Struggling with this Game

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

....
Ya know. WITE (not 2) had a suspect air war but a solid and easy to use UI. WITE2 has a diffcult to use UI requiring multiple pictures to show all the steps involved to actually get something done, usually 4-5-6 steps in a single pic. Complicated much? Seriously?

This discussion is constructive. You just don't want to face it. Requiring pictures showing multiple steps to get something done works for you? No it's bad UI design. Simple. Now this is probably because of an old architecture that they didn't want to upgrade. However, the fact you want to defend this as gospel means you ARE a FANBOI.

Complexity isn't the issue. An overly complex UI is bad design. Period. WITE2 has numerous terrible UI designs. Face it or not, but this is constructive.

a wee clue, the second you use FANBOI in capitals and in a post you are not being constructive.

you never give a single example of this hard to use UI. Yes both the one-page guides and the manual in places have multiple images to step you through a process. In most cases, if you don't learn visually read the text.

ORIGINAL: vicberg

I stepped away for a while to let people respond.

1) I have no issue with complexity on it's own. I've played the massive wargames with maps that take up entire rooms. I like complexity
2) If you have a bad UI that increases complexity, that's bad game design. Complexity should be easy to manage. Air transfers, drag/drop. Depot management, drag drop and right click for a priority, though I disagree with entire priority concept. way too over complicated, especially with the current UI. Let the depot placement determine priority, but again that comes back to UI. Right mouse click, set priority have a color coded depot reflecting priority. UI design 101. Not in WITE2. Someone is designing a UI from 20 years ago.
3) If you have complexity and a complex UI, then you are fetishizing complexity. This is tailored for the few who are willing to wade through the UI, just like WITP. There's a few who are willing and are good at it. The majority, no way. Terrible UI and takes hours/days to manage. OR you have an architecture so old, you can't change it. Either way, it becomes for the few, the proud. Missing the entire boat and the broader market who might not post AARs against Humans but who want to play the game and have fun. That's the real market for Matrix and they are missing it. Reviews on Steam will reflect this. They could bank with a decent UI. They won't will continue as long as they don't want to improve their architecture or bring their UI into the 21st millenium. I've played and continue to play WITE. I won't play WITE2 and have removed it from Steam. Too late for me to get a refund (sad) but I have no interest in using that UI. Matrix is losing on word of mouth, and I hope they take note, because they need to create a game that appeals to many, not the few who post here. And yes, you can have both complexity that the power gamers can win with and a UI that makes it easy to do. Matrix just hasn't found the right UI designer yet. They are stuck in past design concepts.
4) Even WITH a good UI, which WITE2 isn't, then the assists should be a heck of a lot better. Not as good as a human doing it, but much better so the game is playable in single player at least. Right now, Air Assist will destroy your airforce and depot assist will insure you have little supplies as you get into Russia.

1- thats nice, but maybe this complex game isn't for you?
2 - if good depot layout was that linear then maybe, but how does this cope with the player having their own idea of the priority sectors, being prepared to under-resource to fully resource elsewhere, be able to generate local reserve stocks ... for all those good reasons the supply UI works exceptionally well
3 - genuinely I doubt there is a broader market for this type of game, but it would be great if you could manage, just ... a hint of a practical example of this terrible UI. Yes we are aware that something like 90% of games are vs AI, played by people who don't post etc. One reason why so much development time went into the AI
4 - actually the supply AI does a better job than most players, I seriously refined my whole approach by studying the way it was working. AI Assist is fine, there is MP AAR into 1942 using it and both players doing very well.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: vicberg


Requiring pictures showing multiple steps to get something done works for you? No it's bad UI design. Simple. Now this is probably because of an old architecture that they didn't want to upgrade. However, the fact you want to defend this as gospel means you ARE a FANBOI.

You come across as very childish and pathetic when you lash out like this. The pictures are there to help players understand visually what the manual explains in detail. Since you arent bothered to read the manual, you should make do with the pictures. But since that also is too tiring for your brain I cant really help you.

