GG's War in East / West

[oaltinyay]

Has anyone ever played those games ? I intend to get one or both of these games and want to get your opinions on these ones.

[jwolf]

I've played WITE but not WITW as I made the jump recently to the Pacific War instead.

WITE is very good although a much different type of game than WITP, mainly due to alternating moves instead of simultaneous. WITE also moves faster than WITP in the sense that each turn represents a week of real time rather than just 1-3 days. The weather model in WITE is somewhat primitive; I understand this has been refined considerably in WITW. WITE very well models the lethal speed with which a well supplied mobile force can operate. Huge amounts of territory and men can be lost in a single turn. Finally, WITE is IMHO superior to WITP in the number and variety of different scenarios available, ranging from small scale to the full campaign, and there are campaign scenarios starting from each year 1941-44.

I highly recommend reading some AARs of each game. Definitely the WITE and WITP AARs sold me on those two games and many AARs will give you a really good feel for how the games play.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

I've played WITE but not WITW as I made the jump recently to the Pacific War instead.

WITE is very good although a much different type of game than WITP, mainly due to alternating moves instead of simultaneous. WITE also moves faster than WITP in the sense that each turn represents a week of real time rather than just 1-3 days. The weather model in WITE is somewhat primitive; I understand this has been refined considerably in WITW. WITE very well models the lethal speed with which a well supplied mobile force can operate. Huge amounts of territory and men can be lost in a single turn. Finally, WITE is IMHO superior to WITP in the number and variety of different scenarios available, ranging from small scale to the full campaign, and there are campaign scenarios starting from each year 1941-44.

I highly recommend reading some AARs of each game. Definitely the WITE and WITP AARs sold me on those two games and many AARs will give you a really good feel for how the games play.

Didn't know WITE was alternating moves. That's hugely disappointing. I played the heck out of it's predecessor War in Russia in the DOS days and it was a plotted move WEGO game like WITPAE.

Have mulled over getting WITE for a long time, now I'll probably pass.

[Numdydar]

I've played WitE quite a bit since the latest patch 8.02/3? and really like it a lot. Very different than WitP obviously lol.

While I agree that the UGOIGO system is not as good as a WEGO one, the decision to not use the WEGO is simply because the unit density in both WitE/WitW is too big for the game to use that type of system. Unless you wanted to wait hours for a turn to be done [X(]. WitW is a much improved system over WitE because the supply system in WitW is MUCH better modeled than any game I have seen to date, including AE. You actually have three [X(] things that impact supply throughput that you can directly impact (positive or negative), Rail capacity, Rail Yard capacity, and Supply Depots.

Depots represent the trucks/infrastructure to move supplies to the front line units.
Rail Yards represent the rolling stock and how much can load/unload at a location
Rail capacity represents how much 'stuff' can move by a particular rail segment.

So I would definitely not pass on these games just because of the movement system. The games as sooo much more than that. I've certainly glad I got them both [:)]


I would order the deluxe version of WitW as the hardbound manual is VERY nice and well worth the extra cost. [:)]

[oaltinyay]

Thx for all answers.

I also played War in East in DOS days and it was enjoyable for that period. ALso available in those times were -Atomic Games' - now out of business I believe - Velikiye Luki , Op. Crusader and Market Garden and IIRC one for the DDay, and they were much more enjoyable as they gave a more dramatic feel about the battles that were fought ( 8 hour turns helped I guess ).

Reading the AAR I get the feeling WitW is a mixture of both because it gives me the ability to decide micromanage to the level I wish...

[JocMeister]

I own both and have played them extensively. I would try to grab WitE on a sale as practice before WITE 2. I can´t really recommend WitW despite having played it MP since release. The air system in WitW is a true gem but that really the only positive thing I can say about it.

The VP system in WitW is pretty controversial and the game has some serious balancing issues. The activity on the forum is also very low and there is only 1 person looking for a game right now and he has been for the last couple of days. WitE there are 22 people looking for a game. To sum it up I believe WITW is already dead while there is a good amount of people still playing WITE.

I´m playing both currently. WitE as the Soviets vs the Axis AI and WitW as the Allies in a MP game. I´m having more fun with WitE which is pretty amazing considering its an AI game...

