Alekmalek quit WITE2 because of WW1 grinding

[Gray Lensman_MatrixForum]

Though historical numbers have some value in that they somewhat justify the in-game and end game design numbers statistically. They don't mean crap if the game play becomes non-mobile, non-historical, and worst of all boring.

What gives you the impression that game play becomes non-mobile?

The very fact that gamers have resorted to this "grinding" tactic to achieve large scale attrition results.

I've come to the conclusion that the game mechanics are pretty well designed. What's missing is a game design element of strategic surprise. Both Operations "Uranus" and "Bagration" in particular were huge strategic surprises and to a lesser extent "Citadelle".

Uranus and Bagration in particular provided huge openings for really deep mobile warfare, whereas Citadelle was more closely similar to this "grinding" tactic until the Germans just plain ran out of power to keep it up and fell back with little if any reserves to stop the Russian counter-offensive in it's tracks, instead falling all the way back to Kiev and the Dnepr.

Currently, there is not really anything in the game design that allows for the sort of surprise that facilitates the huge successes of these offensives.

The idea of a" free move" offensive setup comes to mind, but the implementation is rather gamey and I'd rather not see that.

Another idea, would be to allow the player(s) to designate certain units as part of an "offensive" buildup and make them pretty much "totally" invisible, even to recon, to the opposing player as long as they are kept back, a hex or so from the front line. This is how the Soviets managed to surprise the German/Rumanian units to the Northwest of Stalingrad. They only moved the offensive buildup units at night, covering them with camouflage tarps during the day time, rendering them effectively invisible to German recon. A feature like this would be a replayability boon for PvP games for sure, though it might be able to be randomly scripted for single player also.

[Beethoven1]

Way too long of a post. Stopped reading it after the first three para's And it does work like that.

If you got that far, you got through the most important point, which was underlined and italicized to make clear it was the most important point:

Second, it's just not that simple. As I emphasized in my response endorsing Bread's post, the last thing I want is for anyone to take away from this thread that this issue is too simple and too susceptible to a simplistic easy fast one-shot solution. I adamantly refuse to oversimplify this because I do not want this to lead to some beta patch being released a week from now with some change that appears without having been sufficiently discussed and analyzed first, because that could make things worse rather than better or fix things in a less than ideal way. As Vet similarly says above, "but any changes would need to be carefully thought out for balance over a longer game."

If anyone walks away with just that message but nothing else, I am satisfied, because if people get that message then we can avoid something like what happened with the (overall good and necessary) CPP changes being rushed with insufficiently careful attention to predicable unintended consequences.

This game is not for everyone. Correct understanding, for better or worse, requires detail and nuance, and requires some walls of text like my post and Bread's/RedJohns' one. If you cut corners, things can get (in certain respects) worse. Granted I am quite sure some people like Bread are better at making the walls of text comprehensible than I.

[Nikel]

Thanks Stamb for the oob screenshot


Reading all of this stuff and from an outsider point of view, it looks like the pro gamers managed to break it, a game to which they dedicate many hours, making it boring and repetitive.

IMHO you are missing that the pleasure of wargaming is not in what you are doing, try to win at all cost, the pleasure is in recreating the war facing the problems the real commanders had in the past, even if you lose.


There is also a positive side in all those who retire soon, Stalin or Hitler would have fight to the death (of all the others).

So you have an army of 7 millions and you retire? True, short in tanks and aircraft, but still... Anyway good for you, you are not Stalin

[RedJohn]

Thanks Stamb for the oob screenshot


Reading all of this stuff and from an outsider point of view, it looks like the pro gamers managed to break it, a game to which they dedicate many hours, making it boring and repetitive.

IMHO you are missing that the pleasure of wargaming is not in what you are doing, try to win at all cost, the pleasure is in recreating the war facing the problems the real commanders had in the past, even if you lose.


There is also a positive side in all those who retire soon, Stalin or Hitler would have fight to the death (of all the others).

So you have an army of 7 millions and you retire? True, short in tanks and aircraft, but still... Anyway good for you, you are not Stalin

Can you recreate the problems, though? Just look at the VP system. Odessa is supposed to fall turn 18 or something, and Kiev turn 13ish? This literally never happens unless there's a gargantuan skill difference. Both sides have perfect awareness of their armies and have perfect coordination, which is one of the reasons why I don't really support the arguments which try and compare how this game develops to history. It never matches it remotely.

