Game Has Serious Problems

[Rugens]

Are you saying these are the two serious problems that you have encountered during your game sessions, or are you saying these two things seem to be the issues that a lot of people are complaining about when you go to the forums and read various threads?

Hello Carnifex,

I find it interesting that of the 18 responses yours was the only one that asked any questions. I thank you for that.

In answer to your question yes and yes. There seem to be more than a few comments sprinkled through the forum that feel parts of the game are not in sync with historical capabilities. Yes, my play both against the AI and PBEM indicate to me that the Soviets are capable of things in the game that they were simply not capable of during the first year of the war.

I have to apologize. I am away from home until Thursday now and have only limited computer access. When I get back I'll post a few snippets of these comments on the thread. Part of my reason for posting is that I still see comments sprinkled throughout the forum but rarely in a single discussion thread anymore. Gee, after reading most of the posts on this thread I wonder why that might happen.

Regarding my own play experience I'll organize my thoughts and post those also when I get back.

For most of the other responders, I've never really felt that it should be necessary to prove one deserves common courtesy on a forum but in the perhaps vain hope that it will promote some worthwhile discussion I will.

I've never played a first person shooter game before and have no desire. I've spent a huge amount of time playing this game since it first came out. I've been playing wargames of all types probably longer than a good portion of the readership of this forum has been alive. A quick look down all of the responders to this thread tells me I've been a member of this forum longer than any of you. My opponent "Comsolut" is a very good Soviet player. I make no claim to be a superb German player or to even be as good as he is though he indicates that I am a worthy opponent. I think I could at least be termed average which ought to be good enough for any discussion regarding play balance since by defination, most players, dispite opinions they might hold of their own ability are actually average.

[Knavery]

ORIGINAL: Carl Rugenstein

Are you saying these are the two serious problems that you have encountered during your game sessions, or are you saying these two things seem to be the issues that a lot of people are complaining about when you go to the forums and read various threads?

Hello Carnifex,

I find it interesting that of the 18 responses yours was the only one that asked any questions. I thank you for that.

In answer to your question yes and yes. There seem to be more than a few comments sprinkled through the forum that feel parts of the game are not in sync with historical capabilities. Yes, my play both against the AI and PBEM indicate to me that the Soviets are capable of things in the game that they were simply not capable of during the first year of the war.

I have to apologize. I am away from home until Thursday now and have only limited computer access. When I get back I'll post a few snippets of these comments on the thread. Part of my reason for posting is that I still see comments sprinkled throughout the forum but rarely in a single discussion thread anymore. Gee, after reading most of the posts on this thread I wonder why that might happen.

Regarding my own play experience I'll organize my thoughts and post those also when I get back.

For most of the other responders, I've never really felt that it should be necessary to prove one deserves common courtesy on a forum but in the perhaps vain hope that it will promote some worthwhile discussion I will.

I've never played a first person shooter game before and have no desire. I've spent a huge amount of time playing this game since it first came out. I've been playing wargames of all types probably longer than a good portion of the readership of this forum has been alive. A quick look down all of the responders to this thread tells me I've been a member of this forum longer than any of you. My opponent "Comsolut" is a very good Soviet player. I make no claim to be a superb German player or to even be as good as he is though he indicates that I am a worthy opponent. I think I could at least be termed average which ought to be good enough for any discussion regarding play balance since by defination, most players, dispite opinions they might hold of their own ability are actually average.

Hey Carl,
Good response. I've got the game, but am pretty horrible at wargaming in general. So, if people are reacting to you in this manner, they'd butcher me in a thread should I start one. The Matrix forums have lately been filled with negative responses from self-important, pompous people who think they have the right to be disrespectful of others. And speaking of, this forum is closely resembling an FPS forum. But instead of the immaturity, you get a serious condescending attitude problem from a lot of folks. There's absolutely no difference in my opinion.

I've been here for a few years, but don't participate in threads as much as say the Wargamer. But people over there seem to get along for the most part even in the religion and politics sub-forum.

