Matrix Games Forums

New 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 Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936War in the West coming in December!Space Program Manager will be launching on Steam
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

GaW Campaign issues

 
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] >> Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 >> GaW Campaign issues Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
GaW Campaign issues - 7/30/2013 11:27:45 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1860
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Eric suggested that I start a new thread about some of the issues I have with the current design of the campaigns. So here they are . I would like to stress these concerns ONLY apply to the campaign games, NOT the scenarios.

The biggest issue for me is that there are too many gaps between units. This was caused by the hex scale being halved from 10 km in WitE to 5km/hex in GaW and the unit density (divisional) stayed the same. This causes gaps in the Russian lines. German units can use these gaps to completely bypass the front line of Russians in GaW and head directly to the VP locations.

With no restrictions on resupplies (other than being reduced based on the number of enemy units you are next to) and no need to attack in order to create gaps in the Russian lines means that the Germans can completely ignore any Russians that are not setting on VP hexes. In the AGN campaign, I drove my units through the gaps and headed directly to Riga and Kranus with no ill effect (and full resupply). Definitely NOT the kind of game I was hopping for.

Eric has stated that increasing the area of the ZoCs of units is something they may do to address this. Personally, I think breaking the divisional units down into regiments/brigades makes a lot more sense. Regardless of what is done, something definitely needs to be done so that the player is required to attack SOMETHING in order to achieve a breakthrough versus the game design/setup providing free breakthrough's with no effort at all.

I was also shocked that there were no railroads on the AGN maps. As critical as these were in the war, not having these on the maps seems to be a major oversight. I know they had access to where the RRs were since WitE has them. Why they were not included AND tied to the supply system (other than delaying the release) I do not know. I am also hopeful these hugely important RRs will be added to the game at some point. I'd even be willing to pay $5-$10 more for a DLC that added them . Although I do think they should have been part of the base game.

Air movement has a separate thread with is the last of my issues so I will not cover it here.

I am not happy with the campaign part of the game which is the only reason I purchased the game in the first place. I can only hope somehow these issues are addressed in the near future so the game becomes the game I was hoping for when I bought it.

< Message edited by Numdydar -- 7/30/2013 11:28:00 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: GaW Campaign issues - 7/30/2013 11:42:14 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32941
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Hi Numdydar,

Thanks for posting your feedback.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
The biggest issue for me is that there are too many gaps between units. This was caused by the hex scale being halved from 10 km in WitE to 5km/hex in GaW and the unit density (divisional) stayed the same. This causes gaps in the Russian lines. German units can use these gaps to completely bypass the front line of Russians in GaW and head directly to the VP locations.


In your opinion, has this been an issue for you in all the campaign scenarios you've played or just some? IMHO the unit density is not much different from Panzer Corps or Panzer General and the Germans historically were able to breakthrough and bypass for much of the early stage of Barbarossa. Unit density does increase in my experience as you go through the campaign and I've found the AI to fight for the victory locations when you have a scenario that requires them for victory.

quote:

With no restrictions on resupplies (other than being reduced based on the number of enemy units you are next to) and no need to attack in order to create gaps in the Russian lines means that the Germans can completely ignore any Russians that are not setting on VP hexes. In the AGN campaign, I drove my units through the gaps and headed directly to Riga and Kranus with no ill effect (and full resupply). Definitely NOT the kind of game I was hopping for.


Was this with the AGN campaign portion of the A-A campaign or with the separate campaign?

Resupply is also similar to the Panzer General/Panzer Corps style games, but we do include a detailed supply mode with more limitations. Nevertheless, full modeling of supply lines is outside the scope of this and most similar games. We do track fuel/ammo by unit and offer several different modes to adjust how much you want supply/fuel costs to play a role in the campaign. Resupplying also takes a turn for the unit being resupplied, which seems like a fairly significant effect to me.

quote:

Eric has stated that increasing the area of the ZoCs of units is something they may do to address this. Personally, I think breaking the divisional units down into regiments/brigades makes a lot more sense. Regardless of what is done, something definitely needs to be done so that the player is required to attack SOMETHING in order to achieve a breakthrough versus the game design/setup providing free breakthrough's with no effort at all.