[Beethoven1]

Keep it brief please. The long posts put me to sleep . Just names are more than fine.

OK, I have undertaken consultations to produce a list. The list of names consists of only a single name. The name is:

Stephan (Seventeenth Warning)

Stephan has said he is willing to play you if you are up for it. Stephan's preferences are:



Stephan says that if you put up a server game challenge, he will accept it.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Keep it brief please. The long posts put me to sleep . Just names are more than fine.

OK, I have undertaken consultations to produce a list. The list of names consists of only a single name. The name is:

Stephan (Seventeenth Warning)

Stephan has said he is willing to play you if you are up for it. Stephan's preferences are:



Stephan says that if you put up a server game challenge, he will accept it.

I am not looking for a game though. Never said I was looking for a game. Only asked who is the "best" grinder, "skilled" player. That is all I asked. Thank you though.

[Zebtucker12]

He is a really good player! Stephan always sees the possibilites for victory.
I once again preach that soviet mobility is the issuse if you tone down their mobility and upp their combat power it would be great.

[Stamb]

Thanks Stamb for the oob screenshot


Reading all of this stuff and from an outsider point of view, it looks like the pro gamers managed to break it, a game to which they dedicate many hours, making it boring and repetitive.

IMHO you are missing that the pleasure of wargaming is not in what you are doing, try to win at all cost, the pleasure is in recreating the war facing the problems the real commanders had in the past, even if you lose.


There is also a positive side in all those who retire soon, Stalin or Hitler would have fight to the death (of all the others).

So you have an army of 7 millions and you retire? True, short in tanks and aircraft, but still... Anyway good for you, you are not Stalin

that is true that complex games are hard to balance and doing some things will be always much more efficient than doing others
but some things in the current system are not right

i showed this example to a devs already in another place, but i will repost it here:

1.png (423.14 KiB) Viewed 809 times

2.png (1.02 MiB) Viewed 809 times

3.png (1.07 MiB) Viewed 809 times

is there any reason that players might explain why it is good to retreat away from your troops rather than closer to them (or a HQ that unit belongs to)?

imo few problems with a current system:
1. retreat priorities
2. damaged elements do not contribute to CV (never tested it myself, but many say that it works like that and based on my experience it seems to be true)
3. CPP loss that is counted only by final CV which is easy to achieve

that examples with Axis ww1 grind is nothing in comparison what Soviets can do in 44 GC, StB and probably 43 GC
there were already not many players who wish to play Axis in that scenarios, as you can see by the AARs here or in other places, but knowing this 3 things that i mentioned above makes things even worse and CPP is the least of a problems since mostly Soviets will still lose 50% CPP.

[Nikel]

Yes, you all have mastered the mechanics of the game, may predict the results and exploit them in your competitive games.

However reading Joel Billing's last posts and looking at the last patches, in which the changes are done in the data, but not so many in the engine, is not precisely to be optimistic.

The limit seems to be in GG and Pavel time and fresh blood is needed in the coding, but where to find it?

Though if all those aspects you name were changed in the mechanics, you guys will detect new ways to exploit them again

[Stamb]

where is Morvael, sorry if i misspelled him.
i never played wite 1 but people write he made a lot of good fixes to that game

or maybe we will train Wiedrock to code, i am sure he would fix everything

[Nikel]

Morvael left the building, but he is easy to find if you know his name

Indeed he is a programmer, I first knew of him in Ageod forum and he also developed an oob editor for the HPS (John Tiller) Napoleonic games.


Wiedrock is also a programmer?

[Stamb]

i dont think Wiedrock is
but there is nobody that i know that is doing even remotely close to what Wiedrock does with his deep dives
that is why i added that

or maybe we will train Wiedrock to code

but anyway, enough of my rambling since it is going off topic

[Wiedrock]

Wiedrock is also a programmer?

No, I just like numbers, spread sheets and Marschmusik.

---

BACK TO TOPIC(s)!

[Nikel]

No, I just like numbers, spread sheets and Marschmusik.

---

BACK TO TOPIC(s)!

Well, that is a lot

Coders are rara avis in wargaming.

But it is not off topic, is evident that GG and Pavel are not going to make those changes.

[Veterin]

imo few problems with a current system:
1. retreat priorities
2. damaged elements do not contribute to CV (never tested it myself, but many say that it works like that and based on my experience it seems to be true)
3. CPP loss that is counted only by final CV which is easy to achieve

What a great move .