There are issues with the UI and a lot of things could be better. I disagree that only due to UI problems the game is bad or unplayable as you say.

ORIGINAL: vicberg

3) There's a few who are willing and are good at it. The majority, no way.

Citation/proof needed. Just because you are bad at it, doesnt mean that everyone else is too.

ORIGINAL: vicberg

Terrible UI and takes hours/days to manage.

Because you are too lazy/unwilling to learn.

ORIGINAL: vicberg

Reviews on Steam will reflect this.

Almost all Steam reviews are positive and praise the game.

ORIGINAL: vicberg
Matrix is losing on word of mouth, and I hope they take note, because they need to create a game that appeals to many, not the few who post here.

For every person like you that trash talks this game there are many that will praise it for what it has achieved and will continue to achieve as time goes by. The game will get better as bugs are ironed out, new features added as well as additional scenarios.

WitE 1 was released in 2010 and has had 11 years of patches and fixes along the way. WitE 2 hasnt even been out for a year now. With time it will get better.

Please, stop vilifying people who post on the forums as if we have somehow wronged you. You dont like the game and arent bothered to put in the effort to learn it. Thats fine. Now move on.

[Iam5not8]

To some extent, I tend to agree with vicberg. The game UI is not up to current standards, for example good old drag & drop.
It seems the underlying engine is getting very old. 2by3 and Matrix definitively need to update the game engine for their next big game.

Does that make the UI not practical, or less practical than the current UI standards ? That is personal taste.
I agree some parts of the UI could be more straightforward.
I tend to disagree on the AI assist efficiency, either Air or Logistic.

Playing against AI, with all AI Assist, TB locked, makes the campaigns easy to play, just having to focus on "ground warfare".
Most of my fellows in our small "WarGame club" play WITE2 this way, and seem to enjoy that.
Only a few are playing on full "Manual", Human vs Human, and none are reporting AARs there.

Matrix did some efforts easing the learning of the curve, with the one-page provided, and the mini-AAR in the manual. It could be enhanced by tutorial videos and how-to's.
Then I do believe, a brief on the game design and how the warfare is captured in the game engine, will be very helpful.

In the end, I definitively prefer to play WITE2 than WITE1 (personal taste ofc), and we still play WITW HvH.

[Tailspintommy]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

ORIGINAL: vicberg


Requiring pictures showing multiple steps to get something done works for you? No it's bad UI design. Simple. Now this is probably because of an old architecture that they didn't want to upgrade. However, the fact you want to defend this as gospel means you ARE a FANBOI.

You come across as very childish and pathetic when you lash out like this. The pictures are there to help players understand visually what the manual explains in detail. Since you arent bothered to read the manual, you should make do with the pictures. But since that also is too tiring for your brain I cant really help you.

There are issues with the UI and a lot of things could be better. I disagree that only due to UI problems the game is bad or unplayable as you say.

ORIGINAL: vicberg

3) There's a few who are willing and are good at it. The majority, no way.

Citation/proof needed. Just because you are bad at it, doesnt mean that everyone else is too.

ORIGINAL: vicberg

Terrible UI and takes hours/days to manage.

Because you are too lazy/unwilling to learn.

ORIGINAL: vicberg

Reviews on Steam will reflect this.

Almost all Steam reviews are positive and praise the game.

ORIGINAL: vicberg
Matrix is losing on word of mouth, and I hope they take note, because they need to create a game that appeals to many, not the few who post here.

For every person like you that trash talks this game there are many that will praise it for what it has achieved and will continue to achieve as time goes by. The game will get better as bugs are ironed out, new features added as well as additional scenarios.

WitE 1 was released in 2010 and has had 11 years of patches and fixes along the way. WitE 2 hasnt even been out for a year now. With time it will get better.

Please, stop vilifying people who post on the forums as if we have somehow wronged you. You dont like the game and arent bothered to put in the effort to learn it. Thats fine. Now move on.

