANY OTHER DIRECTIVES. This is the step that everyone seems to forget. If you do this then you will be able to intercept enemy Ground Attacks, Ground Support, Recon, and even Strategic Bombing in the area of the air base (about six to eight hexes). I assign single air groups across the front at different air bases to give good coverage. It works. It has always worked and it still works. You may not get the 50+ fighter interceptions but you will get interceptions that hurt enemy air activity - either Axis or Soviets - and REALLY punish unescorted bombers.

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 44
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 8:58:37 AM   
Chama

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 2/15/2017
Status: offline
Don't you get two AOG that fly f-4 in august as the Germans as reinforcements? In my game with theater boxes locked they are in west Europe.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 45
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 2:32:54 PM   
GibsonPete


Posts: 308
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
carlkay58: "3. If you want fighter interceptions of enemy air action you have two choices. To counter enemy Ground Support directives then you assign your fighters to your Ground Support directives and they will do the job very nicely."

~ Absolutely agree. This is the way to get the job done.

Zemke: "Frankly, the whole Air Model seems too complicated, not very intuitive, and a lot of clicks to get something close to what you want, and even then, you don't know if the computer is going to do what you tell or not, or it seems that way."

~ I agree but we play the cards dealt.


(in reply to Chama)
Post #: 46
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 2:49:05 PM   
Thogode


Posts: 8
Joined: 8/8/2011
From: North Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Again, I say that 2by3 does not design games for wargamers or for fans of history:
They create games for data miners.


Is the WWII data mining community large enough to make such an approach of the developers economically feasible?
I guess the developers have to pay a rent. And the publisher also likes to earn some money.

quote:


A true data miner doesn't care if a game stress point is realistic, believable, or accurate. All a data miner cares about is whether the stress point is a) repeatable and b) meaningfully exploitable.
You can look at any single weapon system in the game and see clearly that the game is absurdly over-engineered. The players who are considered great are data miners and always have been. The play testers (well, you guys are the play testers; I'm speaking of the ALPHA play testers) were all data miners.


How do you know that all testers are data miner?
And if the testers are all data miners, why are these errors/exploits are showing up now? Shouldn't these things have shown up during testing already?

quote:


You cannot shove this much data into a Grand Strategy Wargame without expecting the kinds of unrealistic exploits that have been commonplace since WitE(1) and WitW. You can count on 2by3 giving this game a lot of support and patching, but it will be a long time before gameplay isn't overshadowed by unrealistic exploits and/or game-killing bugs.


This threat is, looking at WitE2 itself, confusing and gives me little hope for the future development of WitE2.
From your conclusions and the remarks from Zemke I am inclined to think the starting message of the thread is right: The common player should come back to this game in a few years - if you will be able to come back in a few years because only the data miners and their discussions about exploits will remain. But will such a not-so-common audience increase sales and profits?




(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 47
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 3:03:13 PM   
malyhin1517


Posts: 1426
Joined: 9/20/2015
From: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk
Status: offline
This game has a narrow fan base and will never be played by millions of players. This game is for puzzle lovers and chess players. There are much fewer such people than fans of the shooting games.

_____________________________

Sorry, i use an online translator :(

(in reply to Thogode)
Post #: 48
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 3:39:05 PM   
MarkShot

 

Posts: 7089
Joined: 3/29/2003
Status: offline
Very big learning curve. With people's feedback they will get it where it needs to be.

Yes, this game is intricate or complex if you want simple and period feel play HOI4. It has the music, graphics, and terminology.

Of course, air was just simply a code hack on top if the political state zones to make air and sea zones. Despite having no hexes, planes halt exactly at the coast line; because it corresponds to the political map boundaries. Despite being realtime, planes don't transit, they simply appear in the target hex. Everyone is talking in the news these day about FOB weapons, but Paradox had them first in 1939. Air control of a zone is simply binary. If I have 5001 fighters of The Channel, the OPFOR has 5000, I got control; and I do mean enough planes that more would be lost by collision than by fire.