In all serious though, i don't see anything wrong with retreat paths priorities. There's a lot of thought and planning involved in attacking/counterattacking which is how it should be for a strategy game. If you were to argue that overall retreat losses should be lowered from routs or a hard cap at lets say 75% of total TOE then i would agree with that.

[RedJohn]

imo few problems with a current system:
1. retreat priorities
2. damaged elements do not contribute to CV (never tested it myself, but many say that it works like that and based on my experience it seems to be true)
3. CPP loss that is counted only by final CV which is easy to achieve

What a great move .

In all serious though, i don't see anything wrong with retreat paths priorities. There's a lot of thought and planning involved in attacking/counterattacking which is how it should be for a strategy game. If you were to argue that overall retreat losses should be lowered from routs or a hard cap at lets say 75% of total TOE then i would agree with that.

As the innocent victim in the above case there's no logical reason for a unit to retreat deeper into enemy territory, whereupon routing it then sends them to safety. You can dress it up in strategy and planning, but it's a fundamentally illogical issue arising from a combination of hex limits and retreat priorities.

Though we'll never see eye-eye on this, I guess.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

imo few problems with a current system:
1. retreat priorities
2. damaged elements do not contribute to CV (never tested it myself, but many say that it works like that and based on my experience it seems to be true)
3. CPP loss that is counted only by final CV which is easy to achieve

What a great move .

In all serious though, i don't see anything wrong with retreat paths priorities. There's a lot of thought and planning involved in attacking/counterattacking which is how it should be for a strategy game. If you were to argue that overall retreat losses should be lowered from routs or a hard cap at lets say 75% of total TOE then i would agree with that.

As the innocent victim in the above case there's no logical reason for a unit to retreat deeper into enemy territory, whereupon routing it then sends them to safety. You can dress it up in strategy and planning, but it's a fundamentally illogical issue arising from a combination of hex limits and retreat priorities.

Though we'll never see eye-eye on this, I guess.

Joel Billings in the BETA forums has given the opportunity for "whomever" that does not like the retreat priorities to have a go at them by coding. Joel will provide the code snippet currently used. You don't even need to code if you can logically write it out and then pay someone to code what you wrote out. So you, and anyone else complaining about the retreat priorities, can continue to beat this dead horse that messes up your game play "so bad" with these retreat priorities. OR you can take action on what was given to you by Joel Billings on the beta forums and do something about it. Action speaks louder than these typed words.

Maybe you are not on the beta forums. If not then send a PM to Joel Billings I am sure he would help you get started on helping improve the retreat priorities to your liking.

As for me, I am more than fine with the retreat priorities for gain or for ill against me.

[RedJohn]

What a great move .

In all serious though, i don't see anything wrong with retreat paths priorities. There's a lot of thought and planning involved in attacking/counterattacking which is how it should be for a strategy game. If you were to argue that overall retreat losses should be lowered from routs or a hard cap at lets say 75% of total TOE then i would agree with that.

As the innocent victim in the above case there's no logical reason for a unit to retreat deeper into enemy territory, whereupon routing it then sends them to safety. You can dress it up in strategy and planning, but it's a fundamentally illogical issue arising from a combination of hex limits and retreat priorities.

Though we'll never see eye-eye on this, I guess.

Joel Billings in the BETA forums has given the opportunity for "whomever" that does not like the retreat priorities to have a go at them by coding. Joel will provide the code snippet currently used. You don't even need to code if you can logically write it out and then pay someone to code what you wrote out. So you, and anyone else complaining about the retreat priorities, can continue to beat this dead horse that messes up your game play "so bad" with these retreat priorities. OR you can take action on what was given to you by Joel Billings on the beta forums and do something about it. Action speaks louder than these typed words.

Maybe you are not on the beta forums. If not then send a PM to Joel Billings I am sure he would help you get started on helping improve the retreat priorities to your liking.

As for me, I am more than fine with the retreat priorities for gain or for ill against me.

Firstly, I am not privy to the beta forums. I don't know why you're bringing that up when the general public does not have access to it.

