Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> So...sell me on this..:-) Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/10/2012 2:51:08 AM   
rroberson

 

Posts: 1947
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
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 :P)...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.

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/10/2012 4:27:42 AM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
I think that even the most loud critics of this game probably enjoy it. It is incredible in its depth, it is a heaven for those who like tinkering through the editor, its game play regarding land warfare is not perfect, but is probably worthy of an 8.5/10 rating. The air war is a bit abstracted, which as it played a huge part in the real thing, sometimes could be a bit annoying, but really, with so much detail already in the land model, if they added much more to the air model, it probably would take days to finish one turn, and become a "real-time" ww2 game taking 4 yrs to complete.
I would definitely say that if you enjoy land warfare games, it is worth it.

(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 2
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/10/2012 8:40:41 AM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
I haven't played WITP, but I did play UV, and land combat in WITE is totally different. In WITE, the focus is on land combat, and it is immensely more detailed and dynamic. In UV land combat felt like a poor cousin, an afterthought, while in WITE it is the main thing. WITE is a complicated game though, but the best on the market on the subject I would say. 

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 3
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/10/2012 8:19:43 PM   
rroberson

 

Posts: 1947
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
the air war is abstracted how? Do you not control individual squadrons (as far as bombing missions caps etc). Is

_____________________________


(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 4
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/10/2012 8:21:19 PM   
rroberson

 

Posts: 1947
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I haven't played WITP, but I did play UV, and land combat in WITE is totally different. In WITE, the focus is on land combat, and it is immensely more detailed and dynamic. In UV land combat felt like a poor cousin, an afterthought, while in WITE it is the main thing. WITE is a complicated game though, but the best on the market on the subject I would say. 



Yeah the land combat in WITP is pretty awful in burma and china....steamrollers.

I assumed it would be good here...my interest was more how the air was handled...and just how "micro" one can get ...for PBEM purposes.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 5
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/10/2012 9:42:58 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1407
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
For PBEM the game is utterly borked.

Germany is tied to the rail of 'national morale' that will always drag down its ability to stand its ground, completely irrespective of other attritional aspects of the war. The morale loss in January of every year is the single biggest obstacle Germany will face from 42 on. No one will share the morale increase formula, but my personally collected data shows that Germany has less than a 5% chance to increase unit morale in a successful attack or defense, an almost 100% chance to lose a morale point in an unsuccessful attack, a mandatory loss of 1 morale point (with a probabilistic chance to lose 2) if it loses a defense. This is my chief complaint with the game mechanics. The same equations that drive German morale down also drive Soviet morale up, and the reciprocals of Soviet morale increases are far, far more generous to the Soviet side.

The Soviet player has all the advantages. He can lose Moscow and Leningrad and still preserve a 6 million man army by December 1941, with which he can then drive the German player back, limited only by movement allowances.

The Soviet has huge hindsight advantages that are denied to Germany, indeed, Germany's rails ensure it commits all sorts of inefficient force 're-organizations" that will result in hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces leaving the eastern front to sit in "reserve pools". The Soviet is free to look at his TOE per year and skip the inefficient unit types, increasing his force growth over history, and creating a fighting force that is perfectly tailored to the game mechanics.

The air war in this game is beyond ridiculous, with the Soviet having the ability to destroy the Luftwaffe entirely by 1942 (house rules are always used on this point, but still, it should stand as a warning to you about the other oversights in this game engine).

The Soviet can field brigades of 1,000 men and 10 artillery pieces that can effectively slow down an entire panzer division of 14,000 men and 120 tanks. There is no such thing as an 'over-run' so the Soviet is free to remove divisions from the front (to raise their morale in the rear) and replace them with conscript-type brigades that cost exactly as much movement to attack, and that never shatter.