[jwolf]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Didn't know WITE was alternating moves. That's hugely disappointing. I played the heck out of it's predecessor War in Russia in the DOS days and it was a plotted move WEGO game like WITPAE.

Have mulled over getting WITE for a long time, now I'll probably pass.

Well it's certainly your call either way. I encourage you to read some of the WITE AARs, if you haven't already done so, to get a feel for how the game moves and how the IGOUGO system works to model the flow of the war in that theater.

Another very good point about WITE and WITW, compared to WITP, is a much better and more transparent chain of command.

[comte]

Buy WITE I feel as though it is the superior game out of the two. I bought WITW when it was released played it for a few months and just found it incredibly boring. Yeah it has the updated Air system that is pretty cool but playing WITW mad me want to play WITE again. I have been playing the much improved AI of WITE and having a blast.

[JeffroK]

Very disappointed in WITW.
Not an East Front fan.

[obvert]

I read an older interview (2003) with Gary Grigsby and Joel Billings a while back and noticed a really interesting bit about the complexity of WITP. To bad they came to this conclusion because it seems the decisions made to reduce complexity have also made the games more predictable and less playable. I'd rather have 6 months of complex WITP-AE style gaming just doing one small piece of the campaign (like D-Day) than two months of abstraction for several years of the war that I can't really connect to in WITW.

[font="Trebuchet MS"]GG: Well, more powerful computers allow you to put a lot more features into a game. By the same token a lot more are expected of you by the people buying the games. Mostly I think they're expecting more visuals, more bells and whistles, animations and whatnot. With Uncommon Valor and especially with War in the Pacific I'm realizing that these things are hitting a level of complexity that…

JB: …human people aren't supposed to deal with.

GG: I can't keep it in my head anymore. That's it. I hit the wall. I am never ever, ever, ever doing a game like that again.[/font]

Unfortunate. It's the combination of real complexity and the ability to see detail (in the replays, info screens and reports) that make this such an enjoyable and long lasting title. I don't believe humans "aren't supposed to deal with" this level of complexity. I think we're fascinated by it because we can't ever quite get a handle on it. We'll never know it all, it'll never turn out the same no matter how many times we play it and that is fun.

[Bullwinkle58]

I've visited the WitW forums quite a bit since the launch and commented a few times. Mostly on the VP system issue. I own WitE but never liked it much. Not because of size--I love AE and it's bigger--but because the counter system is "cold" and there is no animation or other visuals for the combat phases. It feels very spread-sheety where even the limited animation in AE for air combat and surface engagements gives a feel for the war.

I agree with the POV that the 1-week turns are a limiting factor, especially in the post-D-Day era when the war has less than a year remaining. WitE was a much longer period where early decisions had time to unspool for good or bad.

But to me the biggest error in the WitW project, made for solid business reasons I think, was starting the game in mid-1943 with all of the early war events baked into the OOBs and starting positions. Who would paly AE as Japan if the game started in summer 1943? With Midway a year old already and the Solomons decided? If WitW had started in 1939 and the Allies had to "earn" D-Day, if the German player had to decide how much to invest in the Battle of the Atlantic or Norway, for two examples, the 1-week turns and many of the "boring" complaints would be missing. Even if there were two $100 each games, with mid-1943 to the end as a second game that took the end files from Game 1 as a hand off, I think the mega-game grognards would have flocked to both.

But a 1939-1943 game takes a huge naval component, and many nations' worth of OOB research. As well as a map extending to the US east coast and including North Africa. As I said, business reasons. But without the first half, I'm not interested in the second.

[Feltan]

For me WITE was disappointing. Too scripted, in the sense that most games played out with a pretty historical '41 until winter -- and then the Russians crushed the Germans in the first winter and were on their way to Berlin far too soon. Most games ended late '43 to early '44 with overwhelming Russian victory -- no matter what side you played.

Haven't given WITW a spin yet, but I have little hope that it would be satisfying after having played WITP-AE.

Regards,
Feltan

[Trugrit]

I never played War in the East or West but I was wondering if there was an advantage to
Making the unit counters look like a board game from the late 20th century?
Maybe I’m missing something.