+1 From me!

I love this game and congratulate everyone involved in bringing it to market, from the devs to the testers.

This is not WitE with a new paint job, it's a complete new game and has to be learned and played as such. So many people seem to be getting upset because they can't do what they used to do without getting into a mess by turn 5 and then resort to trashing the game.

Of course there a still some bugs in it but they're being addressed. It takes time.
Certain things may seem like a bug or could be a built in, random event. They may even be player (my) error, BUT... If, for example, I lose a battle I fully expected to win and can't see an obvious reason, it's more fun to imagine that maybe my artillery officer had been on the vodka or possibly a sentry was taking a dump at the wrong time. Maybe "Ivan" had visited the local brothel and was feeling up for the fight? Who knows but it helps the immersion and is more fun than complaining every time.

Personally, I wish the game was even more complex. A few dozen mouse clicks isn't a problem to get detail. 1 day turns, a-la- WitP.AE would have been good and a breakdown of ammunition between a.p and h.e and it's respective effects on different targets, for a start.

Unlike WitP.AE, this game has A.I. assist which, although limited, will get people going. I see it like training wheels on a bicycle. Once they come off, the real enjoyment begins.

If people don't like the complexity or don't want to learn, that's fine. Admit it's not your thing and look elsewhere. I don't like WoT (World of Tanks) however popular it may be but I don't go on forums for it and ridicule those who enjoy it.

[squatter]

I must say that I essentially agree with the OP.

I am not against the depth or complexity of the game - quite the reverse, I think that this is all fantastic. That is what brings all of us here to this forum. This is the best game of its class ever created.

But I from day 1 struggled with the UI, and find it slightly tragic that such a wonderful simulation is shackled to such a ponderous beast of a UI. Whether it's the sheer amount of clicks necessary to complete a turn, the reliance on spreadsheet presentation in the CR, the extremely unintuitive nature of many of the systems/acronyms/etc for the uninitiated - I think the fact that this UI is an unwieldy beast really is self evident to anyone outside of the relatively small clique of dedicated and acclimatised WITE2 players. I firmly believe this game would reach a wider audience if the AI was of modern standard (full drag/drop functionality etc).

It raises a debate over the future of monster wargames - I really hope that future involves in investing greater resources into UI and how information and choice is presented to the player as an absolute priority. I hope that further granularity in the simulation is not seen as the be-all-and-end-all at the expense of creating more streamlined and elegant UI. Computing power allows a practically limitless granularity and complexity in the future. But without great strides in UI and presentation, achieving further complexity becomes for me increasingly futile.

For example if the putative War In Europe megagame is achieved using this current engine and UI - would I want to play such a game in principle? Absolutely. Would I personally do so in reality - no way, because the battle against the UI would ultimately destroy the enjoyment of the battle against my opponent. Turns would take hours spread over several nights. Campaigns would take years to complete, and would the unfathomable amount of clicks would surely lead to RSI.

This comes from a player who played a couple of campaigns in WITE1 and a couple more in WITE2. So I'm a gamer that wants to play monster games, but also wants to benefit from modern UI systems. I believe that the more that UI is ignored at the expense of increasing complexity of systems, the smaller the playing group will become. And that is a tragedy for the genre.

[MishaTX]

Funny thing for me, although I do agree that I have my issues where I think the UI could be more easy to work with (although not near making the game "unplayable" or any such silliness), is that one of the things I always loved about this one as well as its predecessor was how easy it was to leave all of the details to the AI and just push counters while still knowing that I had all of that available to me later on.

But, I guess, different strokes [:)]

P.S.: And I have to admit the initial post about Matrix "going the same route as Paradox in catering to higher complexity gamers at the expense of others" made me laugh. I mean, no offense, but have you played HoI3 vs HoI4?