Secondly, the notion that as a consumer I am advised to either code it myself or pay a 3rd party coder to fix what I think is an issue is fucking insane. If Joel's response is "it's too difficult to code" that's fine. I am well aware I have no knowledge of the difficulties of adjusting the priorities, nor have I ever claimed to have such knowledge. When he responded to my game settings query about adjusting them on the fly, his response was that he wasn't sure how to go about even coding that. That's fine! I am totally happy with a response that says "this is a very difficult problem to code a solution for".

I think it's an issue. If it's too difficult to code a fix, or if the developers feel like a fix isn't necessary, both of those I have no issue with. I might disagree, sometimes vehemently, but it is what it is. Joel asked for input earlier in the thread, and this is input.

I suggest you stop revealing information discussed in a more private forums and instigating arguments as a result. Please stick to what is discussed in the thread.

[Veterin]

imo few problems with a current system:
1. retreat priorities
2. damaged elements do not contribute to CV (never tested it myself, but many say that it works like that and based on my experience it seems to be true)
3. CPP loss that is counted only by final CV which is easy to achieve

What a great move .

In all serious though, i don't see anything wrong with retreat paths priorities. There's a lot of thought and planning involved in attacking/counterattacking which is how it should be for a strategy game. If you were to argue that overall retreat losses should be lowered from routs or a hard cap at lets say 75% of total TOE then i would agree with that.

As the innocent victim in the above case there's no logical reason for a unit to retreat deeper into enemy territory, whereupon routing it then sends them to safety. You can dress it up in strategy and planning, but it's a fundamentally illogical issue arising from a combination of hex limits and retreat priorities.

Though we'll never see eye-eye on this, I guess.

Let’s say retreat path priorities logic is changed so axis always retreat west and Soviets always retreat east regardless of ZOC. Knowing that rule you could still create herding opportunities. Units have to retreat somewhere and knowing the rules of how that applies means you can still plan/strategise for it

What “solution” would you suggest for example on retreat paths?

[HardLuckYetAgain]

As the innocent victim in the above case there's no logical reason for a unit to retreat deeper into enemy territory, whereupon routing it then sends them to safety. You can dress it up in strategy and planning, but it's a fundamentally illogical issue arising from a combination of hex limits and retreat priorities.

Though we'll never see eye-eye on this, I guess.

Joel Billings in the BETA forums has given the opportunity for "whomever" that does not like the retreat priorities to have a go at them by coding. Joel will provide the code snippet currently used. You don't even need to code if you can logically write it out and then pay someone to code what you wrote out. So you, and anyone else complaining about the retreat priorities, can continue to beat this dead horse that messes up your game play "so bad" with these retreat priorities. OR you can take action on what was given to you by Joel Billings on the beta forums and do something about it. Action speaks louder than these typed words.

Maybe you are not on the beta forums. If not then send a PM to Joel Billings I am sure he would help you get started on helping improve the retreat priorities to your liking.

As for me, I am more than fine with the retreat priorities for gain or for ill against me.

Firstly, I am not privy to the beta forums. I don't know why you're bringing that up when the general public does not have access to it.

Secondly, the notion that as a consumer I am advised to either code it myself or pay a 3rd party coder to fix what I think is an issue is fucking insane. If Joel's response is "it's too difficult to code" that's fine. I am well aware I have no knowledge of the difficulties of adjusting the priorities, nor have I ever claimed to have such knowledge. When he responded to my game settings query about adjusting them on the fly, his response was that he wasn't sure how to go about even coding that. That's fine! I am totally happy with a response that says "this is a very difficult problem to code a solution for".

I think it's an issue. If it's too difficult to code a fix, or if the developers feel like a fix isn't necessary, both of those I have no issue with. I might disagree, sometimes vehemently, but it is what it is. Joel asked for input earlier in the thread, and this is input.

I suggest you stop revealing information discussed in a more private forums and instigating arguments as a result. Please stick to what is discussed in the thread.

I bring it up since it is an opportunity, for you and anyone else that don't like the retreat issue. If I am banned from the BETA forums then so be it. The game is already published and pretty much at the end of any changes. Plus I asked to be removed long ago from the BETA Forums through Red Lancer.

Your discussion was issue with retreat paths. You have an issue with it. The opportunity exists to help write it up the retreat path rules. You can even do it in plain English because that is how almost all programs are written. That part is not hard nor taxing to do. To have it done professionally coded I will pay for the coder or code it myself to help you out (although I have not coded in over 12 years and take me a bit). So I am just trying to help you out since the retreat paths are so taxing for some on this forum.