Breaking down to regiments would require a redesign of every scenario in the game, so that's a non-starter. At this scale, increased ZOC for divisions, if possible, would give you most of the benefit for much less development cost and I think it's possible that we'll be able to do this. As far as requiring the player to attack something, I have not made it through any campaign without being required to engage in a lot of combat, so I'm not sure again what the exact sample of campaign scenarios involved here is. The most attention was paid during development to the main A-A campaign and I'm curious how you have found that to play.

quote:

I was also shocked that there were no railroads on the AGN maps. As critical as these were in the war, not having these on the maps seems to be a major oversight. I know they had access to where the RRs were since WitE has them. Why they were not included AND tied to the supply system (other than delaying the release) I do not know. I am also hopeful these hugely important RRs will be added to the game at some point. I'd even be willing to pay $5-$10 more for a DLC that added them . Although I do think they should have been part of the base game.


Railroads would be quite important if this were a complex enough game to model lines of supply/fuel rather than just costs of supply/fuel. That's why they were in War in the East, but not here. Even so, during the initial phase of Barbarossa with the rebuilding of rail lines the railhead often lagged being the front lines by quite a bit. For the current system, they would mainly be just for strategic movement, which is not as necessary within this map scale (vs. some of the larger Panzer Corps maps).

quote:

Air movement has a separate thread with is the last of my issues so I will not cover it here.


Thanks, saw your feedback on that and I think increasing air movement is relatively easy and likely not too problematic. I'd say it's quite possible, but we'd like to get more feedback on the initial release before deciding on what changes to make.

Which campaigns have you had a chance to play so far?

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 2
RE: GaW Campaign issues - 7/31/2013 4:44:31 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1860
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Just the AGN so far. I wanted to start small

An expanded ZoC would be a good solution as there should be a presence further out than what is currently modeled. Comparing GaW to PC and saying that GaW is the same so why is there an issue, is not a good argument. PC worked because each scenario was designed a specific way, very loosely based on historical data. So the scenario design was not forced to follow the exact historical setup the way GaW does (or is trying to do). This allowed much more freedom for unit placement, unit types, etc. GaW does not have this type of freedom so what worked for one (PC)does not necessarily mean it will work for another type of game like GaW.

I agree that stopping for a day for supplies is a good effect. However since you admit that the rail lines lagged the front which is why they are not modeled, then there should also be some kind of distance limitation on how much supply you can actually get. Also as each scenario progresses, units should start will less and less supply.

Your point on the rail lines is a good one, but I still think they should be on the maps since they did help movement through rough terrain. However, if you plan on adding modules like with PC, then the rail lines will need to be modeled at some point since in '42 and later, the rail heads were at the front.

I want to publicly thank you and the entire team for taking these points in the spirit they are offered. They are hopefully helpful and my intent is to improve the game. So thank you very much for listening

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 3
RE: GaW Campaign issues - 8/1/2013 5:32:29 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32941
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Just the AGN so far. I wanted to start small


Oh, you should definitely try the Archangel to Astrakhan campaign then. That's the definitive one for this release and the majority of campaign time was spent on that.

We'll take another look at the AGN campaign. The concerns you had about unit density and objectives may be very specific to that campaign rather than the main one and thus the game in general.

quote:

An expanded ZoC would be a good solution as there should be a presence further out than what is currently modeled. Comparing GaW to PC and saying that GaW is the same so why is there an issue, is not a good argument. PC worked because each scenario was designed a specific way, very loosely based on historical data. So the scenario design was not forced to follow the exact historical setup the way GaW does (or is trying to do). This allowed much more freedom for unit placement, unit types, etc. GaW does not have this type of freedom so what worked for one (PC)does not necessarily mean it will work for another type of game like GaW.


Agreed on that - but again please try the main campaign as well.

quote:

I agree that stopping for a day for supplies is a good effect. However since you admit that the rail lines lagged the front which is why they are not modeled, then there should also be some kind of distance limitation on how much supply you can actually get. Also as each scenario progresses, units should start will less and less supply.


