I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago?

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
A simple rule like proposed by wadortch can easily be tracked by the players as a house rule. Of course if people used this and it gained popularity, we'd consider adding it into the code, but I don't see the need to do that now (since it can already be agreed on by the players).

This is pretty much what I alluded to in an earlier post. Players can easily download the old rules for Russian Campaign or Russian Front from boardgamegeek.com and determine intermediate victory conditions manually as a house rule. It's not that hard. If a few players were to actually playtest a campaign using the Russian Front victory rules and could endorse that (perhaps with modifications) then maybe Joel would have something solid to consider adding into the code.

[Baelfiin]

Can I buy WitW, WitS and anything else that comes out now please? [:)]

[wadortch]

Hi Joel
My suggestion remains, if it is an easy thing for you all to do, is to patch it up now as an option. Get it in as an official optional rule which players can test and feedback on precisely.
Walt

[gradenko2k]

wadortch, I think Joel's point is that if all you're doing is tracking which side has which cities by some set date, then it should be easy enough for the two players to agree to track that manually. The "difficulty" lies in getting the two players to both consent to a set of rules, but once those rules ARE set, then it should be very straightforward for the players to abide by them even if there's no official UI to support it.

[Ketza]

I enjoy this game immensely.

It keeps getting better and issues are being addressed.

Thats about all we can hope for [:)]


I would love to be able to create Axis units just as the Soviets do but that would make for some odd games and I agree with the developers in choosing to not give the Axis that freedom until possibly later in the series if at all.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Please note I replayed to similar thread of same author earlier - this is copy & paste... [;)]



Is this game / simulation flawed?

IMHO not!


Why do people think it is flawed?

Because many still think that Germany could have won against Soviet Union and / or that Japan could have won over USA in historic WWII!


This is, IMHO, fundamental mistake many player make and this is where all "issues" came from... [;)]


The very second Germany attacked Soviet Union in WWII the Germany lost the war - similarly the very second Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the Japan lost the war!

No serious modern historian would tell otherwise either!!!


So why do we still play Japan in UV / WitP / WitP-AE and / or Germany in WitE?

Because we know that it is lost cause but we want to be better than history!

The winning is not in absolute victory - that was historically impossible - the winning is beating the history (i.e. being better than the history)!


Thus, the winning for Japan in UV / WitP / WitP-AE is not conquering the Pacific - the winning is keeping the USA further away from home islands in 1945 and not allowing devastating B-29 raids on Japanese cities (including the A-Bomb attack)!

Similarly, the winning for Germany in not conquering the Soviet Union - the winning is keeping the Soviets as far east as possible from Berlin!



Leo "Apollo11"

[delatbabel]

I agree with what a few others have said about the Soviets being too weak in 1941 to put up a fight. It's not worth having your entire army encircled and destroyed to hold a few hexes with little value. In return the Soviets built up strength way too quickly and were too able to powerfully demolish the Germans in the winter of 1941/42, and then the Germans get too weak in 1944 to hold their line, and there is an enormous stalemate in 1943 with too little attack opportunity on either side.

Unfortunately the designers' reaction to the second problem has been to weaken the Soviets in 41 and strengthen the Germans in the winter of 41, which is the wrong solution to the right problem.

I think that the biggest mistakes of the earlier versions have mostly been fixed in 1.05 (even if I don't agree with all of the fixes) and I think the main issue now is sorting out the fine detail of the balance issues. Personally I don't want a "sudden death" victory condition, I would be happy with a version where the Germans could come out of it bloody, bruised, but victorious, having held the Russians out of Berlin until June 1945. I don't think we're too far from that.

In terms of holding ground -- when he invaded Russia, Hitler's eyes were not on the factories and armaments production of the Soviets. He knew he couldn't use those and in essence he was greedy -- he wanted what he could gain for Germany and not what he could tear away from Russia. Hitler's eyes were on the grain producing areas of the Ukraine and the mines of the Donbas, things that couldn't be torn up or shipped eastwards. So there should be some incentive for the Soviets to protect those, but with the weakness of the Soviet army in 1941 there's no chance it can be done and hence no point trying.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

A simple rule like proposed by wadortch can easily be tracked by the players as a house rule. Of course if people used this and it gained popularity, we'd consider adding it into the code, but I don't see the need to do that now (since it can already be agreed on by the players).