HoI4 is the Candy Crush of strategy games. HoI3, while certainly not difficult in my opinion, at least bore some casual resemblance to actual history in places, which is more than "Axis and Allies, Paradox edition" can claim. [:D]

[tonyhnz]

I also agree that the UI could be improved but it is playable in it current state.
I think the UI limitations are maybe amplified by the sheer number of units etc that the game is attempting to model.( I myself like that level of detail)

[vicberg]

I'm not saying WITE2 is unplayable. Of course it's playable for those who want to wade through it. WITP is playable for those who want to wade through it. But it's not for the faint of heart. In both games, the UI isn't helping gameplay. It's hurting it. It becomes a game for a select few who have time and inclination to do the work both game UIs require.

Here's a concrete example of two things that would greatly simplify the UI without removing any complexity:
1) Have air units move during the movement phase (not air directive). They use the exact same land movement mechanics, select multiple units at a base, move the mouse, see the movement points remaining using the lowest MP available of the selected units (just like land). The target has to be an airbase and the base has to have capacity. Does not require a restructure of the UI architecture and makes moving air units consistent with land units. Doesn't require complicated pictures and doesn't reduce complexity one bit.
2) This game seriously needs a supply grid overlay. If there is one, I haven't found it. Click it and it calcs suppy paths and display lines between depots. Green, yellow, red lines immediately show supply bottlenecks. Mouse over a line and it shows how much rail capacity it's using and how many vehicles it's using. Right mouse click on a depot, click delete to remove one or set priority, then another drop down enables 1 through 4. Brings visibility to this somewhat black box of vehicle pool and provides a visual queue to the supply grid and where things aren't working. And again, doesn't reduce complexity. Let's the UI do the work rather than massive lists on a panel.

Here's examples of improving AI Assists.
1) Allow for the ability to create Air "Templates", where you setup a template or templates once (or may change over time) and the Air Assist uses that template. Set frequency, altitudes, etc and default Radius. The Air Assist uses the template to generate directives. The AI determines the target zones which the player can adjust as needed. Air Assist now becomes something to speed up the game, a benefit. Again, doesn't reduce complexity. Simply improves the game play
2) Depot Assist uses the supply grid overlay and color codes the new depots about to be created. Delete the ones you don't want. Create the ones you do want or keep what the AI generated. When done with the Depot Assist, click a button and the depots are created.

[loki100]

1 - you can redeploy air units at any stage, in the air planning phase or during ground movement

2 - '8' key and the logistics map mode

there you are 2 already existing solutions to your problems

1) it does, I do this and constantly repurpose as the game develops

so that is 3 out of 3, not bad?

2) how is the assist to 'know' what you want? As above I think a lot more players should study the AI's choices, it will improve their manual depot networks

The problem here is it is so situational, and your reading of a similar situation may be very different to mine ... and we may both come up with equally valid but different solutions

so 3 of your requests are in the game, the last would demand google levels of behavioural monitoring and actions to gain the data needed to underpin such an AI routine

[StratmanWITX]

I can't point UI as the strength of this game.
However, it doesn't matter how complex it is. In comparison with the large amount of knowledge that needs to be mastered here, this is an absolute trifle!
While you are studying this complex game, UI becomes absolutely familiar as icons and buttons on your mobile phone.

And is there anything perfect in this world?

[GibsonPete]

StratmanWITX & Loki100 nail on head. +1

[GibsonPete]

Double post... oops!

[speedyglides]

If you don't struggle with this game you are not getting it. It is huge, complex and has lots of details you need to understand to master it. It takes time. You also need to consider that the game evolves patch after patch, which means a little bit more of cognitive load to readjust your play style.

As I say in other post, the UI is lacking some workflow thinking, which would help a lot with some of the complexity you have to deal with when playing. Once you get use to it, you can deal with almost anything even if it is more time consuming than it should be.

All in all, in my opinion, it is the best operational "hex" game I've ever played and has given me tons of hours of fun and will give more in the incoming months/years.

[Cad908]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

I'm not saying WITE2 is unplayable. Of course it's playable for those who want to wade through it.

