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

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: pompack

Thank you Joel, the red button can only do so much.

Especially when he keeps getting quoted [;)]

[Great_Ajax]

7 of the 19 German divisions in the Stalingrad pocket get withdrawn to go to Italy in the game. None of these divisions are Panzer Division.

Trey

ORIGINAL: traemyn

I agree there needs to be some compromise here, whether its half or even just a better system of letting the player choose withdrawals. I just don't think its going to be done in this WiTE version however, especially since its easily modified in the editor.

From turn 1 the withdrawal system is unhistorical because those decisions were made based on the conditions at the time. Seems to me they chose to implement this the best they could while not spending too much time creating a completely player driven system (which would take many more man hours to code than a fixed system).

The only way its going to completely make sense is if we make our own history with War in Europe

[kg_1007]

I am one who is some annoyed by the issues such as the Stalingrad one listed above..that said however, I have quite easily adjusted it by removing withdrawal dates in the editor. While this is also non historic, I prefer in general to have the ability to control these things in game. In the real world when divisions were withdrawn they did not wait to fill up with "Ostfront" intended equipment and men, and then withdraw at full strength, normally, they actually left a lot of their (still usable) equipment there actually.
The only way it will really work in a "realistic" model, is, as stated above, when we can (someday???? lol..) have a grand campaign that includes the entire war, where it is up to us to withdraw divisions from one front to save another, if needed, or if not needed, we can make that choice...that is definitely my 'dream' game, but it probably would be a true monster.

[Michael T]

The banning of Helio makes me feel very uneasy. Actually I think its entirely wrong. Why did not you just refund him quietly on the side? He probably would have then bought WITW and WITE2.0. Now you have lost a customer. And he will no doubt up the anti 2by3 stuff on other sites/forums. Don't like it at all. Sorry

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The banning of Helio makes me feel very uneasy. Actually I think its entirely wrong. Why did not you just refund him quietly on the side? He probably would have then bought WITW and WITE2.0. Now you have lost a customer. And he will no doubt up the anti 2by3 stuff on other sites/forums. Don't like it at all. Sorry

I do agree with you. Censoring mostly makes it appear there is something to hide. I do not think he is banned however, I just replied to him on another post.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The banning of Helio makes me feel very uneasy. Actually I think its entirely wrong. Why did not you just refund him quietly on the side? He probably would have then bought WITW and WITE2.0. Now you have lost a customer. And he will no doubt up the anti 2by3 stuff on other sites/forums. Don't like it at all. Sorry

I do agree with you. Censoring mostly makes it appear there is something to hide. I do not think he is banned however, I just replied to him on another post.

nvm

[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.

[Joel Billings]

I didn't ban him. I simply blocked him from my account so I won't see his posts. We all have that option. Helio has at times brought up some good points. But at some point enough is enough.

[Joel Billings]

No apologies needed. You asked a simple question. You don't have half your army withdrawn all at once, although it might seem that way based on some of the posts. You have a set schedule that you can call up at any time to see who is going to be withdrawan each turn for the entire game. There are no suprises there. As Trey said, 7 divisions are withdrawn that were destroyed at Stalingrad and later rebuilt and sent west. These units are not withdrawn when they were destroyed, but when they were rebuilt and sent west. In the game, when a unit is destroyed it is rebuilt. These units were rebuilt and not returned to the east in the war so we have them withdraw to account for resources that were sent west. Now one can argue with the entire withdrawal system, but it was our way of dealing with the fact that in this game you run just the Eastern Front and have no control over what resources are moved by higher command to the west. As the producer of WitP, I can tell you that WitE is another monster like WitP, but it is nothing like WitP. In some ways I think it's much easier to pick up and play, and enjoy from the first turn (if you try a small scenario to start). Like WitP, as you play more, you will want to learn more about why things work the way they do in order to get better and then you will start micro managing a few more things. Until then, you can enjoy the game. I'm biased, but if you like hex grid land games like the traditional land boardgames, and you like WitP, you will like WitE.

[rroberson]

ah ok. That was my first thought when they said unit withdrawals. The same as WITP when you lose ships and airgroups. you know its coming so you plan for it.

Last question promise...

...My understanding is that the west front game is forthcoming...is that anytime soon? Or is it far enough in the future where I should just pick this up and toy with it to learn the system (Im assuming the systems will be fairly similar). Also with the west front coming...is there any chance that the two games will be connected ...for a true monster?

thanks again for your patience..

[Michael T]

ok my bad. I thought he got banned.

[Joel Billings]

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.

[entwood]

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 )...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.

[76mm]

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.

[kg_1007]

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.

[76mm]

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.

[kg_1007]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

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.

[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.

[kg_1007]

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?

[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...