Finish Theater Box Termination?

[RKhan]

Wasn’t the original intention of the large map in WITE2, most of which is unused, to facilitate a later game or dlc that allowed one to play the entire European theater? That would address the original comment about theater boxes. At least those in Europe.

I’d love to see that game

[chuckfourth]

Hey Joel
Zovs lied about what Hans said, isn't that worth a warning?

[Zovs]

Hey Joel
Zovs lied about what Hans said, isn't that worth a warning?

I did not lie about anything.

[chuckfourth]

But jumping into a thread and saying basically:
"What the hell is wrong with the designers and developers and play testers for this game, what bunch of idiots and fools, any moran that has read any book in the last 10 years surely knows how screwed up these lame brain people are, in fact I could design a better game, what a waste of my time and money, blah blah blah."

that is a lie my friend. Hans never said that, you even put a quote in, slander, defamation, lie.

[HansBolter]

Hey Joel
Zovs lied about what Hans said, isn't that worth a warning?

Joel isn't the one issuing warnings. Thats Erik.
Erik isn't going to give a warning to Zovs for his paraphrasing "take" on what I said because Erik did exactly the same thing.

Both read into what I posted what they wanted to see.

Both extrapolated, both exaggerated in order to be able to take offense.

I explained at length to Zovs how correctly labeling a decision as idiotic in no way, shape, or form constitutes "calling" someone an idiot. Apparently, Erik either missed that or simply lacks sufficient intelligence to be capable of comprehending it. I'm willing to give Erik the benefit of a doubt and presume he simply failed to read it.

Now that Erik has made it clear that his subjective take on what constitutes civility is what governs here, and that his subjective take includes protecting the thin skinned and easily offended, I am better prepared to navigate those parameters.

[chuckfourth]

I see
So Eric? Its OK to credit someone with abuse they never said and that does not draw a warning ie like Zovs did?

So that means I can go around saying Zovs said such and such which he never actually said and thats OK?

[Joel Billings]

Please don’t separate me from Erik on this. I fully support Erik’s actions re the warning, and his clearly communicated position. I believe your continuing comments on this aren’t helping yourselves or the community.

[HansBolter]

It wasn't an attempt to separate you. I was merely pointing out that Erik is the hatchet man.

So, you support Erik paraphrasing and reading into what was posted what he wanted to see?

I never "called" anyone an idiot!

"It's the same as saying" is their take on what was said, not WHAT was said.

Erik is a dictator basing his actions on his interpretation of what was said.

Your standing with the despot makes you just as bad.

[HansBolter]

October '44 and no Allied presence in France.

The Soviet Union no longer exists outside the imaginary worlds of the Theater Boxes.

Only the 18th Army and an independent infantry corps and an independent panzer corps remain in the former Soviet Union.

All but one panzer army, currently refitting in reserve have been transferred to theater boxes.

The next 45 turns will be a game of theater boxes.

[Zovs]

Are you playing the AI? If so what is the difficulty level set at? Are you using FOW? Reduced Retreat Attrition? What do you have the Combat Delay Effects set to? Lastly, what Balance settings are you using?

[chuckfourth]

Settle Down Hans
If you say someone did something idiotic, the -inference- is that they -are- an idiot. That is how the English language is structured. That is what they are saying and it is correct, so drop it. I agree it is a seriously retrograde step putting Finland in a box, but pull your head in a bit you are putting it squarely on the chopping block. Eric is not the hatchet man or dictator or despot, drop the hyperbole. He is the CEO, some respect please. Nor is he paraphrasing anything.

You are begging to get banned which I'm sure isn't your intention.

I think the difference between you getting a warning and Zovs not getting a warning is that You went after Gary, while for Zovs his slandering of you is only about you so no one really cares if you get slandered, defamed or lied about you are just another nobody poster. This is understandable there must be lots of such posts in the Matrix forum all day.

Zovs before you continue on like nothing happened, you owe Hans an apology for purposely misquoting him, where is it?

[HansBolter]

On turn 174, October 15th, the Cobra Event occurred.

[HansBolter]

On turn 175, October 22nd, there is still no sign of any Allied presence in France.
All the Allies have managed to conquer are the channel islands.

Also on turn 175, the Soviets Enter Norway Event occurred.
There is no sign of Soviet presence in Norway.

Events keep occurring that are completely divorced from the reality on the ground.

[HansBolter]

Are you playing the AI? If so what is the difficulty level set at? Are you using FOW? Reduced Retreat Attrition? What do you have the Combat Delay Effects set to? Lastly, what Balance settings are you using?

Some of those questions have been answered previously.
However, the lot of them have no bearing on what is taking place.

[HansBolter]

I think the difference between you getting a warning and Zovs not getting a warning is that You went after Gary, while for Zovs his slandering of you is only about you so no one really cares if you get slandered, defamed or lied about you are just another nobody poster.

And this is exactly why it needs to be called out.

