I'll be blunt about WITW and my views on it

[Timotheus]

Let me start with this: I will not be buying WITW and it is NOT because of pricing.

This game is designed wrong.


After due research, I discovered the following:

Victory Points limit the player(s) as to what they can do. This is a BIG NO-NO for me. I do not want the game to dictate to me that I should invade France by a certain date, nor that I MUST keep a specific number of units in garrisons - in SPECIFIC HEX SPACES NO LESS (that is insane design, Gary and Joel).

Let me blunt about myself - I am no great strategist; in fact, I am an idiot.

And as an idiot, I want to invade Greece in 1944, instead of France.

Or I want to invade by way of Denmark.

As the Axis player, I want to totally strip my garrison units and send them to the front - WITE has a WONDERFUL mechanic (well... wonderful-ish, as usual per Gary's masterpieces) that yes, the Axis may choose to not garrison the big cities but that allows partisans to spawn and to blow up the railroads.


A game should not, must not, MUST NEVER straitjacket a player into making an optimal/historical play (i.e. keep such number of garrison units in SPECIFIC hexes or -1000VP, or invade France by such date or -bazillion VP).

A game, a WW2 historical simulation, must allow FREEDOM OF ACTION.

For every decision, there MUST be consequences - i.e. stripping garrison units and sending them to the front allows (more/more effective) partisans to spawn.

"Hardcoding" conditions for the player to follow while playing is, to me, the biggest NO-NO of game design.


Thank You for your time.

PS
I could be wrong on these points, if I am - correct me, please. This is my own research on the forums here and elsewhere explaining how the game works.

PSPS
Now, back to WITE [8D]


Signed,

An idiot [:D]

[bairdlander2]

The garrison requirements represent Hitler's insane command to defend every area,no matter where.The invasion requirements for WA represents public and political pressure at the time.The latest patch (or future patch?) will have an option to remove these conditions.

[Aurelian]

I thought that you could strip the garrisons and send them where you want. You could also strip the entire Russian front if you want, if you allow the EF box.

[ultradave]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

I thought that you could strip the garrisons and send them where you want. You could also strip the entire Russian front if you want, if you allow the EF box.

Both true. You'll pay the victory point cost for not properly garrisoning, And as Scott (scout1) and I showed, you can strip the EF, stop the WA cold and lose to the Russians. You can do it if you want. You'll pay.

[Kronolog]

I would say that in respect to VP's, WitW is much improved over WitE. WitE had almost no "political" dimension at all, save the need to garrison axis allied capitals to keep them from surrendering. As the war can't be properly understood if the military aspect is separated from the political, WitW model is certainly a step in the right direction.

[Seminole]

After due research, I discovered the following:

Victory Points limit the player(s) as to what they can do. This is a BIG NO-NO for me. I do not want the game to dictate to me that I should invade France by a certain date, nor that I MUST keep a specific number of units in garrisons - in SPECIFIC HEX SPACES NO LESS (that is insane design, Gary and Joel).

There are separate regions (Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, France (divided into four subsets of NE, NW, SE, SW), and N. Italy.
During the course of the game these regions have 'garrison requirements' of a particular aggregate CV. This serves two functions, it represents compliance with political leadership that particular regions be protected from invasion, as well as suppression of the local population's resistance to occupation.
It's not really insane game design, as the consequence would be the Allied invasion beaches meeting the majority of the Wehrmacht wherever they came ashore. I don't see how you balance the game without it, honestly.

Let me blunt about myself - I am no great strategist; in fact, I am an idiot.
And as an idiot, I want to invade Greece in 1944, instead of France.
Or I want to invade by way of Denmark.

You can invade by way of Denmark, but Greece (and Yugoslavia, etc) is essentially 'off map' (really Eastern Front) in this game. There is a VP reward to the German player if he can prevent the Allies from getting territory in northern Europe by two certain dates, but there are in essence milestone rewards to make the difference between a minor or decisive German victory. An German player recouping these bonuses is really kicking butt.

As the Axis player, I want to totally strip my garrison units and send them to the front - WITE has a WONDERFUL mechanic (well... wonderful-ish, as usual per Gary's masterpieces) that yes, the Axis may choose to not garrison the big cities but that allows partisans to spawn and to blow up the railroads.

The game does model partisan actions as well. They are much more effective when garrison levels are not met, and if garrison levels are exceeded they are further suppressed (in addition to the Axis player earning potential VP by in essence holding the 'garrison not required' with fewer units - this is from a lack of WA pressure).