The Soviet player understands the production system, which is so designed that the category of "Heavy Industry" (which basically produces supplies) are irrelevant if captured by Germany. This results in the Soviet evacuating all of his armaments (the much more important bottleneck to Soviet production), and then using the excess rail capacity to permanently embed a high-quality Army and its subordinates, creating a lightning quick-response team that can show up at any 1942 danger zone and be used as a de facto fire brigade. By the middle of 1942, the Soviet front is 5-hexes deep, encased in fortifications that will bleed the German dry. Maneuver warfare ends there, at which point you have a detente that predictably transfers power from the German to the Soviet, who then slams turn after turn into the German defenses with his perfect army until the German player quits out of frustration with tedium, or the Soviet says he's bored and quits. Most games see Germany falling in 1944, if the game even evolves to that point (which is very rare these days).

Whether you have a "Stalingrad" or not, you will see the units that surrendered at Stalingrad removed from the map for no reason reflective of your unique game.

One partisan unit can shut down supply to your army groups for 2 weeks in 1941, effectively doing more to stop you than the entire Red Army. If that's not bad enough, the engine allows the Soviet airborne brigades to drop 200 miles behind enemy lines (right on the rail line) where they will land perfectly and also shut down the rail for two more weeks. People do this. This is legal. This is why you should not play PBEM (unless you know your opponent's sportsmanship).

I could go on.

Remember that when people point to AARs where Germany wins, it's to one of the 4 or 5 best players in the game, without exception. Look in the "Opponents Wanted" section to see how many Soviet players are looking for German opponents (especially "experienced" German opponents). The reason for that disparity is that people who enjoy the German history of the Russian front have moved on, realizing that this game was never really intended for us.

Save your money. PBEM in this game is a recipe for outrage.

(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 6
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/10/2012 10:00:38 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline
I think Helio has a tendency to be over-negative. Personally, I enjoy playing both sides in PBEM, and I have not had as much enjoyment out of any other game. While there is room for improvement, the developers are listening to the forum and gradually making adjustments. IMHO this is a great game, and one of my best gaming buys ever!


quote:

ORIGINAL:  heliodorus04
PBEM in this game is a recipe for outrage.


Only if you want to be outraged and then apparently have nothing better to do than spend an inordinate amount of time complaining in the forum about a game you don't like.


_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 7
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 2:08:41 AM   
BofH


Posts: 57
Joined: 2/12/2009
From: Australia
Status: offline

I'm new to WiTE but am enjoying it greatly.

Playability - it does look overwhelming, but it's actually surprisingly easy to manage the huge number of forces compared to other games I've played. I started off by ignoring some of the more in-depth features, and slowly am coming to understand when I need to tinker with things (TOE levels, HQ buildup or Refit mode etc).

I'm a long term studier of the eastern front and after a lot of hesitation I got the game and have not been disappointed. For me, a game of this size and scope is more about the journey than the destination. I don't have strong emotions invested in either side and am interested in the challenges each faces. I have not played any PBEM, at the moment my work makes me too unreliable as an opponent, but the AI is one of the most capable I've come across - I've been pleasantly surprised so far. Although your query is about PBEM you will still want to play the AI quite a few times before jumping into playing a human opponent.

And yes I believe ground combat to be much more realistic than WITP.

Regarding the Stalingrad withdrawals - it's true this would be exasperating if built in to the engine, but they are not. You can edit scenarios and campaigns to *not* do whichever withdrawals concern you:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2910346&mpage=1

Seems to me we don't have to accept the victory conditions in GCs either. Edit and set your own, or both players can come to an agreement about what victory or defeat entails.

Many of the complaints about issues involving "gamesmanship" can and are addressed by house rules - speaking of which that would be a good topic, "best house rules". There are some issues that can't be fixed by house rules, or editing, but that's life. No game of this scale is perfect, all wargames are a compromise to allow people like us to experiment with history within a set of confines. Not everyone will be happy with that, the great thing is there are so many wargames out there and each of us will find something we like.

I like WiTE!







(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 8
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 2:37:48 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2239
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I haven't played WITP, but I did play UV, and land combat in WITE is totally different. In WITE, the focus is on land combat, and it is immensely more detailed and dynamic. In UV land combat felt like a poor cousin, an afterthought, while in WITE it is the main thing. WITE is a complicated game though, but the best on the market on the subject I would say. 



Yeah the land combat in WITP is pretty awful in burma and china....steamrollers.

I assumed it would be good here...my interest was more how the air was handled...and just how "micro" one can get ...for PBEM purposes.