[AlbertN]

The TBs are definitely an abstraction; and they are indeed disjointed from the 'on map situation'.

in 99,9% of the cases the events roughly match what happens, because in the wider and ampler majority of the games the W.Allies have their 'invasion' and the Germans simply are ever fighting against the Soviet Bear.
If by any reason a result similar to what you gained occurs, I'd simply suggest a restart with a more difficult AI. I'd rule out a player because they'd have surrendered well earlier than to do turns where they only press 'End of Turn'.

I am confident the point was made, it is correct that the TBs and Events are not necessarily anchored to 'on map situation' - on that matter I think it is a more than acceptable compromise in design choices.

Sure some events can be tweaked lightly (Finland being invaded by Russians requiring Leningrad to be Soviet and maybe non isolated?) but how much that's worth and how many are these cases?

[tm1]

On turn 175, October 22nd, there is still no sign of any Allied presence in France.
All the Allies have managed to conquer are the channel islands.

Also on turn 175, the Soviets Enter Norway Event occurred.
There is no sign of Soviet presence in Norway.

Events keep occurring that are completely divorced from the reality on the ground.

I am close to where you are and have seen the cobra kick in but you have that many men in your TB its containing the Allies anyway however you will see soon a proper breakout but they wont go far and wont make it in time to Berlin.
The Norway one is interesting I have not seen it yet myself in my current game but again whats the big deal so its an oddity, i would be certainly worried if I had a human opponent.
Again as someone pointed out in and earlier post the original format of this game was a sudden death scenario for both sides but the community asked for the longer game hence the event anomalies.
Would I like Finland in game and a chance to capture Murmansk YES will it happen NO.

Here are a few campaigns / scenarios I would like
1940 to 43 North and East Africa full campaign ( or at least full North Africa )
1940 German invasion of France
1941 German invasion of The Balkans
1941 Barbarossa with NO Anti Axis Coup In Yugoslavia
1941 German / Russo war ( no Western Allies / no Axis Allies )

Will these happen most likely not but i can live with it.
This is a great game but sometimes we cant have everything we want.

regards

[chuckfourth]

Hans is doing excellent work here on behalf of all you players, He should be congratulated.

The main problem with this game is it puts the German player in a straightjacket right from the start. It -assumes- that the there is only one way the Russian campaign and ww2 for that matter can play out, how it went historically. So we get the, lets be honest, ridiculous "cobra" situation Hans has Identified. Amongst many others.

It is programmatically simple to remedy this and should be done. ie *If no Allied presence in France no operation cobra* or suchlike.

I have played a lot of east front games going back to the days of cardboard board games. Yes this is the most detailed but to me the least enjoyable, because of its enforcement of inappropriate historical events or rules ie cobra happened so cobra is going to happen, ^#$%& what the player does. This thinking seems to be everywhere in the game. For example why cant the German and Russian player choose -where- to deploy their units at game start? like in almost every other east front game? because thats where they were so thats where they are going to be, history, placing your units as you wish would be a massive boost to player enjoyment.

[K62]

This game is designed for competitive play against reasonably strong opponents, whether that’s another human player or a challenging AI setting. The balance and mechanics are tuned to deliver historically plausible outcomes when both sides are evenly matched.

If you read the AAR subforum you can see how the game plays out in a more balanced setting. But if your interest lies in games with alternative or highly imaginative scenarios, such as conquering Archangelsk or winning WW2 as Luxembourg, there are other titles better suited for that kind of experience. GG games are generally about strategy and historical accuracy instead of fantasy outcomes.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Hans is doing excellent work here on behalf of all you players, He should be congratulated.

The main problem with this game is it puts the German player in a straightjacket right from the start. It -assumes- that the there is only one way the Russian campaign and ww2 for that matter can play out, how it went historically. So we get the, lets be honest, ridiculous "cobra" situation Hans has Identified. Amongst many others.

It is programmatically simple to remedy this and should be done. ie *If no Allied presence in France no operation cobra* or suchlike.

I have played a lot of east front games going back to the days of cardboard board games. Yes this is the most detailed but to me the least enjoyable, because of its enforcement of inappropriate historical events or rules ie cobra happened so cobra is going to happen, ^#$%& what the player does. This thinking seems to be everywhere in the game. For example why cant the German and Russian player choose -where- to deploy their units at game start? like in almost every other east front game? because thats where they were so thats where they are going to be, history, placing your units as you wish would be a massive boost to player enjoyment.

They are in France though? You can see in Han's screenshot that D-Day happened on T164. The Channel islands then fall on T169 (mid September).

If there are no delays the Channel Islands fall on 30th June. IRL Cobra ended on 31st July - 4 weeks later. In the default timeline the first mainland Europe area (lower Normandy) changes to allied control on 9th August.

So give the Allies in Hans' campaign are about 2.5 months behind schedule you would be expecting that lower Normandy event to fire imminently.

All of this is in the manual. For example you can also see from comparing the manual to the screenshot that Italy is about a month behind, Finland is behind also and Norway is about on schedule and that Hans is well below the TB requirements for that theatre (note that Norway never changes to Allied/Soviet control - you just get an increase in the combat intensity).