My Axis first turn basics

[mmarquo]

Hi Pelton: the problem with WITE "fixes' is that until all bugs/loopholes have been identified, then "fixes" may just bury them deeper or create new ones --> unintended consequences.

Hi Charlie011: some of us tried Case Blue but it has issues; then AGEOD American Civil War game which has major issues; we are anxiously waiting for Schwerpunt's new iteration of AGW/RGW which looks very promising.


Having lived thorough the promise and ultimate disappointment of the above games, we are trying playing tried and true board games via VASSAL; GMT's "The Dark Valley" is awesome and plays well on VASSAL.


Marquo

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Hi Pelton: the problem with WITE "fixes' is that until all bugs/loopholes have been identified, then "fixes" may just bury them deeper or create new ones --> unintended consequences.

Hi Charlie011: some of us tried Case Blue but it has issues; then AGEOD American Civil War game which has major issues; we are anxiously waiting for Schwerpunt's new iteration of AGW/RGW which looks very promising.


Having lived thorough the promise and ultimate disappointment of the above games, we are trying playing tried and true board games via VASSAL; GMT's "The Dark Valley" is awesome and plays well on VASSAL.


Marquo

Any new game disappoints and is full of exploits, loops holes ect ect.

I have been part of many AC, SB, WoW ( one of the worst releases ever from my exp) DaoC to name a few - all were easy to exploit hack ect ect , but over time 1 to 2 years the staff and with the help of some players ( not me I was part of the bad crew) were able to
over come all the piss poor WoD issues, back door hacks, exploits and loop holes.

The games your waiting on will all have the same issues, the difference between the good games and bad ( I have a long list of crap releases ) the good staffs work on fixing issues (balancing being one of many)
the poor ones don't fix them and die.

2by3 always gets it right sooner or later, unlike many companies who never get it right or stop tring.

I have been watching the guys work on .8 ( and WitW ) and played WitE from release and its amazing how many bugs, loopholes, exploits have been taken out.

Sure .8 might need a tweak, but WitE will be as good as it gets until WitE 2.0

I am 100% sure I can exploit, every single game you have named when they are released. Its easy once you have been shown by smart poeple what to look for.

[mmarquo]

It is obviously easier to hack computer games like WITE than a good board game like EFS Barbarossa series. At least in board games everything is transparent whereas in computer games much is under the hood and this lends to all sorts of shenanigans, bugs and loopholes.

The bigger the simulation/emulation, the more inevitable errors; IMHO WITE is somewhat too big for it's britches - tries to do a bit too much. I mean, how boring and error prone it is to click endlessly on STAVKA or OKW to assign and reassign support units to divisions, corps, armies, etc for the East Front? Yet if not done right, disaster can ensue - who wants to spend hours assigning battalions to divisions in an operational game of the entire east front? Really?? And to have to figure out the most efficient way (via loop holes) to do it?? To question one's sanity when units simply teleport out of pockets, etc.

Or to upgrade a patch to repair every cheesy circumvention of dysfunctional supply rules, airfield bombing, morale, and the list goes. It is very true: I certainly got my money's worth from WITE and have no regrets. It is also true that I will not purchase WITW until it passes the sniff test as reported on the forum.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

It is obviously easier to hack computer games like WITE than a good board game like EFS Barbarossa series. At least in board games everything is transparent whereas in computer games much is under the hood and this lends to all sorts of shenanigans, bugs and loopholes.

The bigger the simulation/emulation, the more inevitable errors; IMHO WITE is somewhat too big for it's britches - tries to do a bit too much. I mean, how boring and error prone it is to click endlessly on STAVKA or OKW to assign and reassign support units to divisions, corps, armies, etc for the East Front? Yet if not done right, disaster can ensue - who wants to spend hours assigning battalions to divisions in an operational game of the entire east front? Really?? And to have to figure out the most efficient way (via loop holes) to do it?? To question one's sanity when units simply teleport out of pockets, etc.

Or to upgrade a patch to repair every cheesy circumvention of dysfunctional supply rules, airfield bombing, morale, and the list goes. It is very true: I certainly got my money's worth from WITE and have no regrets. It is also true that I will not purchase WITW until it passes the sniff test as reported on the forum.

Allot of truth to the board games for sure.

The clicking for me is 90% done turn 1 GHC, but I hear SHC has more clicking then GHC side.

The logistics system for future games is a vast improvement over the current system.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: Marquo]
I mean, how boring and error prone it is to click endlessly on STAVKA or OKW to assign and reassign support units to divisions, corps, armies, etc for the East Front? Yet if not done right, disaster can ensue - who wants to spend hours assigning battalions to divisions in an operational game of the entire east front? Really?? And to have to figure out the most efficient way (via loop holes) to do it??