The airwar is nowhere near as detailed. No pilots to keep track of. The air units train themselves. You can send them to the National Reserve where they can't get touched by enemy action. There is an Air Doctrine screen where you can set what percentage will fly for the various missions.

You can set the airgroups to upgrade automatically or by manual. Fighter Bomber groups can be set to do one or the other. You can also set them to fly day or night.

(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 9
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 3:43:59 AM   
usersatch

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

For PBEM the game is utterly borked.

Germany is tied to the rail of 'national morale' that will always drag down its ability to stand its ground, completely irrespective of other attritional aspects of the war. The morale loss in January of every year is the single biggest obstacle Germany will face from 42 on. No one will share the morale increase formula, but my personally collected data shows that Germany has less than a 5% chance to increase unit morale in a successful attack or defense, an almost 100% chance to lose a morale point in an unsuccessful attack, a mandatory loss of 1 morale point (with a probabilistic chance to lose 2) if it loses a defense. This is my chief complaint with the game mechanics. The same equations that drive German morale down also drive Soviet morale up, and the reciprocals of Soviet morale increases are far, far more generous to the Soviet side.

The Soviet player has all the advantages. He can lose Moscow and Leningrad and still preserve a 6 million man army by December 1941, with which he can then drive the German player back, limited only by movement allowances.

The Soviet has huge hindsight advantages that are denied to Germany, indeed, Germany's rails ensure it commits all sorts of inefficient force 're-organizations" that will result in hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces leaving the eastern front to sit in "reserve pools". The Soviet is free to look at his TOE per year and skip the inefficient unit types, increasing his force growth over history, and creating a fighting force that is perfectly tailored to the game mechanics.

The air war in this game is beyond ridiculous, with the Soviet having the ability to destroy the Luftwaffe entirely by 1942 (house rules are always used on this point, but still, it should stand as a warning to you about the other oversights in this game engine).

The Soviet can field brigades of 1,000 men and 10 artillery pieces that can effectively slow down an entire panzer division of 14,000 men and 120 tanks. There is no such thing as an 'over-run' so the Soviet is free to remove divisions from the front (to raise their morale in the rear) and replace them with conscript-type brigades that cost exactly as much movement to attack, and that never shatter.

The Soviet player understands the production system, which is so designed that the category of "Heavy Industry" (which basically produces supplies) are irrelevant if captured by Germany. This results in the Soviet evacuating all of his armaments (the much more important bottleneck to Soviet production), and then using the excess rail capacity to permanently embed a high-quality Army and its subordinates, creating a lightning quick-response team that can show up at any 1942 danger zone and be used as a de facto fire brigade. By the middle of 1942, the Soviet front is 5-hexes deep, encased in fortifications that will bleed the German dry. Maneuver warfare ends there, at which point you have a detente that predictably transfers power from the German to the Soviet, who then slams turn after turn into the German defenses with his perfect army until the German player quits out of frustration with tedium, or the Soviet says he's bored and quits. Most games see Germany falling in 1944, if the game even evolves to that point (which is very rare these days).

Whether you have a "Stalingrad" or not, you will see the units that surrendered at Stalingrad removed from the map for no reason reflective of your unique game.

One partisan unit can shut down supply to your army groups for 2 weeks in 1941, effectively doing more to stop you than the entire Red Army. If that's not bad enough, the engine allows the Soviet airborne brigades to drop 200 miles behind enemy lines (right on the rail line) where they will land perfectly and also shut down the rail for two more weeks. People do this. This is legal. This is why you should not play PBEM (unless you know your opponent's sportsmanship).

I could go on.

Remember that when people point to AARs where Germany wins, it's to one of the 4 or 5 best players in the game, without exception. Look in the "Opponents Wanted" section to see how many Soviet players are looking for German opponents (especially "experienced" German opponents). The reason for that disparity is that people who enjoy the German history of the Russian front have moved on, realizing that this game was never really intended for us.

Save your money. PBEM in this game is a recipe for outrage.


Arent all of these things that you can go in and modify yourself in the editor? I'm just learning to play with the editor, so I am not sure. I've been playing with outfitting all of my Pz Grp with Mark VI's in June 1941. It's fun!