The reason why this option needs to be coded, is that it is just too simple to name certain cities by a certain date, there needs to be some uncertainty. If you know you just have to win one more city to win, then you will risk everything else for that certain victory.

However, as selected criteria (cities, hexes, casualties, etc.) are met by either side, there could be a die roll on victory, the odds don't have to be too high, as it is the chance of victory, or defeat, that keeps both sides fighting, just as it did historically. The odds will improve as more of the criteria are met, so the potential could start to act early and become more urgent as the game progresses. There would be a level of risk, albeit at first a low risk, in an early run-away strategy.

There were certainly attempts to overthrow Hitler as conditions deteriorated for Germany, one successful bomb and this would have been reality, who's to say what might have happened to Stalin after things had got worse.

It is the chance of victory, or defeat, that will enliven the game, not necessarily the certainty of the result. [:)]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

The very second Germany attacked Soviet Union in WWII the Germany lost the war - similarly the very second Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the Japan lost the war!

No serious modern historian would tell otherwise either!!!

So why do we still play Japan in UV / WitP / WitP-AE and / or Germany in WitE?

Because we know that it is lost cause but we want to be better than history!

Japan did not expect to defeat the USA, they planned to make the recapture of lost territories so costly that the US would would recoil from that price, historically they were wrong.

Hitler did not so much expect the defeat of the Soviet Union, more the collapse of Stalin's government and to drive the Russians back to an East wall that could be held against the Asian hordes, historically he was wrong.

Few players have a problem 'losing' as Japan in WitP/WitP-AE, but then Japanese forces did not come within sight of the Capitol dome in Washington. However, there will always be a discussion on whether the Germans could have brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union, especially after capturing Moscow.

We will never know, but it would be an advantage to have the option to introduce the same imperatives that drove the historical commanders. The Soviet commanders did not throw thousands of troops into forlorn attacks because they had confidence they would eventually win, they did it because they thought they might lose. The Germans drove on to Moscow through worsening conditions because they thought that one last push would win through.

Whether they were right, or wrong, I think that the game would have a different feel if players had the option to experience the same fear of failure, or glimpse of success, experienced by the actual commanders, who were not protected by hindsight from the historical timeline of victory, or defeat.[:)]

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: wadortch

What I suggest is to Patch (because people, me included, want an official rule not a house rule) in an OPTIONAL victory condition set that would involve sudden death victory conditions for both sides.

My proposal for the SD condition is this: if one side or the other occupies all the following cities on the 1st turn of March, 1942, they win the game: Leningrad, Rzhev Moscow, Tula, Voronezh, Voroshilovgrad and Rostov.

Let's try it and see if it doesn't eliminate the run for the hills tactics by both sides.

This proposal is still too narrowly focused on the initial 1941 campaign and neglects anything beyond March 1942. There needs to be something more that spans the entire war and keeps players continually focused on fighting for objectives rather than running for the hills; that's the core issue and the reason why those old boardgames had ongoing sudden death victory conditions. The Russian Front rules specifically provide for this and could be easily implemented as an optional victory condition set to be checked during the first weeks of March and November. A Decisive Victory would automatically end the game. A Marginal Victory would allow players to end the game at that point or continue on.

So yeah, patch it up if possible as an official optional rule which players can test and provide specific feedback on. Alternatively players can manually calculate these victory conditions themselves. If nothing else, players could go back and review a few recent game saves to see what the victory points were during the March and November turns. Given these sudden death victory conditions, it's no real accomplishment to run for the hills to save your Army for another day if you just keep handing your opponent a Decisive Victory in the process. It may be an entertaining alternative history, but not exactly the kind of wargame most players are expecting to play. And I believe that's the fundamental point Pelton and others are trying to make, and it's a valid point.

[mmarquo]

Russians running = Axis victory in 1945. I agree with Apollo 11 --> I have not seen one AAR where the game has been played out to the bitter end and already we are in v 1.5xxx.
1:2 --> 1:1 really hurts the Soviets in 1942 and beyond; the Axis is in good shape.

Marquo

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
We have said we are willing to look at implementing an optional rule with different victory conditions (especially if they use existing mechanisms), but the few attempts by the community to come up with something have not come up with anything.