Vicberg,

The developers promised the community:

War in the East 2 is the most comprehensive, most realistic, and most advanced wargame modeling Eastern Front warfare in World War Two.

However, I find the gameplay deeply unsatisfying. Given the effort required to complete a turn in WITE 2, the UI we have been given creates a massive click-fest for the player. What could be added to the UI solve this problem? How could the execution of a turn be streamlined so that it does not overwhelm the player? I think it is not possible; to create a more streamlined game experience would mean the game could not be WITE 2.

The combat model proports to be the most realistic in the market. Yet the model does not lend itself to vigorous testing as only developers seem to understand it. They release the game to the community which begins a series of "discussions" between advocates about "balance" and "realism." The developers then find a bug or tweak a setting and release a patch which starts the process again. Over time a general consensus develops that the model is now "fixed" and the game is "balanced". To me this means the model is not an objective entity subject to scientific rules, but simply a mechanism to produce outcomes which are perceived by advocates in this community to be realistic.

These are just my thoughts about WITE 2. I have tremendous respect for the development team and, in fact, I purchased their game and am glad I did my little bit to support their business. The game lasted about a month on my computer before I removed it and moved on. This does not mean that others do not or should not enjoy WITE 2; in many ways it is a remarkable accomplishment.

-Rob

[Zovs]

I am finding all these posts about how unplayable, or how the UI is so unplayable or how WITE2 is so unplayable to be just silly and completely false.

WITE2 is actually one of the most playable, intuitive, easy to use and easy to understand games out there.

Its not rocket science or neurosurgery all these false claims are just ridiculous.

[squatter]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

WITE2 is actually one of the most playable, intuitive, easy to use and easy to understand games out there.

I’m sorry and no offence, but that sentence is simply ridiculous, especially the use of ‘intuitive’.

We are talking a game that takes 100s of hours to learn and months to master and years to play. No point in debasing the debate by pretending it’s Panzer General. I would posit that the statement that the UI is a bad example when it comes to intuitiveness is a self-evident fact, and that you are kidding yourself and misleading others by claiming it “one of the most intuitive out there”.

Personally I think it’s a shame that a hard core of players who have mastered the system and don’t mind it’s labour intensiveness now in effect argue against its improvement despite its manifold failings as this pushes accessibility to the bottom of the priorities list, which will ultimately result in a shrinking player base, and shrinking economic model.

For me, Wite2 succeeds magnificently in delivering its scale and simulation - the best ever of WW2 theatre level warfare - but struggles to deliver that to the player in what most people would accept as a manageable shape.

[MishaTX]

I’m sorry and no offence, but that sentence is simply ridiculous, especially the use of ‘intuitive’.

Depends on who you are, I guess [:)]

I imagine if I were relatively new to the whole "grog" wargaming business (not saying you are, just a general observation) I would most certainly not find the interface particularly intuitive and I agree, overall, that quite a few changes could be made to make it easier to move around between the plethora of screens that a game of this wonderful level of detail and realism requires, I'm just glad I'm not in charge of trying to find those places, much less implement them.

But as an "ancient grog", I really don't find the UI all that baffling. Going way back to the glory days of board wargaming and throughout a countless number of their PC successors, such subjects as logistics, chains of command etc. and how they all interact have become second nature to me, so even when I am looking at a new UI for the first time, I already have an idea of where most of the links lead to, what they do and what most of the information on the screens mean. I'm by no means GOOD at it, I just know enough to not get lost in the weeds. So to me, personally, there isn't a problem beyond a bit of streamlining here and there.

But, and that's a big "but", that's just me. Again, I agree that it does not make it easy for "new" people interested in the genre to get into, and that's sad. I'm all in favor of making it easier for new recruits to become as fascinated with our admittedly niche hobby as I am, because otherwise it'll eventually die. I want more people to drop the "candy crushes" of "strategy" games and start playing REAL wargames, so we're not in disagreement there in principle.