A game should not, must not, MUST NEVER straitjacket a player into making an optimal/historical play (i.e. keep such number of garrison units in SPECIFIC hexes or -1000VP, or invade France by such date or -bazillion VP).

I think the garrison requirements could be handled differently too. The city specific garrison requirements do chafe. I don't know that the scale of the reward for a German player preventing, or containing, Allied advance is a bad thing. A neat thing about the VP representation in the game is that it is broken down by category, so you can see exactly how much of the balance is affected by a particular penalty/reward.
You could play the game through to conclusion, and if you think the -1000 point reward for the Germans containing the Allies in northern Europe is unjust, just mentally adjust the score and see how you think you performed otherwise.

To clarify those requirements:

On February 1, 1944 if the Allies do not control at least 10 hexes in mainland France, Northern Europe or Italy, the Allies lose 400 victory points. On July 1, 1944, if the Allies do not control at least 10 hexes in mainland France or Northern Europe the Allies lose 1000 victory points. Northern Europe is defined as the continent north of hex row 215.


10 hexes by Feb '44 in Europe (note it includes Italy) is really no problem at all. The Germans simply can't defend the toe in Italy. I think if the Axis player has evicted the Allies everywhere from the continent they deserve a reward. We haven't had a chance to see games play out to know, but I suspect these 'containment rewards' are really the only chance Germany has to obtain a decisive victory in VP terms.

A game, a WW2 historical simulation, must allow FREEDOM OF ACTION.

It does, but simply with a price in the measure of the players performance. If the Axis player requires more units than the Germans used to hold Italy, consequently stripping France of historical garrison - in terms of measuring his performance against history (a purpose of the VP system) shouldn't there be a penalty?
I bet Kesselring would have really kicked butt if he had 7th and 15th Army at his disposal in June of '43, don't you? But would that even be a fun game? Would it be a game that represented some of the underlying realities of WW2, or just the location, date and OOB?
You have the freedom to do it, you just pay a price in how you measure up against the actors in history that didn't have your freedom. You're being measured in a context. This isn't Risk, devoid of any attachment to an existing political framework. War is just the fun part of diplomacy, after all.

For every decision, there MUST be consequences - i.e. stripping garrison units and sending them to the front allows (more/more effective) partisans to spawn.
"Hardcoding" conditions for the player to follow while playing is, to me, the biggest NO-NO of game design.

Beyond partisan railroad attacks the game models partisan uprisings in two other ways that I think are pertinent:

To represent the historical French partisan uprising, when the Paris hex is captured by the Allies, or there are 10 Allied controlled hexes in each of 2 French garrison regions, hexes in France may change to Allied control or have their rail usage increased at the end of the next logistics phase, after rail usage is reduced. German units can prevent the change. All German units prevent a change in any hex that is within a number of hexes of the unit equal to 1+(unit CV/2). The CV value is not modified by weather. For example, a German unit with a CV of 9 would prevent a change in any hex within 5 hexes of the unit. German Security units will prevent a change out to a range in hexes equal to 1+(CV*2). Hexes with mountain, rough, swamp, heavy woods, urban and heavy urban that are not within range of a German unit have a chance of switching to Allied control, with the the probability being doubled in the SE French garrison zone. All other affected hexes will have their rail usage set to 30k tons instead of changing to Allied control. This rule continues to apply each logistics phase as long as the conditions are met. In either case, the hex or hexes in question must be linked to an Allied supply source or they will change back to Axis control, this will leave rail lines damaged in hexes that change back. Note that hexes containing air base units will not change control.

With regard to Italy:

In the Allied logistics phase on the turn the Italians surrender, as well as every turn after that in which the below conditions are met, there is a chance that some hexes in Italy, Sardinia and Corsica will change to Allied control. Hexes with coordinates X>151 and Y>253 or hexes that are part of Corsica or Sardinia may change. German units in Italy or Corsica can prevent the switchover. All German units prevent a change in any hex that is within a number of hexes of the unit equal to 1+(unit CV/2). So a German unit with a CV of 9 would prevent a switchover in any hex within 5 hexes of the unit. Any hex that is not within range of a German unit has a 50 percent chance of switching to Allied control.


I would be interested in seeing something akin to these 'partisan uprising' rules in effect for all of occupied Europe in this game.
The garrison requirements help require this, but have the effect of freeing the German player to put his garrisons on the coast, and not worry about the interior until after the Allies have made significant progress (in the case of France).

