The most important thing to fix WitE's playability

[heliodorus04]

I assert that the most important thing needed in WitE is for forts to affect a limited number of hex-sides in providing a defensive bonus.

My preferred method would be for a fort to protect only as many hex-sides as it's fort level (or perhaps it's level +1), but you could argue to give maximal benefit to certain sides and less to others (define a front of a unit and it protects at 100% there, and less at other sides).

I have never heard of a military unit digging ad-hoc defenses being taught to prepare forts for a 360-degree attack. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you start with the obvious avenues of approach, and as time and resources dictate, you then work on integrating larger avenues and omni-directional protection.

From my experience in the military, usually if you have that long, you're probably attacking before you start worrying about 360-degree defense.

I've resigned all but my last game (various sides) because I think game design is beating me (as Axis), not opponents, and you can call that arrogant if you like, but as the Soviet, I got my German opponent to quit on Turn 15 even though I was playing with a -10 handicap on Morale, Admin, and Fortification.

I never took 3 million casualties.

I would challenge any of the site's best German players to beat me with those handicaps, but frankly I'm not having enough fun to start another game right now. Maybe later, or maybe I should take my whiney whine whine and leave you all alone.

But I wanted to put that out there as my unsolicited opinion. Do with it what you will.

[Krec]

You are over thinking,  try and enjoy the game for what it is not what you think you want.  Learn the game and play accordingly.  I see alot of post about what players want the game to do ,  figure out how to play the game with the rules it was design with and go from there. If you dont like it play something else, what can i say.  I too have played some games that played differently then what i had envisioned, i shelved them and moved on.[8D]  this is not one of them imo

[heliodorus04]

Well, I do know how to play the game, from both sides.

The way I feel about it now is that I spent the last 7 months figuring how the game engine worked, and learning how to optimize my efficiency whichever side I'm playing.

One could argue that I'm a better Soviet player than a German one, but I think the general consensus is that the German has much more pressure in 1941/42 than his Soviet counterpart. So I think it's fair to say I'm just a good player, for either side (not great - I'm only saying I'm proficient).

I spent all this time figuring out the mechanics - how to maximize air effectiveness, how to maximize German supply to the front-line units, what avenues are good advances for the German, what terrain is good for defense of the Soviet, etc.

And after figuring out how to optimize everything, I'm left with the conclusion, as I said before, that it's game mechanics that beat the German, not skilled Soviet play (I'm not going in to that because I think we've all talked a great deal about ZOCs, rail capacity, the simple way a combination of linebacker/linear gives the Soviet every ability to dictate the course of the German advance, etc.). All I'm asking is for forts to do what I think the realistically do - protect a limited approach area.

It boils down to how easy it is for a smart Soviet player to avoid being encircled. As I said to my Soviet opponent: The only thing the Soviet has to do is ensure he doesn't do anything after Turn 10 that gets 500,000 Soviets isolated, and he knows he can ride it out until late 1942 and take the initiative. There really is no issue with Soviet production: rail capacity is sufficient to protect at least as much industry as the Soviets did historically (and I don't consider this 'broken').

The only way to beat the Soviets is casualties, and the game mechanics make it really easy for the Soviet to avoid repeating his historic predecessor's casualty figures. That's it - that's the problem with the game.

Making forts less omni-directional (and I would add scaling - such that if a brigade creates a level 3 fort, a Corps can't derive the same benefit from it) would enable the German to move with better operational initiative. Right now, it's incredibly easy for the Soviet to steal that initiative.

[IdahoNYer]

I would also agree that forts are an issue, but not an isolated one to be fixed with a "frontal facing" benifit. To me, it is still too easy to foritify and it doesn't "cost" anything. Deciding to adapt a static fortified defense should be a the expense of using a mobile defense.

The ultimate fix for me would be allow units to continue to fortify when stationary to level 2. Any unit in that hex with a level 1 or 2 fort can benifit from the fortification. For units to construct, or gain benefit from level 3 and higher fortifications, they need to be in static mode. This now would make it a tough decision whether or not to fortify - fight a static defense at the expense of mobility, or fight a mobile delaying action (as most of the carpet or checkerboad defenses portray)

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Well, I do know how to play the game, from both sides.

The way I feel about it now is that I spent the last 7 months figuring how the game engine worked, and learning how to optimize my efficiency whichever side I'm playing.