In 1.08 both ways of assigning SU to HQ are equal (0 AP cost). And full command chain (up to High Command) is always visible on the "change HQ" list. Therefore there will be no longer required to rail STAVKA around the front to gather units and reassign them for free. It may be even cheaper in AP terms to reassign units between armies/corps directly. So some micromanagement will be gone now.

[carlkay58]

Also remember that the game comes with the ability to allow the computer to manage all of that for you. Yes, it does not necessarily give you the optimal distribution of SUs to fit your particular playing style or strategies, but you can play the game without that level of micromanagement if you so desire. You may not perform as well as someone that does do it, but you can still have fun.

[mmarquo]

I do not play the AI, and a human who takes the time to micromanage SU's has a huge advantage over a player who does not.

[spinecruncher]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

I do not play the AI, and a human who takes the time to micromanage SU's has a huge advantage over a player who does not.

Isn't that what competition is all about?

[mmarquo]

Competition with a set of functioning rules is one thing; winning based on who can find loopholes and bugs and turn them to advantage is quite a different kind of game.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Competition with a set of functioning rules is one thing; winning based on who can find loopholes and bugs and turn them to advantage is quite a different kind of game.

agree but its an incredibly fine and hard to define line.

so using a bug around port supply that is not known to your opponent is pretty dubious in my opinion.

But, take the issue of SU management. Playing the Soviets I want my AT SUs where I want them, there is nothing in the auto system to help with this. They are more or less useless in an army fighting the Finns/AGN after say November 1941, I want them in the Ukraine/Tula sector where I expect the Pzrs to be.

Now I think the only way I can manage this is by manual allocation of all SUs. So I regard part of the price of playing the Soviet side the ongoing (& time consuming) OOB management. Realise this is not for all, and against the AI doesn't matter - lets face it the AI tends to leave the AGN Pzrs up on the Volkhov, but against a competent opponent its all part of gaining small advantages?

[mmarquo]

Yes; using the engine as intended is fine; finding bugs/ loopholes to one's advantage is another. MT was undisputed master of finding irregularities and thankfully was quick to report.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Yes; using the engine as intended is fine; finding bugs/ loopholes to one's advantage is another. MT was undisputed master of finding irregularities and thankfully was quick to report.

sapper was the best, MT a close 2nd. .08 closes all the loopholes that are known.

Game is about as clean as humanly possible after this patch.

[mmarquo]

MT disclosed and posted all of his findings whenever he realized what he had uncovered.

[carlkay58]

But sometimes it is difficult to determine what is a bug and what is designer intent.

[mmarquo]

Perhaps...but when the developers murmur, "Oops" and then provide a patch or hot fix then the facts speak for themselves.

Cheers

[Ketza]

Good conversations here gang thank you.

I didn't really see attaching units to OKH a loophole I figured it was more efficient that way

I stopped the thread because 1.08 will change so much and I didn't see the point of keeping at it with such great changes on the way.

[heliodorus04]

Ketza, I'm using this as a how-to for my first 1.08 game (vs AI) so I can see the difference in supply distribution (well, fuel).

I'm kind of curious how much fuel you fly in the pre-attack phase of Turn 1.
It has been quite some time since I played. I recall there being some disincentives to flying fuel early in the turn, but maybe that's a phantom of my mind.
Why not conduct your first few moves in the south, then fly fuel when you're at around the limit of the fuel resupply distance? You would finish any necessary moves thereafter.

[HITMAN202]

These comments are what makes WITE so good ... complicated/intertwined game strategies handled in different ways; often for dramatically different reasons. For resupplying Germans units (armor/mot) here are some of my strategy and reasons. 1)Turn 2 fuel is at very high percentages, so I do it little. 2) Refueling at over 125% is wasted effort. 3) Refueling during a turn (refueled units are closer to airbases) is far more efficient. 4) Only move units far from supply sources for crucial strategic reasons (closing a pocket, deep penetration, etc) because long distance refueling is very ineffective.

[swkuh]

#4, only move far...for crucial strategic reasons... makes a lot of sense for more reasons than fuel.

For Soviets and Germans risking major forces must have significant benefits and some way of mediating risks.

Of course, for me, having fun is what play is all about, and a big play could fit that goal.

[ladner]

This is a great thread, as a newbie to the game, bought it back in March, and have just more or less been overwhelmed. Long time ago used to play it's predecessor, War in Russia. Having read up on the 1.08 changes, eager to get back in the saddle and play the game again. Found the information about capturing the rout points to be really informative. Any pointers on how to handle Army Group South would be great.