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 10
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 3:53:53 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2134
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Save your money. PBEM in this game is a recipe for outrage.


blah blah blah. The game certainly has flaws but if you have general interest in the topic it is worth picking up and playing at least a few games. The game is expensive, but is not a bad deal on a $ per playing hour basis.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 11
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 4:04:43 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2239
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
The Germans are not "on rails" They have as much historical hindsight as the other side. More so, as unlike OKH, they can take a peak at the Russian unit arrivals. They know *exactly* where all the Soviet units are. You won't hear them say, as Halder did " We reckoned with 200 divisions; now we have already counted 360." He said that in mid August 1941.

The Russians can get the same info on the Axis. But for some strange reason, it is of no help. In 41/42 anyway.

The logistics favor the attacker. Which means Germany first.

TOE? Neither side can change it.

The Stalingrad nonsense. It's been explained over and over why he is wrong about it. But it falls on deaf ears.

Read it here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3097828&mpage=5?

Tell me that the Soviets are not on rails:

1. Red Army divisions begin the game on average 30% below their TOEs compared to most German divisions being 90 to 100% strength;
2. Red Army experience/morale is on average 40 points below average German experience/morale and it goes down not up until mid-1942;
3. Red Army leaders are on average 20 to 30% less capable than German leaders;
4. Red Army tank & motorized divisions have only half the mobility of their German counterparts;
5. These already diminished tank & motorized divisions convert into even less capable tank brigades & rifle divisions;
6. Red Army rifle and cavalry divisions re-organize into smaller (30 to 50%), less well-equipped, divisions within a few weeks of the start of the game;
7. Within a few weeks of the start of the game, the Red Army loses an entire level of command when its corps are either converted to armies or disbanded;
8. The first turn surprise rule results in the decimation of virtually the entire frontier army, requiring weeks to restore conhesion;
9. The AP allowance is totally inadequate to meet the demands of re-organizing the army and properly staffing it;
10. The unit creation penalty effectively makes building any new units impossible before winter.

This happens in *every* game. *No* amount of wishfull thinking or carping will change that.

Does the game have issues? Of course it does. It hasn't been around since the 6th century like Chess.

But it is quite playable.

Oh, and per helio: "Give me a $20 refund (and another $10 for the manual I bought) and I'll be more accommodating. Else, you will have to put up with me abiding by your forum rules and calling you out on the myriad hypocritical, a-historical, or just plain 'poor design decisions' in your product."

Kind of hard to give him *any* credence with such a statement.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 5/11/2012 4:21:59 AM >

(in reply to usersatch)
Post #: 12
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 4:59:43 AM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
I think that despite the points listed, the game has, as I said above, great potential...what is probably as much important, perhaps even more important, is this...
This is a genre where few companies survive long, and if I see a company making products that I like, even if there are some things I hope they change at some point, I would be hurting my own favorite hobby, if I do not support them.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 13
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 9:36:09 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2239
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
When it's all said and done, it is worth the money.

This is coming from someone who balked at the price too.

Which is really strange considering I bought WiTP. And almost whole SPW series. (1 left.)

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 14
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 3:51:28 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1407
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL:  heliodorus04
PBEM in this game is a recipe for outrage.


Only if you want to be outraged and then apparently have nothing better to do than spend an inordinate amount of time complaining in the forum about a game you don't like.



I stopped playing multiplayer, and I was responding to a question asked. Notice that I am not one to complain about the 'run-away' factor that land can just be abandoned. I don't mind that, because it works equally for/against both sides throughout the game.

It was my math that showed how great an advantage the Soviets have in command and control, shortly after which the CP levels of Soviets were adjusted downward as the war progresses by patch. I don't mean to say that is to my credit, but I was the one researching and measuring the problem.

Look, War in the East was a revenue-generating beta test for 2by3 and Matrix. You can read how our complaints in War in the East are being used to generate a better engine for War in the West. But I didn't BUY War in the West for $80. I bought War in the East, and I expected more support than I've gotten.