So, the game you want exists today. You even have database like here, but it is of no real consequence. I thought that is what people are discussing here making the output database reflect plausible outcomes of 39-45.

GG, devs, betas ... keep going, you have a great start!

_____________________________

(於 11/13/21 台北,台灣,中國退休)

(in reply to malyhin1517)
Post #: 49
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 4:02:47 PM   
Thogode


Posts: 8
Joined: 8/8/2011
From: North Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Very big learning curve. With people's feedback they will get it where it needs to be.

Yes, this game is intricate or complex if you want simple and period feel play HOI4. It has the music, graphics, and terminology.

...

So, the game you want exists today. You even have database like here, but it is of no real consequence. I thought that is what people are discussing here making the output database reflect plausible outcomes of 39-45.

GG, devs, betas ... keep going, you have a great start!


Sorry MarkShot, but this wasn't my point.
I have played HOI4 and in my opinion, it is a shallow game for a casual player.

The GG games are known to me, I have played WitPAE, WitE1 and WitW. The complexity of the GG approach is known to me, and I spent many hours in WitW to get the strategic bombing campaign of the Allies working.
You are quite active in the WitW forum too, and you certainly noticed Chuske's collection of links for beginners. Such posts helped me a lot.

Here, if you are asking about a certain topic, you mostly get the answer: WitE2 is broken, because ...
Maybe I am wrong or looking at this forum with a bias, but this is my impression about the last weeks here. Or I am simply missing your experience.

(Off topic: Thanks for pointing me to Panther Games.)

(in reply to MarkShot)
Post #: 50
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 4:11:06 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Very big learning curve. With people's feedback they will get it where it needs to be.

Yes, this game is intricate or complex if you want simple and period feel play HOI4. It has the music, graphics, and terminology.

Of course, air was just simply a code hack on top if the political state zones to make air and sea zones. Despite having no hexes, planes halt exactly at the coast line; because it corresponds to the political map boundaries. Despite being realtime, planes don't transit, they simply appear in the target hex. Everyone is talking in the news these day about FOB weapons, but Paradox had them first in 1939. Air control of a zone is simply binary. If I have 5001 fighters of The Channel, the OPFOR has 5000, I got control; and I do mean enough planes that more would be lost by collision than by fire.

So, the game you want exists today. You even have database like here, but it is of no real consequence. I thought that is what people are discussing here making the output database reflect plausible outcomes of 39-45.

GG, devs, betas ... keep going, you have a great start!


You have to an ear that will listen and not throw "bias" into the equation. Then "yes" you could have a great start. But when you have a "bias" thrown in it will never go anywhere.

(in reply to MarkShot)
Post #: 51
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 4:14:47 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

A few comments:

1. The majority of Air Directives are Ground Support and Recon. Ground Support is defining the Air Directive and then you can turn it on or off through the button or hot key. This also helps you concentrate the Ground Support exactly where you want it. Recon Directives are setup once and then you just adjust them to where you want them each turn. In both cases it is very minimal management after the initial setup and even the setup goes fast once you are experienced at it.

2. Air Superiority is NOT what you think it is. The only use for Air Superiority is to enable a chance of intercepting enemy aircraft far from friendly air bases. On the Eastern front neither side really have fighters with the range to take advantage of this mission. I strongly suggest never using it.

3. If you want fighter interceptions of enemy air action you have two choices. To counter enemy Ground Support directives then you assign your fighters to your Ground Support directives and they will do the job very nicely.

4. If you want fighter interceptions of non-Ground Support directives then base them in a well-supplied air base (use Air Supply if the air base needs more supplies). DO NOT ASSIGN THESE FIGHTERS TO ANY OTHER DIRECTIVES. This is the step that everyone seems to forget. If you do this then you will be able to intercept enemy Ground Attacks, Ground Support, Recon, and even Strategic Bombing in the area of the air base (about six to eight hexes). I assign single air groups across the front at different air bases to give good coverage. It works. It has always worked and it still works. You may not get the 50+ fighter interceptions but you will get interceptions that hurt enemy air activity - either Axis or Soviets - and REALLY punish unescorted bombers.