Still, I don't want it to come at the expense of detail, realism and historicity, the way the HoI franchise has turned into "any sort of resemblance with the actual WWII is entirely accidental and we're most profusely sorry for it. We promise to make it so Luxembourg can become Anarcho-syndicalists, ally with China and Nigeria and conquer the world with an army of penguins in the next update."

That's an extreme, of course, but I'm sure you get what I'm going for here [:)]

Bottom line, though: WitE2 is still very young and we are, unlike with the majority of other franchises, blessed with a dev team who are not only active, but also very very actively listening to what we have to say. It'll always be impossible to give everybody everything they want, but we have a team who really wants to, at least that's my impression, so as long as we keep the constructive criticism coming... [:)]

[GibsonPete]

MishaTX;
Could not have posted it better than myself. I too appreciate the Devs quick response and active participation. The UI is the least of my concerns.

[speedyglides]

ORIGINAL: MishaTX

I’m sorry and no offence, but that sentence is simply ridiculous, especially the use of ‘intuitive’.

Depends on who you are, I guess [:)]

I imagine if I were relatively new to the whole "grog" wargaming business (not saying you are, just a general observation) I would most certainly not find the interface particularly intuitive and I agree, overall, that quite a few changes could be made to make it easier to move around between the plethora of screens that a game of this wonderful level of detail and realism requires, I'm just glad I'm not in charge of trying to find those places, much less implement them.

But as an "ancient grog", I really don't find the UI all that baffling. Going way back to the glory days of board wargaming and throughout a countless number of their PC successors, such subjects as logistics, chains of command etc. and how they all interact have become second nature to me, so even when I am looking at a new UI for the first time, I already have an idea of where most of the links lead to, what they do and what most of the information on the screens mean. I'm by no means GOOD at it, I just know enough to not get lost in the weeds. So to me, personally, there isn't a problem beyond a bit of streamlining here and there.

But, and that's a big "but", that's just me. Again, I agree that it does not make it easy for "new" people interested in the genre to get into, and that's sad. I'm all in favor of making it easier for new recruits to become as fascinated with our admittedly niche hobby as I am, because otherwise it'll eventually die. I want more people to drop the "candy crushes" of "strategy" games and start playing REAL wargames, so we're not in disagreement there in principle.

Still, I don't want it to come at the expense of detail, realism and historicity, the way the HoI franchise has turned into "any sort of resemblance with the actual WWII is entirely accidental and we're most profusely sorry for it. We promise to make it so Luxembourg can become Anarcho-syndicalists, ally with China and Nigeria and conquer the world with an army of penguins in the next update."

That's an extreme, of course, but I'm sure you get what I'm going for here [:)]

Bottom line, though: WitE2 is still very young and we are, unlike with the majority of other franchises, blessed with a dev team who are not only active, but also very very actively listening to what we have to say. It'll always be impossible to give everybody everything they want, but we have a team who really wants to, at least that's my impression, so as long as we keep the constructive criticism coming... [:)]

I also have decades of wargaming, starting with the old board games with a few dozens of instruction pages + another few for scenarios, cardboards everywhere, etc. Still the UI has room for improvement and it is not so intuitive, not all of it. It solves some things pretty well, other things not so.

I always say the SUs management is the one that I struggle the most with, being an important part of optimizing your army and having the SUs where and when you want them to be. Another example is logistics, where the info is scattered, not well summarized needing a lot of reading and exploring here and there.

I don’t say the UI is a disaster. It is a good improvement over WITE1 and has some virtues, but some key aspects of the game could be eased with some UI thinking and development.

[76mm]

I have mixed feelings about this game...but the one thing about UI that is starting to drive me crazy is the simple act of selecting a unit. Whenever I click on a stack, I expect the top unit to be selected, but WitE2 usually selects some other unit. Why? This is really basic, really annoying, and certainly not intuitive.

And while I generally prefer complex games, I have to say that plowing through a 520 page manual is a bit much for me...I just can't get through it. I still have no idea how the air and logistics systems work, I've been "saving that for later."