People who bought this title were rubes being farmed for money first and input second on the engine that they will ultimately release 2 or 3 titles from now (War in the West, another possible War in the East, some War in North Africa/War in Western Europe/France, what have you).

This title was an intermediary product on the way to a final product, and we were bilked exorbitantly to beta test, as well as being given false promises about product support. I do find that outrageous.

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 5/11/2012 3:52:10 PM >

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 15
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 5:10:42 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21570
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
Here's my post from the other thread:

Re the Stalingrad withdrawal issue. It is one part myth, one part design. Many units destroyed at Stalingrad were rebuilt and sent to the Western Front. These are the units that we have set to withdraw with the assumption that had they not been destroyed, they, or units like them would have been sent to the Western Front. Now there is some disagreement about this because some of the units were being formed in Germany and took on the names of units that had been destroyed in Stalingrad. IIRC the guys working on this replied that many/most of these units were just starting to be formed and that resources did come from the main pool that would have otherwise been available to go east. In the game, if you have a unit destroyed, it is rebuilt by resources otherwise available in the East and if it was set to withdraw it is still rebuilt and then withdrawn. Bottom line is if you don't lose these units at Stalingrad you end up better off than if you lose them, which is as it should be.


Helio, as I 've said before, I'm sorry you are not happy with the game, but no game pleases everyone . Your continuing to hit the same points over and over again (including having this mythical Stalingrad issue on your sig) is not getting you or the game anywhere. I have never used the forum blocking mechanism before, but I am going to use it now as I see you adding nothing to the conversation at this point and are simply wasting a lot of people's time and energy that could be much better spent elsewhere. I wish you the best and hope you find a game to play that you can enjoy.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 16
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 5:23:58 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2520
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
Thank you Joel, the red button can only do so much.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 17
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 5:42:17 PM   
RCH


Posts: 226
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline
The troops reformed from Stalingrad is not a myth. Both sides have an argument, but it is not a myth. I understand troops were needed west and some units probably would have been sent west. I argue that not an entire army would have been sent west. The loss of 6th army destabilized the entire southern front. Pulling out that many troops would have had consequences in the actual war. Compromise and pull out half and leave half I would agree with. Pulling them all is hard to accept. I happen to be in game currently and am losing those formations. I need them and do not see how I am better off.

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 18
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 5:52:34 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 652
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The Soviet can field brigades of 1,000 men and 10 artillery pieces that can effectively slow down an entire panzer division of 14,000 men and 120 tanks. There is no such thing as an 'over-run' so the Soviet is free to remove divisions from the front (to raise their morale in the rear) and replace them with conscript-type brigades that cost exactly as much movement to attack, and that never shatter.


The upcoming patch will make it much easier for Soviet Brigades to rout.

quote:

If that's not bad enough, the engine allows the Soviet airborne brigades to drop 200 miles behind enemy lines (right on the rail line) where they will land perfectly and also shut down the rail for two more weeks. People do this. This is legal. This is why you should not play PBEM (unless you know your opponent's sportsmanship).


The upcoming patch will nerf this.

< Message edited by Schmart -- 5/11/2012 5:53:20 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 19
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 5:58:32 PM   
traemyn

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline
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 :)


(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 20
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 6:58:38 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2239
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

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


Especially when he keeps getting quoted

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 21
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 7:49:47 PM   
el hefe


Posts: 3192
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: offline
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

quote:

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 :)




_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
Sabre 21's perpetual arch-nemisis

(in reply to traemyn)
Post #: 22
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 8:20:44 PM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to el hefe)
Post #: 23
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 10:30:45 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2391
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 24
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 10:33:56 PM   
kg_1007

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 25
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 10:45:33 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2239
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007


quote:

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

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 5/11/2012 10:46:28 PM >

(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 26
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 10:46:40 PM   
rroberson

 

Posts: 1947
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to kg_1007)
Post #: 27
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 11:35:19 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21570
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
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.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 28
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/11/2012 11:43:09 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21570
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
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.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 29
RE: So...sell me on this..:-) - 5/12/2012 1:05:07 AM   
rroberson

 

Posts: 1947
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
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..

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> So...sell me on this..:-) Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117