One could argue that I'm a better Soviet player than a German one, but I think the general consensus is that the German has much more pressure in 1941/42 than his Soviet counterpart. So I think it's fair to say I'm just a good player, for either side (not great - I'm only saying I'm proficient).

I spent all this time figuring out the mechanics - how to maximize air effectiveness, how to maximize German supply to the front-line units, what avenues are good advances for the German, what terrain is good for defense of the Soviet, etc.

And after figuring out how to optimize everything, I'm left with the conclusion, as I said before, that it's game mechanics that beat the German, not skilled Soviet play (I'm not going in to that because I think we've all talked a great deal about ZOCs, rail capacity, the simple way a combination of linebacker/linear gives the Soviet every ability to dictate the course of the German advance, etc.). All I'm asking is for forts to do what I think the realistically do - protect a limited approach area.

It boils down to how easy it is for a smart Soviet player to avoid being encircled. As I said to my Soviet opponent: The only thing the Soviet has to do is ensure he doesn't do anything after Turn 10 that gets 500,000 Soviets isolated, and he knows he can ride it out until late 1942 and take the initiative. There really is no issue with Soviet production: rail capacity is sufficient to protect at least as much industry as the Soviets did historically (and I don't consider this 'broken').

The only way to beat the Soviets is casualties, and the game mechanics make it really easy for the Soviet to avoid repeating his historic predecessor's casualty figures. That's it - that's the problem with the game.

Making forts less omni-directional (and I would add scaling - such that if a brigade creates a level 3 fort, a Corps can't derive the same benefit from it) would enable the German to move with better operational initiative. Right now, it's incredibly easy for the Soviet to steal that initiative.

The problem with this analysis is that the hexes themselves are artificial. A line of contiguous hexes would not represent a zig-zagging line. but rather a continuous front. Attacks from 2 or 3 adjacent hexsides should represent a basically "frontal" assault, and I don't think that there should be any reduction in fort benefits because of that. However, where a unit has genuinely flanked a position, so the attack is coming from opposite directions on the same hex, I would agree that there should be some sort of bonus/penalty. I suspect, though, that this is not the type of situation that concerns you.

I think you hit the nail on the head in another thread where you noted that the chances of an outright German "win" are slender against an experienced Soviet player, and that this is quite consistent with "real life." Let's face it, the Russians made some monumental mistakes that an experienced player will not make, and they still won the war quite handily. Their KIA/MIA numbers were over 3mm at the end of 1941, with an additional 1.5mm or so wounded. That is well beyond what most German players expect to achieve in 1941.

My point is that the Russian campaign is not a "fair" fight. The Russians will likely "win" no matter what. Hence the victory conditions, where the Germans can win, as long as they lose more slowly than they did historically. I am not sure why people have such a problem with this -- it is what it is.

The best analogy I can draw is to Battle of the Bulge games (which I enjoy to no end). In a properly constructed game, the Germans are never getting to Antwerp, and they will be lucky to sniff the Meuse. And that is exactly the point.

[Ketza]

To me the two biggest issues are:


Forts not costing anything past level 1 or 2. (I really like the static mode idea to get to level 3 and beyond)

Ants in forts that cause as much casualties and expenditure of resources to dislodge as do larger units.

[heliodorus04]

For the record, I'm not interested in making a game the Germans can win in 1941, 1942, or 1943.
I'm interested in a game that is fun to play in 1942, 1943, and 1944.
THIS game is not fun to play past 1941.
And if you've ever played the Soviet, you know it's not much fun to play in 1941 (though it gets better as time goes on).

[henri51]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I assert that the most important thing needed in WitE is for forts to affect a limited number of hex-sides in providing a defensive bonus.

There are some (and I am one of them that think that there are bigger problems than forts that need to be fixed). As I have posted a number of times, it seems to me that the WEATHER is the main problem, because

1)if a player chooses historical weather,it gives the Soviets a huge advantage because a) they know exactly when the blizzard will happen and end, and b) 1941 was the worst Winter in 50 years.

2) if a player chooses random weather, he may get mud in July and Snow in June, both of which are unrealistic.

If the weather were fixed, there might not be a need for changing the fort rules.

Another thing missing is the lack of what-if scenarios. The game seems to support the view of History as completely predictable which, whether it is true or not (and I think it is not), does not make for a replayable game.

Henri

[tigercub]

What makes the game replayable is playing some one differant but because we all play our own way. IF with random weather you get 1 or 2 early mud turns fine but Snow in summer is Crazy if i got that would stop playing.