I would like to see how a game played out that required a German player to meet (perhaps some variation of) the 'partisan uprising' rule set concerns the entire game in all occupied countries, but be otherwise free of VP penalty for moving his units around.
Maybe this was already tested and found insufficient to meet the problem I mentioned earlier of any Allied invasion quickly being greeted by the entire German army.
In the game before my current campaign my opponent seized Messina on turn 9. Turn 10 he invaded the toe of Italy, and there is really no way for the German to hold onto that region because TFs can block the flow of supplies. I chose to block him at the first bottleneck, and he chose to not attack and instead wait for the Italian surrender.
The Italians surrendered on turn 12, but because I was meeting requirements to stifle partisan uprising he didn't notice. He finally emailed me on turn 18 asking if the Italians had in fact surrendered yet!
I'd like to see the garrison VPs be optional in conjunction with, or eliminated in favor of, full war partisan uprising requirements.
As I said, maybe it has already been play tested and found insufficient to tilt the game's play balance toward historical fidelity.

[zakblood]

no comment

[Seminole]

FREEDOM OF ACTION or lack of it was the main reason but not the only one that made me decide not to buy it, in the end...

One does have freedom of action, but with the recognition you're fighting in the context of WW2. If it was Mermaids versus Martians you'd probably have more freedom of action, given the imaginary context.

too steep learning curve,

It is a steep learning curve. Games with 200+ page manuals automatically exclude most audiences.

too much time spent on supply and air for me

Supply doesn't take much time at all. I haven't spent more than 5 minutes on it after the first turn ever.
Given the vast importance of the air war to the Western Front I think it has gotten good treatment. I think newbies would be helped if naval patrol was entirely abstracted, because if the WA player isn't as good with the air war as his Axis counterpart he can get in serious trouble.
For a large part of the war the air war is THE war, especially for the Allied player.

, and next to worst point, agree with thread starter as well that tbh it's not even a game, more of a history lesson as you have to do things in order so can't really go off and do your own thing (again goes back to the lack of freedom option or lack of.

Actually, it's a fun game. I've had blast and spent hundreds of hours on it at this point since I got it in December.
The idea that a game about the liberation of Western Europe has victory point rewards centered around that objective doesn't strike me as limiting, it strikes me as the point of the exercise.

[whoofe]

i personally like the game a lot. I think there are still some balancing issues to be addressed,some tweaks to be made here and there, but for the game itself: the interface is good, the graphics are well done, the combat system is nice. even the sounds are well done - they don't annoy me like many other wargames sounds.

[soeren01]

ORIGINAL: whoofe

i personally like the game a lot. I think there are still some balancing issues to be addressed,some tweaks to be made here and there, but for the game itself: the interface is good, the graphics are well done, the combat system is nice. even the sounds are well done - they don't annoy me like many other wargames sounds.

Exactly my opinion.

[Ralzakark]

I agree with whoofe as well (with the exception of the interface, which seems purpose designed to wear out the left button on your mouse!)

From the AAR's I have read playing a full campaign as the Allies is a bit of a mug's game at the moment due to balance issues but I would recommend calling back in to the forums in a few months time to see what has been fixed.

[wadortch]

There are now two threads in the WITW Forum started by people who keep explaining why they don't want to buy the game. Neither of them have played it. So we are reading (and bless you many people are taking the time to respond to them point by point but to what end I ask)something like a bad movie review by people who have not seen the film. Or, not only have I not seen the film, but here's how I would remake it if I did. Whew.

I ask the malcontents what the heck is their purpose in taking up air time with this kind of thing?

WITW, IMO, has huge potential to become a classic game and to the extent people who are playing it are providing constructive feedback to 2x3 games it will. This nonsense from non-players serves no useful purpose.

[Seminole]

bless you many people are taking the time to respond to them point by point but to what end I ask

I answer specific comments because I recognize that lurkers far, far outweigh posters in any forum. I'd rather address misconceptions, or perhaps ill-considered complaints, so that people seeking information about the game aren't put off by people who, with all due respect, don't know what they're talking about.

WitW isn't for everyone the same way that WitP:AE isn't for everyone. It's not a 'beer and pretzels' wargame.
It's kind of funny, because people are seemingly always clamoring on forums for more minutiae and detailed control, but there is clearly a balance between providing that kind of discrete capability, and turning off more and more audience.

