Poland 39?

[vonTirpitz]

Is there any chance that a Poland 39 scenario with all the early war equipment and OOB will ship with this game? If not, will gamers have the ability to create and/or modify equipment in the editor to make one?

[Capitaine]

Very good thought.  It would be a great "smaller" scenario.

[Sabre21]

The only problem with the smaller scenarios is the length of time they historically took to complete. A 4 to 6 turn scenario I don't think would be a priority but it is still too early to tell what all the scenarios may be.
 
There will be an editor, again, still a bit early to know what all the functionality might be, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

[EdinHouston]

I am curious, why would anyone want to play the poland 1939 scenario? I mean, was there really any chance of a different outcome? Even without the German-Soviet pact its hard to see a significantly different outcome.

Personally I would prefer the developers focus on the parts of the game, and avoid some of the possible distractions I've seen mentioned, like a more complex naval system. If you try to be all things to all people, this game could become unplayable.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: EdinHouston

I am curious, why would anyone want to play the poland 1939 scenario? I mean, was there really any chance of a different outcome? Even without the German-Soviet pact its hard to see a significantly different outcome.

Personally I would prefer the developers focus on the parts of the game, and avoid some of the possible distractions I've seen mentioned, like a more complex naval system. If you try to be all things to all people, this game could become unplayable.

Well said. There is a certain beauty in simplicity. Not too simple but not too complex either.

[Terminus]

Definitely. Modders can always do other scenarios later; Poland 39 has nothing to do with this.

[Hard Sarge]

I am curious, why would anyone want to play the poland 1939 scenario? I mean, was there really any chance of a different outcome? Even without the German-Soviet pact its hard to see a significantly different outcome.

isn't that a bit of hindsight speaking ?

basicly we should already know the outcome of any of these games, so why be interested in any of them ?

[Capitaine]

Poland 1939 is a historical campaign; the first blitzkrieg.  It holds historical interest.  Just as with the Russo-German war, the odds of one of the sides winning "Total Victory" may have been very small.  Yet victory conditions could be established, and the player could run through the exercise.  I would imagine it would mostly be a solitaire, German vs. AI situation.  But it's always good to have simulations of historical campaigns where possible.
 
I would definitely try my hand at how quickly I could conquer Poland.  It would be good practice for Barbarossa.

[PyleDriver]

We really can drop this subject, ain't doing to happen...Sorry

[elmo3]

Not sure if there will be any tutorials included with WitE but Poland 1939 would be short (~4 turns) and might make a good one.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: EdinHouston

I am curious, why would anyone want to play the poland 1939 scenario? I mean, was there really any chance of a different outcome? Even without the German-Soviet pact its hard to see a significantly different outcome.

Personally I would prefer the developers focus on the parts of the game, and avoid some of the possible distractions I've seen mentioned, like a more complex naval system. If you try to be all things to all people, this game could become unplayable.

Speaking from a game design point of view, victory has nothing to do with historical realities. As a designer, victory is what you decide to make it in your game. So even though the scenario is a loser historically from the Polish point of view, it can be won if you set the victory objectives right in the design of the scenario.

This is the same kind of argument that makes designers do things like putting in *play balance* features in a game, because people want equal forces instead of historical forces. Why not just get the history right and create victory conditions around the historical realties? I mean why not say Poland gets a minor victory if they last 1 week longer and a major victory if they last 2? An historical outcome would be a draw and Germany would have to do better than history for a win.

So a Poland 39 scenario could very well be a fun short scenario, if the victory objectives are done right so it becomes a challenging scenario. But I agree with others here, don't waste any development time on such a tiny scenario until the big dog is done right. It's just too small and you couldn't really do much else with all the design work they'd have to put in to it other than just that one scenario.

Jim

[vonTirpitz]

I fully agree with the comments that Jim Burns brought up. The game designer(s) control game play (and thus fun factor) in a game more so than historical precedents. (I have yet to see any game implementation that makes fighting past 1942 strategically practical for the Axis due to hard coded disadvantages generally outside the players control).

By the way, thanks to everyone for their input.

I am still curious to know whether or not the game can support earlier equipment tables and objectives so that scenarios could feasibly be created for Poland (39) and the Balkans (40). (This is more a matter of the game engine mechanics than any attempt to redirect developer resources).

Thanks again!

[paullus99]

I would love to see a "Zhukov Offensive - May 1941" - based on the plan to try to encircle the gathering German forces in Poland.

[TPM]

I agree. I don't think a Poland 1939 scenario is appropriate for this game, nor is an elaborate naval system.

ORIGINAL: EdinHouston

I am curious, why would anyone want to play the poland 1939 scenario? I mean, was there really any chance of a different outcome? Even without the German-Soviet pact its hard to see a significantly different outcome.

Personally I would prefer the developers focus on the parts of the game, and avoid some of the possible distractions I've seen mentioned, like a more complex naval system. If you try to be all things to all people, this game could become unplayable.

[Cavalry Corp]

A May Barbarossa would be interesting - would these extra few weeks / turns have made for victory!
At least its a simple scn

[TPM]

Yes, this would be a great addition, because this is a question that is always asked--would that an extra month of dry weather make a difference?

ORIGINAL: cavalry

A May Barbarossa would be interesting - would these extra few weeks / turns have made for victory!
At least its a simple scn

[Cavalry Corp]

In this we will be able to find out !

[Zaratoughda]

Initially I was on the bandwagon that a Poland '39 scenario should be included, as a startup scenario and short and fun scenario.

However, thinking about it some more, this campaign was two years before WITE so, probably much better off as part of the western front game.

But still..... would be nice to get some smaller scenarios as opposed to the gigantic ones. It may not be obvious, but there are a LOT of us wargamers that prefer the smaller scenarios to the larger ones.

One possibility.... a Barbarosa scenario that ends with the first mud. I did a scenario along these lines for WIR and uploaded it to the forums there but didn't have much time to follow up. Makes for a great short game.

Also, Rob Kunz did a whole series of scenarios for TOAW, on the progress of Army Group Center during the first year of the war. Crossing the border, the Battle of Smolensk, turning south to Kiev, etc, eight scenarios in all, and those were regimental level and would have to be converted to divisional level for WITE (I guess) but would in fact make for a lot of small and fun scenarios.

Whatever, maybe things along these lines should wait until after the initial release.

Zaratoughda