I think the main campaign will again give you a different experience on this, but a more elaborate supply system is something we were considering more as a sequel feature (as it is a major, major task) rather than something for an update. In comparison to Panzer Corps and Panzer General, we think the supply system in Germany at War holds up well. Short of creating an entirely new supply system, we're open to other suggestions that may improve the importance of supplies in Germany at War, but I think that without a much more detailed system a lot of abstraction has to be accepted for this style of game.

quote:

Your point on the rail lines is a good one, but I still think they should be on the maps since they did help movement through rough terrain. However, if you plan on adding modules like with PC, then the rail lines will need to be modeled at some point since in '42 and later, the rail heads were at the front.


Agreed on later war effects and for larger scenarios, which is what we were considering for a sequel as well. :-)

quote:

I want to publicly thank you and the entire team for taking these points in the spirit they are offered. They are hopefully helpful and my intent is to improve the game. So thank you very much for listening


Thank you for your feedback!


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 4
RE: GaW Campaign issues - 8/26/2013 9:22:51 PM   
sandman2575


Posts: 216
Joined: 9/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

Eric has stated that increasing the area of the ZoCs of units is something they may do to address this. Personally, I think breaking the divisional units down into regiments/brigades makes a lot more sense. Regardless of what is done, something definitely needs to be done so that the player is required to attack SOMETHING in order to achieve a breakthrough versus the game design/setup providing free breakthrough's with no effort at all.


Breaking down to regiments would require a redesign of every scenario in the game, so that's a non-starter.




This is really too bad, and it seems like a missed opportunity. I love GAW's design decision to model units on the scale from battalions to divisions. However, it seems silly that a full division would take up as much 'space' (a single hex) as a battalion, and as a maneuver unit operate in exactly the same way.

One of the things I love about vic's DC games is that divisions are not 'single chit' units but broken down regimentally, allowing you maneuver flexibility while still maintaining some C&C / coordination benefits from the fact that the separate units are part of the same division.

When I heard that GaW would have (what sounded like) a much more sophisticated idea of OOB than the PanzerCorps "Tank with Strength = 10" system, my interest was piqued. But it sounds like GaW is still closer to Panzer Corps than it is to Decisive Campaigns, which is disappointing. There is no shortage of Beer & Pretzels ww2 a la Panzer Corps, Time of Wrath, Battlefield Academy and the like. What's harder to pull off is what Decisive Campaigns pulls off -- a happy medium between Beer & Pretzels shallowness and overwhelming Grognard-ishness (a la WitE). I was hoping GaW would be one of the few games to hit the sweet spot. It sounds though like it has the potential to evolve in that direction, and I really hope it will.

..anyway I just wish the divisions could be broken down the way Numdydar suggests...

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 5
RE: GaW Campaign issues - 8/26/2013 9:33:53 PM   
rosseau

 

Posts: 1077
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
+1

That is an elusive sweet spot, but I don't think GaW will fill it. Closest thing might be Advanced Tactics.

(in reply to sandman2575)
Post #: 6
RE: GaW Campaign issues - 8/28/2013 12:12:13 AM   
Ralph Harper


Posts: 159
Joined: 10/4/2001
Status: offline
So far I find this game entertaining, but I have a question? I am playing the AGN mini campaign to get antiquated with things and I am on the second scenario. It seems that I can't deploy anyone, I did read something about separate forces for that campaign.
On a side note how do I know when I have tabbed through all of my forces?

(in reply to rosseau)
Post #: 7
RE: GaW Campaign issues - 8/29/2013 4:28:41 AM   
Ronald Wendt


Posts: 1121
Joined: 6/8/2009
Status: offline
Hello,

Hello,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralph Harper
So far I find this game entertaining, but I have a question? I am playing the AGN mini campaign to get antiquated with things and I am on the second scenario. It seems that I can't deploy anyone, I did read something about separate forces for that campaign.


the AGN campaign is special as it does not allow deployment and units are not transfered from map to map.
Those three maps all contain historical key situations AGN was facing in 1941 thus is rather a chain of single maps with just one link: you have to solve them with a major resource pool and some smaller ones on each map.

The trouble with AGN is that it attracts players by its size (fast to solve) yet confuses many due to its unusual design.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralph Harper
On a side note how do I know when I have tabbed through all of my forces?


There is no warning or the like of the game if you tabbed through your forces. So far you have to remember which unit you started with.

Regards,


_____________________________

Ronald Wendt
Phobetor website
Phobetor on Facebook

(in reply to Ralph Harper)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 >> GaW Campaign issues Page: [1]
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

0.078