I think if WitW suffers from anything, it is the level of control it allows a player isn't matched by the AI that can control those same assets for a player. So if someone gets into a game against the AI their AI air directives may prove adequate, but when they try to play a human with those AI directives, they're really letting the opponent play the AI. And with a human good enough to use his air power effectively, he's going to beat the AI, and the human relying on it.

My chief complaint with WitW is the same as with WitE - not the game as much lining up opponents who are as interested in playing as they are in winning.
I accepted games in WitE as Soviets over and over - I think I got to play into February twice.
I've collected info to generate AARs for practically all of my campaign games, but because my opponents disappear before November '43 I don't really get a chance to post them and discuss details of my strategy - as much of it hasn't even been encountered yet and I'd like to try it on someone before revealing it everyone.

Anyone interested in reading AARs that make it 10-20 turns into the game...?

[zakblood]

no comment

[HMSWarspite]

I agree with your comment that the game has a steep learning curve (all GG games do!). However in my view it is significantly easier than WitP (even before AE). There is no production to worry about (as in optimise). The naval element is much simpler (obviously) and the air is at a much higher level (whilst you have to base, equip and assign to objectives, arranging escorts, the amount of micromanagement required etc is much less).

However, the complexity is pretty much intrinsic to the scale and scope of the game. The actual player data tools and aids are much better. Graphs of losses vs turn... ideal and exactly what I have missed in previous GG games (for example). I think posting on the forum to say it is too complicated for you is a bit like posting on a super car manufacture's one that their car isn't for you because it's too expensive and the consumption is rubbish...

The real reason why I am posting this is to explore your views that you cannot make history, just repeat it. I really don't follow. The game is based on WW2 and starts half way through. Thus the kick off point is fixed... wanting Germany to be able to invade Africa, or not be on the verge of losing air superiority is not in the scope of the game, any more than wanting the Allies to have the option of a June 1944 sized invasion in 1943. Any significant chane from this puts us in fantasy land. However within these limits there are many choices. I have personally tried (against AI, but I am still learning the game):
- historical invasion of Sicily, then the toe of Italy, Salerno, and then Anzio,
- half sized invasion of Sicily, with Sardinia. Toe, Corsica and Salerno to follow
- above but with no toe
- No invasion of Sicily, but straight into Sardinia and Corsica, followed by North of Rome


In France I have tried Normandy and around Le HAvre as 2 options (there are more). I have done Southern France before northern France (didn't work!).

These options are none of them silly. There are plusses and minuses to all, and some I would not recommend against a Human. However this is mostly for good solid hstorical reasons. I haven't tried Holland or Denmark (I am not sure they are viable even against AI if you want to win on VP) but I may be wrong.

It is perfectly possible (see some AARs) to skip the Med in 1943 and invade France instead... Again, I think there are issues with that (especially with EF box off), but this time game related and I hope the patches will fix the EF box issue.

Your desire for the Arnhem battle is very incompatible with the game. The battle lasts 1 and a bit turns using less than 10 Allied counters (plus air).... It is a bit like trying to fight the Waterloo campaign with corps level counters and monthly turns and 100km hexes...French turn: Stack of 5 counters attacks a stack of 7 counters. Gets a negative result, and routs to Paris. Allied stack of 7 counters moves to Paris. Game over!

As I said... Ferrari web forums probably will give you the same experience if you point out that the luggage storage is not practical for family holidays I am afraid...

[zakblood]

no comment

[RedLancer]

As I created the scenario that includes Market Garden I stand by what I said then and which I quote now.

With the week long turns accurately reproducing Market Garden is at the very limit of what can be achieved using the WitW game engine. You could trim the scenario in the editor to just the Market Garden area but it may not be worth the effort.

The strength of Westwall is in trying Market Garden and then trying other strategies. An airdrop behind the Westwall, focusing logistic effort with one Army (perhaps Patton) or opening Antwerp as soon as possible.

My view is not at odds with HMS Warspite, although he is maybe a little harsher in his opinion than me; but then again I'm always going to see things with a rose tint to my spectacles. I read all the posts on the forum and his points are a well made primary source.

[zakblood]

thanks Red Lancer for the update

[HMSWarspite]

You are too kind, and I maybe was a little literal about Arnhem. The game is rather good at showing why Montgomery was tempted to do it, but the battle itself is barely more than a little punctuation at this scale...

[zakblood]

thanks to both, i truly love the time and period of the battle and wish to re do it, that's all, not knock or make a nuisance or spam posts etc