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

For the record, I'm not interested in making a game the Germans can win in 1941, 1942, or 1943.
I'm interested in a game that is fun to play in 1942, 1943, and 1944.
THIS game is not fun to play past 1941.
And if you've ever played the Soviet, you know it's not much fun to play in 1941 (though it gets better as time goes on).

I don't understand what this means.

If you do not want to play on the defensive as the Germans from late '42-44, I don't know what to tell you.

Some people would find satisfaction in snuffing out those Soviet offensives.

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: henri51

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I assert that the most important thing needed in WitE is for forts to affect a limited number of hex-sides in providing a defensive bonus.

There are some (and I am one of them that think that there are bigger problems than forts that need to be fixed). As I have posted a number of times, it seems to me that the WEATHER is the main problem, because

1)if a player chooses historical weather,it gives the Soviets a huge advantage because a) they know exactly when the blizzard will happen and end, and b) 1941 was the worst Winter in 50 years.

2) if a player chooses random weather, he may get mud in July and Snow in June, both of which are unrealistic.

If the weather were fixed, there might not be a need for changing the fort rules.

Another thing missing is the lack of what-if scenarios. The game seems to support the view of History as completely predictable which, whether it is true or not (and I think it is not), does not make for a replayable game.

Henri

Random weather is BS given the "all-or-nothing"" way that the game models weather. But remember, in fixed weather, both sides know what is coming.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

For the record, I'm not interested in making a game the Germans can win in 1941, 1942, or 1943.
I'm interested in a game that is fun to play in 1942, 1943, and 1944.
THIS game is not fun to play past 1941.
And if you've ever played the Soviet, you know it's not much fun to play in 1941 (though it gets better as time goes on).

I don't understand what this means.

If you do not want to play on the defensive as the Germans from late '42-44, I don't know what to tell you.

Some people would find satisfaction in snuffing out those Soviet offensives.

Not what I said.
At present, the German's glory days end at Turn 18. This is a-historic.
I want a game that reflects the uncertainty and fluidity of 1942 and 1943.
I want a game that doesn't transition from blitzkrieg to trench warfare on Turn 18 (yes, an exaggeration).
I want a game that doesn't give the Soviet the ability to create Kursk-style defensive bulwarks in 1942 from Leningrad to Rostov.

I blame forts because I feel they offer the best chance to create a solution to the early onset of trench warfare that might possibly be programmable, and because they don't restrict what the Soviet can do with his forces (the way weird-to-implement 'not one step back' mechanics might).

It's already a shitty game for the Soviet player in 1941. I just had a German quit on Turn 15 after 8 weeks of real-life playing. You think I feel vindicated in my time investment as the Soviet? And this isn't a dig against my opponent, who is a great great person to play against. He's not having fun. The idea of playing future turns fills him with dread (great marketing association to have).

I'm ready to resign my game as Axis on Turn 6 because I can already see the linebacker defense reaching back in 3 layers. I look to my future turns with dread: What's the point of continuing when I can see interlocking ZOCs in every swamp and rough hex between Vitebsk and Moscow, from Gomel to Leningrad? My opponent is smart: he knows how the mechanics work best. He's doing what I do (queue Charlie Sheen: "WINNING")

The Soviet will protect his force and inflict Death by a thousand level 2 and 3 forts.

The German simply does not have the manpower (which is historically accurate) to punish the Soviet in similar fashion when on defense, particularly when retreats are causing so much massive loss to his important battle elements (artillery).

I pick forts because I think it's realistic and because I think it's something that can actually be implemented.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


I'm ready to resign my game as Axis on Turn 6 ...

[8|]

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04


I'm ready to resign my game as Axis on Turn 6 ...

[8|]

Helpful.
Enlightening.

I used to think the game was fun. But that was really just naivete of everyone learning the Gary Grigsby model. Now everyone knows the model.

Now, pretty much every Soviet player has defense down. On Turn 6 of the last game I have going, I've realized this, and I really don't want to continue playing WitE. Now that the model is disected and understood by Soviet players (and I'm one of them), it's no longer fun for me. Your mileage may vary.

[HRL58]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Making forts less omni-directional (and I would add scaling - such that if a brigade creates a level 3 fort, a Corps can't derive the same benefit from it) would enable the German to move with better operational initiative. Right now, it's incredibly easy for the Soviet to steal that initiative.