Your answer to #2 made me laugh. Every single answer I have seen on AS, except for the one that Jubjub gave AND demonstrated, is pure 100% "rubbish" on AS. I would encourage everyone to look that post up by Jubjub on AS to learn it and live it.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 52
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 4:19:28 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete

carlkay58: "3. If you want fighter interceptions of enemy air action you have two choices. To counter enemy Ground Support directives then you assign your fighters to your Ground Support directives and they will do the job very nicely."

~ Absolutely agree. This is the way to get the job done.

Zemke: "Frankly, the whole Air Model seems too complicated, not very intuitive, and a lot of clicks to get something close to what you want, and even then, you don't know if the computer is going to do what you tell or not, or it seems that way."

~ I agree but we play the cards dealt.




And the card at the moment is a patch in the future(Dec/Jan time frame would be my guess). It is unfortunate but a necessary wait for me to do anything in the game now.

(in reply to GibsonPete)
Post #: 53
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 4:59:19 PM   
GibsonPete


Posts: 308
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
HYLA you are right again. Patience is rewarded.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 54
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 5:28:27 PM   
Zemke


Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thogode


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Again, I say that 2by3 does not design games for wargamers or for fans of history:
They create games for data miners.


Is the WWII data mining community large enough to make such an approach of the developers economically feasible?
I guess the developers have to pay a rent. And the publisher also likes to earn some money.

quote:


A true data miner doesn't care if a game stress point is realistic, believable, or accurate. All a data miner cares about is whether the stress point is a) repeatable and b) meaningfully exploitable.
You can look at any single weapon system in the game and see clearly that the game is absurdly over-engineered. The players who are considered great are data miners and always have been. The play testers (well, you guys are the play testers; I'm speaking of the ALPHA play testers) were all data miners.


How do you know that all testers are data miner?
And if the testers are all data miners, why are these errors/exploits are showing up now? Shouldn't these things have shown up during testing already?

quote:


You cannot shove this much data into a Grand Strategy Wargame without expecting the kinds of unrealistic exploits that have been commonplace since WitE(1) and WitW. You can count on 2by3 giving this game a lot of support and patching, but it will be a long time before gameplay isn't overshadowed by unrealistic exploits and/or game-killing bugs.


This threat is, looking at WitE2 itself, confusing and gives me little hope for the future development of WitE2.
From your conclusions and the remarks from Zemke I am inclined to think the starting message of the thread is right: The common player should come back to this game in a few years - if you will be able to come back in a few years because only the data miners and their discussions about exploits will remain. But will such a not-so-common audience increase sales and profits?






Don't get down about what you read here, because what you read here is from players who are REALLY into the whole East Front War, and who are generally discussing certain points in the game because they want/demand a certain experience that usually is motivated by history or the ability to change history. So when they perceive a shortfall that we think is fixable, or certain things that do not make sense, you get what you see.

This game is the BEST Eastern Front wargame in existence as it is, so if you are wanting something like that, then this is your game. But it has certain things that certain players wish/want to be fixed or changed. To me, the Air could be better and easier to use, but it is not a reason to not buy the game.

< Message edited by Zemke -- 10/25/2021 5:30:07 PM >


_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to Thogode)
Post #: 55
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 5:40:56 PM   
Zemke


Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Again, I say that 2by3 does not design games for wargamers or for fans of history:
They create games for data miners.

A true data miner doesn't care if a game stress point is realistic, believable, or accurate. All a data miner cares about is whether the stress point is a) repeatable and b) meaningfully exploitable.
You can look at any single weapon system in the game and see clearly that the game is absurdly over-engineered. The players who are considered great are data miners and always have been. The play testers (well, you guys are the play testers; I'm speaking of the ALPHA play testers) were all data miners.

You cannot shove this much data into a Grand Strategy Wargame without expecting the kinds of unrealistic exploits that have been commonplace since WitE(1) and WitW. You can count on 2by3 giving this game a lot of support and patching, but it will be a long time before gameplay isn't overshadowed by unrealistic exploits and/or game-killing bugs.