Joel, tracking VP's in the manner as scenarios do works very well. I'm doing that manually for the game Q-Ball and me are playing, and I'm liking what I'm seeing. Q-Ball VP advantage was well over 3:1 until September 1941, then start to slowly decline until having stabilized around 2.5:1. I think I'll have a hell of a hard time to even that out (he's got a 2:1 advantage on on-map VP's and a 3.5:1 advantage on losses, and we've yet to see what happens during Summer and Autumn of 1942). I just left out Air losses since I think it's not working well w.r.t. German tactical aviation losses.

On the x-axis you can see the turn "number" (odd is Axis, even is Soviet). So turn 51 is actually Axis turn 25, 52 is Soviet turn 25.

Here you can see the VP advantage for the Axis (computed by taking the ratio between Axis total VP's to date and Soviet total VP's to date):

[center][/center]

the picture really says it all. Q-Ball is winning, but his advantage has been declining, slowly but at a constant rate, ever since the Red Army started to get its act together.

Each turn, 10% of the VP's corresponding to Victory Locations held by either side, are added to the accumulate VP. Here's the plot of how many of such points have been awarded so far:

[center][/center]

so the Axis is being rewarded - handsomely I think - for having pushed as far as it has pushed in our game.

Finally, let's see how VP's due to losses have been piling up

[center][/center]

Note the inflection point for the VP's awarded to the Soviet Union: it's right about blizzard. Note the inflection point for the Axis on turn 76 or so. That's March 1942.

Sincerely, I don't get this remark about "the community not coming up with anything interesting". Guys, you already have a wonderful VP system for scenarios which, for reasons I can't fathom, hasn't been applied to campaign scenarios. What's the problem with it? I don't see any, and I think it's truly a good reflection of what's happening on the battlefield in terms of VP's.

[sajer]

@Joel Billings

Joel Billings said:

Sajer, it's a game. Design choices were made. You are free to keep you money and not buy it. It's not perfect. For many it is very enjoyable. I really enjoy it, but I only have time to play the smaller scenarios against other players, although I played the campaign in development against the AI. Different people look for different things from a game playing experience, so if this is not for you, I respect that.

Later....Joel Billings said:

We don't think it is unplayable after 1942. With the changes through 1.05 I think it's very playable (although the exact balance is still in doubt as the recent AARs have only just gotten to the spring/summer of 42 in most cases). I've been playing a lot of later war (43 and 44 scenarios) that we've been working on lately for a scenario disk and they are very playable and fun (very different from 1941). I've seen a lot of suggestions on this forum although there's more posts than I can read. I don't recall your specific proposals for changes, however there have been many and honestly the work involved in implementing them is too much and/or the additional effort to make sure the changes made for a better game then we have now is way too much work. A lot of this is based on the decisions we made in design to begin with. Not saying that many of them aren't good ideas, it's just not economically feasible to do many/most of them.

You said: I don't recall your specific proposals for changes

If you can't recall my post why are you reacting to it???

You said: we've been working lately on a scenario disk and they are very playable and fun (very different from 1941

A scenario disk - really - would we have to flop down more money for that too...??

You said: Not saying that many of them aren't good ideas, it's just not economically feasible to do many/most of them

But yet the patches keep coming out every month....hmmm I don't think that most of the ideas that are coming out these forums are not "feasible" to implement. In fact they should be looked at very closely. We are (in-fact) the very people that pay for this game and play much more than any playtesters did.

In fact I think that alot of the changes put forth on these forums could be easily be part of a "patch" - not an game engine overhaul.

I not saying my original post was feasible to do - but I think it is pretty well thought out - in my opinion. But you reacted twice to it - but now can't seem to recall it?.....???

If you need to read it again my post - here it is - unedited..

I have been playing games for a very long time - going back to board games. I think what is being discussed here is very important. It hits right at the core of what is wrong with large strategic computer based simulations. As it always happens, players at some point discover that by playing any side that they can "game" the system. This is based on rigid rules of what really happened.

This where all creators of theatre-wide simulations go horribly wrong in their thinking.