Another way is to have a limited number of special contruction units (like the FDB:s, which have to be moved/railed around) to be able to build fortifications above level 2.

Level 3/4 forts should also cost one or two AP:s (to simulate the use of all the concrete and steel).

I think this should limit the heaviest fortifications to the strategic areas and positions they where meant for.

[Joel Billings]

The tough part is that we see some good German players that are doing very well, and many comments are that with HQ build up the German players are too strong. It's hard to deal with that issue and your feeling that the German situation is too difficult. I really don't think we know enough about 1942 in 1.04 yet because we haven't had many games with good German players and good Soviet players get that far. More games may show us that high level forts need to be more of a decision with costs then something that is automatic, but this would require interface and AI changes, so it would not be an easy change. For that kind of change to be made we've got to see more evidence that this is a problem.

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

At present, the German's glory days end at Turn 18. This is a-historic.
I want a game that reflects the uncertainty and fluidity of 1942 and 1943.
I want a game that doesn't transition from blitzkrieg to trench warfare on Turn 18 (yes, an exaggeration).
I want a game that doesn't give the Soviet the ability to create Kursk-style defensive bulwarks in 1942 from Leningrad to Rostov.

I blame forts because I feel they offer the best chance to create a solution to the early onset of trench warfare that might possibly be programmable, and because they don't restrict what the Soviet can do with his forces (the way weird-to-implement 'not one step back' mechanics might).

I side with this point (for the record I have no experience of playing; base view of other's experiences), but I don't think forts are really the culprit. I still blame the 2-1 retreat provision for Axis units as the real loss of the more mobile 1942-43 front. Redress this and it will be possible for Axis units to push the Soviets out of forts even during this period.

A rule where level 3+ forts can be created only if units are in static mode looks promising, also.

[Chris10]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Now, pretty much every Soviet player has defense down. On Turn 6 of the last game I have going, I've realized this, and I really don't want to continue playing WitE. Now that the model is disected and understood by Soviet players (and I'm one of them), it's no longer fun for me. Your mileage may vary.

The thing that you use an obvious point to back your conclusion that the there is a serious "flaw" in the game mechanic is bugging me a bit. All PC strategy games work according the same pattern. Some with more complicated rules others with less but once the player has understood to full extend the mechanics they are no challenge anymore as they are only static systems unable to act- and react in a real dynamic form. Very few exceptions to this rule are due to an enormous diversity of involved opponents who for themself create different scenarios all the times or very simple ones with high random factors or simply chess [:D]This is the first thing to understand with PC games and every player should be aware of this to avoid asking impossible things. On the other hand: Once humans will be able to programm real learning and creative AI and have the hardware to execute the lightyear long routines in an acceptable timescale, oh wait...Sci-Fi.[:)]

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

At present, the German's glory days end at Turn 18. This is a-historic.
I want a game that reflects the uncertainty and fluidity of 1942 and 1943.
I want a game that doesn't transition from blitzkrieg to trench warfare on Turn 18 (yes, an exaggeration).
I want a game that doesn't give the Soviet the ability to create Kursk-style defensive bulwarks in 1942 from Leningrad to Rostov.

I blame forts because I feel they offer the best chance to create a solution to the early onset of trench warfare that might possibly be programmable, and because they don't restrict what the Soviet can do with his forces (the way weird-to-implement 'not one step back' mechanics might).

...

I pick forts because I think it's realistic and because I think it's something that can actually be implemented.

+1 and well said.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: Chris10

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Now, pretty much every Soviet player has defense down. On Turn 6 of the last game I have going, I've realized this, and I really don't want to continue playing WitE. Now that the model is disected and understood by Soviet players (and I'm one of them), it's no longer fun for me. Your mileage may vary.

The thing that you use an obvious point to back your conclusion that the there is a serious "flaw" in the game mechanic is bugging me a bit. All PC strategy games work on the the same pattern. Some with more complicated rules others with less but once the player has understood to full extend the mechanics they are no challenge anymore as they are only static systems unable to act- and react in a real dynamic form. This is the first thing to understand with PC games and every player should be aware of this to avoid asking impossible things. On the other hand: Once humans will be able to programm real learning and creative AI and have the hardware to execute the lightyear long routines, oh wait...Sci-Fi.[:)]

i'm pretty sure Heliodorus is talking about human vs human play.