I hear what you are saying. They did put a LOT of work into the data because that is the design philosophy behind Gary Grigsby's games. They are applying a math value to each system or sub-system in the hope to get realistic results. If you have been playing any of Gary Grigsby's games over the years I am sure you know this already. Very similar to the former Soviet Union's philosophy of using mathematical formulations to come up with correlation of forces models. But again I do sometimes I feel like I am playing a giant Spreadsheet Data rock, paper, scissors game.

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 56
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 5:44:16 PM   
MarkShot

 

Posts: 7089
Joined: 3/29/2003
Status: offline
I DON'T think this game is over modeled.

It could well be argued that it under modeled.

Why? Because much of the behavior modeling is based on randomness and complex rule sets. (First, this is either mainly done due to its BG history; or you can get a great number of moving parts without overloading the hardware it is running under.)

An entirely different was to build a game of this type is using physics equation and agents.

When done well, either approach should give you results that correspond to historical outcomes.

The physics approach given the scale of this game would probably grind play to halt. But one of the advantage of agents, and physics is you can get emergent behavior which will never happen with rules and dice. Physics is reductionist, but can lead to unanticipated outcomes since not all interaction where explicitly coded for.

---

As a retired software engineer, I am happy with either approach as long as the game is immersive, believable, logical vis a vis real world practice, and had a good UI and docs. I consider this game to be a master piece of the rule set approach of design. Something like MIUS and CMx2 have generally increased processing power to be physics based. (Besides rule based tending to lack emergent behaviors, they also tend to be more subject to boundary conditions. Of course, if the designer is not careful, boundary conditions are often the basis of the start of an exploit chain.)

_____________________________

(於 11/13/21 台北,台灣,中國退休)

(in reply to Zemke)
Post #: 57
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 6:23:12 PM   
Zemke


Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

I DON'T think this game is over modeled.

It could well be argued that it under modeled.

Why? Because much of the behavior modeling is based on randomness and complex rule sets. (First, this is either mainly done due to its BG history; or you can get a great number of moving parts without overloading the hardware it is running under.)

An entirely different was to build a game of this type is using physics equation and agents.

When done well, either approach should give you results that correspond to historical outcomes.

The physics approach given the scale of this game would probably grind play to halt. But one of the advantage of agents, and physics is you can get emergent behavior which will never happen with rules and dice. Physics is reductionist, but can lead to unanticipated outcomes since not all interaction where explicitly coded for.

---

As a retired software engineer, I am happy with either approach as long as the game is immersive, believable, logical vis a vis real world practice, and had a good UI and docs. I consider this game to be a master piece of the rule set approach of design. Something like MIUS and CMx2 have generally increased processing power to be physics based. (Besides rule based tending to lack emergent behaviors, they also tend to be more subject to boundary conditions. Of course, if the designer is not careful, boundary conditions are often the basis of the start of an exploit chain.)


Anyone want to explain all this to a dumb Grunt?

I think he said he likes the game...?

< Message edited by Zemke -- 10/25/2021 6:24:27 PM >


_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to MarkShot)
Post #: 58
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 7:42:13 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Hi All. There seems to be a lot of emotion and over focus on particular minuscule details that make no difference to the macro simulation and flow of the game?

I get we're all here (I assume but you know what they say about assumption) for playing a detailed, and hopefully historical, WW2 game AND sure there's things that could be improved/tweaked for better BUT should we not focus on the positives of the game, enjoy it, mention with logic and evidence if we think things could be changed BUT not just leave or threaten to stop playing if it isn't? A by-product (IMO) of the ream of negative posts and comments is it may negatively affect attracting new players to the game when there's so much good to enjoy here. That long term affects the potential for things to change/be improved and for new games to be made.

Anyway. Just my 2p

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Zemke)
Post #: 59
RE: Stepping away... - 10/25/2021 7:54:31 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline
I'd say that 2p is worth at least 10p

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> RE: Stepping away... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
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

0.891