New patch coming soon?

[DanNeely]

In particular in the case of the Finns, they only wanted a limited war, but there was no guarantee that they could get it. Stalin refused to accept their recapture of the border areas, and eventually hammered them hard enough that they conceded on his terms. But even if the Soviets were willing for a separate peace, the Germans would have objected vigorously to it because it'd free a number of additional divisions to face them. That would've probably made a formal separate peace treaty a no-go from the Finns standpoint due to the risk of a triumphant Germany deciding to punish them after the conclusion of the war with Russia.

While historically the Finns were effectively stopped by stronger Soviet resistance after the opening months, changing circumstances if the German offensive went better than it did historically would've probably meant that they wouldn't be able to stall claiming the opposition was too strong. Freeing up a large portion of their army with the fall of Lenningrad - especially if it happened in early 42 because cutting the life road completely starved the city to death (the Germans came within a hair of doing so historically) and there wasn't a huge civilian population to control - is a reasonable simple proxy for when changing circumstances would result in the Germans being able to pressure the Finns into advancing well across the 1939 border.

[gliz2]

Again you are referring to factual. What-if is completely unknown. It's like with Malta. If the Germans had invested in helping the Italians on assault of Malta early in the war perhaps this would allow for taking control of the whole Mediterranean.
If the Germans had not declared war to USA the outcome of 1942 offensive would also be different.
You never know how and what a person will do until they the moment actually comes.

[sPzAbt653]

What-if's are enjoyed by many players, but I think most scenario designers of Historical Simulations try to keep to the realm of the possible. If they don't, they risk moving into Fantasy, and then will draw the ire of players desiring history.

I also think that there is nothing wrong with adding Fantasy Options to scenarios. The players choose to use them or not. Both sides are happy [:)]

[gliz2]

Again mixing two thing ab fantasy and what-ifs.
Have the Germans (or any of Allies) foreseen the Italian-Greek war? Nope. It was consider as a possibility. And it might not have happend if the Germans were more considerate.
This is an example of what-if (Italians do not attack Greece).

Another case is the famous winter supplies for the 1941 EF campaign. I have read quite a few books and the final decision was actually based on not on the Hitler's personal judgement but rather on mixture of contradicting stances in the OKH. And in the end Hitler took the decision to stop the fights inside the OKH on the matter. The problem was that the original planning was based on starting the offensive 2 months earlier. If it was a decision of just Chief of Staff than the preparation have been made (they were anyway made decpite Hilter's orders just at much reduced rate).
Again close one.

And the most prominent one is Hitler's decision to declare war on USA. One of the utmost stupidest decisions of his. Quite frankly no one supported it and afterwards Hitler could also not explain why he did it. It was one of his moments of madness. But if he did not do it what would have happened? It's not a fantasy but one of real scenarios.

A Fantasy scenario is USA joining Nazis.

Concluding in the game the player should be given options like playing without partisants in FITE2. Such ahistorical thing to allow
Cause if you want play historical scenarios you'll be frustrated as the outcome can only be historical. Then what's the point of playing? Unless I have misunderstood your point there.

Just an exame from my exploits at FITE2. I transfer most of mechanized and motorized units to the north. Completely ahistorical. But again, so what?

[sPzAbt653]

Cause if you want play historical scenarios you'll be frustrated as the outcome can only be historical. Then what's the point of playing?

The players of Historical Simulations want to know the causes and influences that were in play during an historical conflict, and would like to replay it to see if different results can be obtained. Military Organizations do the same thing in order to base future strategies. Players also like to see if, given the same historical situation, can they reproduce the same results. Adding Fantasy into either of these situations is just wrong, it's heresy and irresponsible.

There is no problem with asking designers to add Fantasy into their scenario, but don't expect it as a matter of normalcy.

[r6kunz]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Cause if you want play historical scenarios you'll be frustrated as the outcome can only be historical. Then what's the point of playing?

The players of Historical Simulations want to know the causes and influences that were in play during an historical conflict, and would like to replay it to see if different results can be obtained. Military Organizations do the same thing in order to base future strategies. Players also like to see if, given the same historical situation, can they reproduce the same results. Adding Fantasy into either of these situations is just wrong, it's heresy and irresponsible.

There is no problem with asking designers to add Fantasy into their scenario, but don't expect it as a matter of normalcy.

Wow, interesting to see how this thread has Segwayed. All for the good, I think.
Steve, I could not agree with you more. Nothing wrong with a "What if" scenario, but I play and design for the reasons you so eloquently stated.
cheers,

[Curtis Lemay]

The neat thing about TOAW is that if you want to try something out in a scenario you're free to do so. So, if you really want to know what a battalion of Tiger IIs do to Lee's chances in my Killer Angels scenario you can find out for yourself. (It's really, really helpful).

[Gandalf]

Back to the "patch" discussion.

Hopefully, the next patch might include additional information in the "Information Panel" regarding what additional unit number display options are being used/cycled thru with the "M" key (as defined on pg. 32 of the manual). As it is right now, this feature is not very useful since it is hard to tell which optional set of unit number displays are being used. All it tells you is either "Show movement allowance" or "Attack and Defense Strengths" making it hard to figure out what is being displayed. The show Time Stamp selection is particularly useful, and somewhat easier to know when selected even though NOT informed, but the other selections are almost totally useless if you have defined several of them to cycle thru. Might as well just leave it set to Advanced Default + Time Stamp

[Shadrach]

Thanks for keeping the thread alive guys, saves me having to bump it [:D]

What I'm interested in is basically some kind of hint how long we can expect to wait for the next patch. I've seen some 'leaks' around the forums that there is one being worked on, but how long (weeks, months?) until it's ready? Some hint on what it will include would also be really helpful.

I understand that the game has a single developer (and volunteer testers/mappers) so it's understandable things take time. Just some more information would be appreciated.

I guess coming from a place like Steam where players have come to expect at least weekly patches if not more often the first time after release, the 'glacial' pace of patches here might throw some off.