In the old days when we played board games there were cardboard counters with
The unit information printed on the face because that was the only way it could be done.
The counter was square and so it was easier to pick up with your fingers.
The print was large on the counter face because you can’t scale a board game.
There were stacks of these cardboard counters back then and it looks like War in the West
Did the same thing with 21st century technology. They are using computer graphics to
Offset these square counters to make it look like there is cardboard piled up in the hex.

In War in the West each hex is 10 miles across so they have made huge computer graphic
Pseudo-cardboard counters about 9 miles across. On August 8, 1944 the Cotentin Peninsula
Was not filled up coast to coast with pieces of cardboard 9 miles square.
It didn’t look like that on General Eisenhower’s map table. Ike was spared the task of
Having to thumb through a one inch high stack of cardboard In order to find General Bradley.

Do the designers think an old fart like me is not going to buy the game unless
They trick me into thinking cardboard is piled up on the computer screen?

Or is it that Gary Grigsby and the other old guys at 2by3 Games have been so brain
Damaged by cardboard counters in their youth that they just can’t see a land
War game looking any other way?

Or is it that Matrix has marketed so many board games transferred to computer games that
They are stuck in some sort of late 20th century apocalyptic nouveau cardboard Do-Loop?
Some kind of cardboard counter wormhole that takes you back in time to polyester pants
And psychedelic T-Shirt territory. Is it a marketing thing to sell to old gamers like me?

Or maybe I’m wrong and there is a game option to turn the counters into something else.
Then they can be turned back on if it gives some old Grognard a seizure.

If that’s the case, then I also don’t want to see little 3D plastic looking toy tanks
And soldiers frozen in combat positions standing all over the map.
That would be O.K. if I was 10 years old.
Being an Architect I’m very picky about my graphics.

With a game that costs almost $100 you should have the option to get a number
Of different graphic presentations. You could then ditch the cardboard look.

When I first looked at buying WIPAE if I had seen computer generated pseudo
Cardboard covering 40 NM of ocean or smothering the entire geographical
Area of Japan I don’t think I would have bought the game.

I guess that WITPAE has spoiled me with a much cleaner graphics presentation.
It doesn’t look like that 70’s kind of war game but more like a chart map for adult use.

The graphics in War in the West does look O.K. to me except for the regressive counters.

From the manual, War in the West looks like an O.K. game even with the 1 week
IGOUGO last century board game turn system.

Sorry guys, I didn’t mean to be a cry-baby, but graphics are important to me
And doing this 70’s board game look with computer technology really bugs me.

With modern computer technology there should be a better aesthetic.

End of Rant.

[Olorin]

I ownn both games but haven't played them extensively because of disappointment. I thought WitE would be an improvement over TOAWIII (The Operational Art of War 3), but it certainly isn't. What's hurting the game, imho, is the weekly turns. They just can't do justice to an Eastern Front scenario. Regarding WitW, the jury is still out. The air system seems cool but I don't understand it yet completely and the fact that the longest scenario is only 75 turns or so is very limiting.

[witpaemail]

Ive played the game a few times against the AI. Its like clubbing baby seals. I graduated to playing 1 of the short scenarios against another guy, and we fought to a draw. So we then tackled the campaign game (WitE), and based on that 1 playing and stuff I have read on the boards, the biggest problem with WitE is the Germans have to "go for broke" that first year. If they dont break the Russians before the snow, they usually quit, so in that regard it was disappointing. I held the Germans at Lake Logda (spelling) and encircled and destroyed 4 armies before the winter hit, because he had thrown everything into the push to Lenningrad.

Cant say I would ever play it again. It doesnt have the variety of different "gambits" that WitP does.

[Numdydar]

Really? Have you played the latest beta's? There is a HUGE number of different things both sides can do than impact the game. Right from the beginning too [:D]

Needless to say I am disagreeing since I not only currently playing against the Russian AI (Challenging) and just finished a PBEM game where I won as the Germans. [X(] Most definitely did NOT do things the same in either game [:D]

[Lowpe]

I own WITE, and play a game pbm with it.

The biggest drawback is there is no replay...I actually think it is more fun to play against the AI as there is a replay then.

It is a good/great game.

I defer to Joc's analysis of WITW. I won't be buying it for a while...maybe never.