I think the post by Big Anorak hits the nails on the head - right from the manual:

quote:

The game is an “Alternate History Creator” that focuses
on simulating the logistic and command and control problems that the historical commanders
on the Eastern Front had to deal with. It will allow players to explore many of the strategic and
operational “What ifs” that have been discussed by historians and armchair strategists for
many years. As such, economic and research based “what ifs” are not the focus."


First of all it is NOT an alternate history creator - it is to a very small degree - but no matter what the Axis does, unless he gets an auto-victory - he is basically screwed. The Soviets will build up and eventually overrun him.

This is why no games are running (human to human) past early 1942.

Also by not having the what-if's imbedded in the game it does not take into consideration the most important part of the human vs human or human vs AI overall strategy - there is too much rigidity in the game. You KNOW that the Germans will have this much production in this year or that. You KNOW what replacments or units will be transferred to the front and when. You KNOW that the SU will eventually build into this big juggernaut that is unstoppable starting in the late summer of '42 or early '43.

I recently wrote a long post about this exact problem. It was blown off by a few people than got thrown into the trash of other posts - and lost.

I introduced the idea of creating a simple creation of out of theatre (and in) "what-if's". I made the mistake of listing ten or twenty of them. It was then shot down by certain posters, saying that "Ohhh.. that would have never happened". You see that was never my point. The idea put forth is WHAT IF ONE OR MORE OF THEM DID!! And they were always questionable to happen till the end of the war (i.e. simulation).

These variables would keep players playing the game to the end to my estimation.

The most important part of a strategy simulation that should be implemented is the "fog of war". I always play my games with it fully implemented. The problem is that there is not enough of a fog of war. Do you really think that the Soviets or even the Germans had the capability to "see" through the eyes of recon planes "everything" that was going on at the front - through hundreds of recon sorties. It's almost as if the Soviets and Germans had spy sattelites for pete's sake.

You know why the Ardennes Offensive (or Battle of the Bulge, if you wish) was a surprise to the Americans? Hell, they had plenty of recon planes, didn't they? It was because of the art of deception. Complete radio silence, hiding tanks in forests, moving units at night. A pretty good job by the Germans, I might say. To hide 26 Divisions and all that armor and to attack the Allies with total surprise.

I remember reading a book on the Battle of Kursk - and Zhukov heaviliy fortified his flanks and eventually defeated the massive attacks on his northern and southern flanks by SS panzers armies - bacause he said - that is what I would have done.

Also I am reminded by Hitler's quote on the Soviet Army: "All you have to do is kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down".

Would he would have attempted the invasion if he had known that the Soviets would get American/British help via the Murmansk port? Or had the capacity to "move" factories east behind the Urals?

I'm getting away now from my main point. I also don't want to bore you with hundreds of "what-if's". But hopefully you get my drift.

The main thing wrong with big intricate simulations like this if that we all plunk down $60 to $80 because are intrigued by the thought of a huge intricate model of the greatest battle ever fought - the Russo-German war in the East. It is fun for awhile, but then a strategy arises from constant play by smart players to "game" the system. I am not blaming them at all. They after all find the flaws in the game - as to almost make it unplayable.

In the end I am only saying that if this game could be modeled to include historical variants it would keep the players- playing the game to the bitter end. Also it would give the players the ultimate satisfaction - "FUN".

But, companies spew out these games, like War in the Pacific (where you just move pieces around a board for MONTHS - knowing the U.S. will win the end.) Then moving on from WiTe ( after getting thier money) to designing WiTw - where again they will again get paid. With the deep design flaw is still present. After you slap down big cash for War in the West - players will eventually find a way to "game" that computer simulation. But by then they will be on to their next project..and so on..and so on.....

The thing is you don't really "fix" a game by creating dozens of patches. You don't stop the blood from severed arm with a band-aid (I know what that is all about - because I have seen it up close). You have to fix the root problem. Until that is done - I will keep my money in my pocket.

You can poo-poo my post - but in my heart and in my opinion I know I'm right.

[karonagames]

What's the problem with it? I don't see any,

BG you may well be right, and there is indeed a workable system using the scenario VP system for the campaign, but the biggest difficulty I see is, as far as I am aware, is that the Number of VP locations is hard-coded at 10 per side, so choosing the right 10 VP locations and then assigning the correct per turn points value for each objective will be a nightmare, because some clever clogs will work out that by capturing Objective X by T10 and objective Y by T15 will give them "victory" by TXXX and there will be cries of "Foul" from one side or the other. If you add casualty VPs into the equation, this too could lead to "manipulation" and the use of "trick" strategies to achieve the magic numbers of casualties that will trigger a "win"

I have a dim memory of this system being discussed in testing, and the hard-coded VP system meant it was kicked into touch leaving us with the current system.

I'm guessing that the 10 VP locations could be used to trigger a sudden death check as Joel noted elsewhere.

edit: Maybe the 10 VP locations could also form the basis of players' selecting their own objectives for sudden death checks.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

What's the problem with it? I don't see any,

BG you may well be right, and there is indeed a workable system using the scenario VP system for the campaign, but the biggest difficulty I see is, as far as I am aware, is that the Number of VP locations is hard-coded at 10 per side, so choosing the right 10 VP locations and then assigning the correct per turn points value for each objective will be a nightmare, because some clever clogs will work out that by capturing Objective X by T10 and objective Y by T15 will give them "victory" by TXXX and there will be cries of "Foul" from one side or the other. If you add casualty VPs into the equation, this too could lead to "manipulation" and the use of "trick" strategies to achieve the magic numbers of casualties that will trigger a "win"

I have a dim memory of this system being discussed in testing, and the hard-coded VP system meant it was kicked into touch leaving us with the current system.

I'm guessing that the 10 VP locations could be used to trigger a sudden death check as Joel noted elsewhere.

Ok, that's a good explanation, and indeed, being limited to 10 VP locations is just not going to work for the campaign. But I think that changing the number of VP locations from a paltry to 10, to say, 100 (or 1000) shouldn't be that much of a problem, should it? If it's an AI thing, well, let the AI plan for the top 10 victory locations. The players can manage the other 90

[BletchleyGeek]

Actually, it's not a good explanation at all BigA. I just realized that there are much more than 10 on-map VP locations (i.e. places with VP's attached).

[karonagames]

Again, my memory is dimming - I'm sure the question about increasing VP locations was asked at the time and I can't remember the answer/reason. This all got raised about the time Trey and I were testing the Blizzard in October/November; just before the December release, so it may have been a time/resources/return on investment issue.

I suppose my mindset at the time was that the players would not mind the lack of a sophisticated VP system for the campaign, as they would enjoy the journey more than arriving at the destination; but clearly for many getting to the destination without enjoying the scenery along the way is more important.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
Japan did not expect to defeat the USA, they planned to make the recapture of lost territories so costly that the US would would recoil from that price, historically they were wrong.

You are using an euphemism here. If you bring the Americans to the negotiation table it's because the latter are admitting DEFEAT... That was the idea behind the Midway Operation. American carriers sunk = Americans might give up (the hordes of American CVs would only be ready in 1943-44) [:)]

Capture of Moscow in WitE and Midway captured and CVs annihilated in WitP would be the excuse to say "hey, they might have surrendered / sued for peace"...

I personally believe both the Germans and Japanese grossly underestimated their enemies... especially their WILL to fight to the end.

[karonagames]

the Number of VP locations is hard-coded at 10 per side

Not 10 total. [;)]

[abulbulian]

I agree with most of what sajer has been saying. Unfortunately for the designers/developers they have been 'too good' about fixing issues and updating this game. We as players have come to expect this and even more from them due to this precedent set. Personally WitE for me has been the crowning jewel of WW2 strategic computer war games. Having said that, sure there are still several remaining issues with the game playability and many which I believe would be 'low hanging fruit' to implement changes.

Almost 8 months ago I posted my thoughts(w/examples) on adding variants to the game to reduce the rigidity. This is a game and thus needs a replayability factor. I think this community could come up with some great variants in addition to some I posted, within the historical context of the east front, to exponentially increase the replayability of WitE. For those purist, make this an optional at start game setting.

Allowing more flexible use of German production and TOEs (within reason) would be IMO huge improvement to replayability. I'm tired of seeing large pools of tanks that would never have sat in 'pools' from a historical context.

What pains me most is that WitE still has so much potential to be better, yet the designers/developers are very hesitant to take that next step. With good reason as I suppose WitW now has their attention ans resources.