[Alikchi2]

ORIGINAL: obvert

I read an older interview (2003) with Gary Grigsby and Joel Billings a while back and noticed a really interesting bit about the complexity of WITP. To bad they came to this conclusion because it seems the decisions made to reduce complexity have also made the games more predictable and less playable. I'd rather have 6 months of complex WITP-AE style gaming just doing one small piece of the campaign (like D-Day) than two months of abstraction for several years of the war that I can't really connect to in WITW.

[font="Trebuchet MS"]GG: Well, more powerful computers allow you to put a lot more features into a game. By the same token a lot more are expected of you by the people buying the games. Mostly I think they're expecting more visuals, more bells and whistles, animations and whatnot. With Uncommon Valor and especially with War in the Pacific I'm realizing that these things are hitting a level of complexity that…

JB: …human people aren't supposed to deal with.

GG: I can't keep it in my head anymore. That's it. I hit the wall. I am never ever, ever, ever doing a game like that again.[/font]

Unfortunate. It's the combination of real complexity and the ability to see detail (in the replays, info screens and reports) that make this such an enjoyable and long lasting title. I don't believe humans "aren't supposed to deal with" this level of complexity. I think we're fascinated by it because we can't ever quite get a handle on it. We'll never know it all, it'll never turn out the same no matter how many times we play it and that is fun.

I agree with this. I've also seen reasonable arguments from the other angle, however. Quoting from another forum here:



The root problem is that, abstracted or complex, your system needs to work, and WitE and WitW's don't.

[oaltinyay]

seems to me I'll be far more happier with my current bag of WITP games at the moment...However, a chance for micromanaging the Reich industry to victory in the East tickles me intellectually...

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Alikchi

ORIGINAL: obvert

I read an older interview (2003) with Gary Grigsby and Joel Billings a while back and noticed a really interesting bit about the complexity of WITP. To bad they came to this conclusion because it seems the decisions made to reduce complexity have also made the games more predictable and less playable. I'd rather have 6 months of complex WITP-AE style gaming just doing one small piece of the campaign (like D-Day) than two months of abstraction for several years of the war that I can't really connect to in WITW.

[font="Trebuchet MS"]GG: Well, more powerful computers allow you to put a lot more features into a game. By the same token a lot more are expected of you by the people buying the games. Mostly I think they're expecting more visuals, more bells and whistles, animations and whatnot. With Uncommon Valor and especially with War in the Pacific I'm realizing that these things are hitting a level of complexity that…

JB: …human people aren't supposed to deal with.

GG: I can't keep it in my head anymore. That's it. I hit the wall. I am never ever, ever, ever doing a game like that again.[/font]

Unfortunate. It's the combination of real complexity and the ability to see detail (in the replays, info screens and reports) that make this such an enjoyable and long lasting title. I don't believe humans "aren't supposed to deal with" this level of complexity. I think we're fascinated by it because we can't ever quite get a handle on it. We'll never know it all, it'll never turn out the same no matter how many times we play it and that is fun.

I agree with this. I've also seen reasonable arguments from the other angle, however. Quoting from another forum here:



The root problem is that, abstracted or complex, your system needs to work, and WitE and WitW's don't.

Yes. I don't see the above as an argument from another angle, more of a parallel one. The complexity needs focus. I would have updated the format of the complexity of WITP-AE to allow for more global changes to units. Allowing the AI to pick leaders, do background training, upgrades, all of that gritty stuff, based on global decisions much like the air system in WITW.

It would be tough to play anything like AE in Europe with the number of units involved, but to update this system that players obviously have fun with and stick to and making it more playable would have been a better option IMHO.

A new engine, air fixes such as the WITW system, ground elements from WITE, but real replays with the ability to see detailed gritty results of actions, ability to play 2-3 day turns, and some kind of naval component. Combat reports from each area of a battle possible rather than simply the global info screen at the end.

Sure, lots of OOB would be involved with naval, but the routines are pretty good from WITP-AE, and could just get a tweak here or there (especially subs and convoys of course) kind of like the air model for WITW. If they'd put an actual naval model into WITW the rest would be playable. Everyone wants to be able to see the actual units, attack them with actual air groups, defend coasts and plan invasions using real tactics, not just pointers that say go there (without seeing anything really move) and hope for the best. Half of the fun is seeing the immensity of what was actually going on then. I don't get that from WITW in anything but the land combat model.