I guess I'm just a little ashamed of the responses I've been reading in several different threads over the past few days. I certainly don't have the right to tell anyone how to act, because there are a lot of forum members older and wiser than me. But the negativity could be lowered a few notches IMO.

Sorry I had nothing to contribute to this thread. I'm just a troll that needs to speak his mind when his fellow forum members could display a little bit more patience and respect.

[vicberg]

This forum can get a bit nasty, somewhat unique to matrix forums as a whole and perhaps a result of all the japs vs. allied arguments in WITP carried forward into this game. Some people may be getting tired of the arguments.

And that's a good segue into an issue I think is a major problem with the game. Both 2x3 game company and matrix relish that the combat system is a secret. I think that's just a HUGE mistake and creates all these endless arguments about balance. The argument I've seen for keeping it a secret is that some players get an edge doing their homework. That argument just doesn't fly, IMO. EVERY wargame I've ever played, whether computer or board, lays the combat system out in black and white. Only WITPAE and WITE don't and guess what, endless arguments.

Why the secrecy? No offense to Matrix, but it's childish. Lay the game out clearly and let people play it. If germans are getting a pop during the first year and soviets are getting a pop during winter, and these pops are known entities, then everyone can discuss with common knowledge and hopefully less nastiness. In addition, house rules are easier to develop if the mechanics are a known entity as are mods to the game.

Come on Matrix, stop being silly

[Joel Billings]

Vicberg, I'd have no problems having the combat system be documented. Unfortunately, it would be a huge task, very time consuming and difficult to lay out to people (unless they want to read C code). There are just so many factors going on. We tried to put out some of the important concepts, but going into more detail is virtually impossible. We just don't have the programmer time available to try to analyze what is going on and detail it in an understandable way. Occasionally an issue will become important in the tester forum, and we'll try to get some more info from Pavel (or Gary) on the details so we know what's going on. The two games you mention are classic Gary games. He sits down and writes pages of formulas that try to account for all the factors that Gary can think of that would influence the item in question (whether combat, supplies, etc.). It's never documented before he writes it. So it becomes a time suck as he (or someone like Pavel that can read Gary's code) explains what's going on (often to me over the phone) so it can be written up for the manual or the testers. We do not have the resources for incredibly detailed testing of the formulas, or even explanation of everything going on. We go by feel, and often discover a bug that was buried in the code that had things not working the way we wanted it to. Sometimes it amazes me that Gary gets as close as he does to the way things should work.

If you have a specific question about something, you can always ask, either on the forum or in an email to 2by3@2by3games.com. Sometimes Pavel will respond online and sometimes I will get an answer for an email. No promises though as it depends on how complex the answer is. But we do try to answer those questions we can because we do want people to learn what is important (and it often helps for us to know as well).

Many people ask how many copies of the various games have sold. Well, WitE, WitP, and WitP AE have followed similar sales trajectories and we are happy that WitE is following in the two WitP's footsteps. But let me tell you right now there is not that much money in this for those of us that are doing it full time. We make a living, but not one even close to what good console game programmers/developers make. And yet these games are big projects that suck time and so we have to make a call on how much programmer time we can put into any item, including documenting the systems in the game. If it weren't for the unpaid volunteers like the testers and the semi-volunteer programmers that get paid very little for the time they put in, things would be even worse.

On another note, I too wish people would be more civil on the forum. We are always interested in constructive criticism. I do think that a thread titled "Game has Serious Problems" tends to generate some heated responses, but hope they would not turn into personal attacks. We acknowledge the game is not perfect, but we firmly believe the game is a fun "game" and can be enjoyed as it is today. It is true that the German Army does not take the damage it should by the fall of 1941, and takes too much in the winter, and we're working on that, but even so the game can be enjoyed today. We are a long way from the boardgame WitE where the Soviets had no chance of even one attack before the winter of 41. On the other hand, we may not have everything perfect (and no doubt never will). But as one interested in feedback, I find it interesting that for every person that says the Soviets can't attack in the summer of 41 I see one saying they can (and I've seen examples of this). So I don't think it's all or nothing, but somewhere in between.

[Mynok]

I'm having fun! I read C code too.

[vicberg]

Thanks for the response.

I wasn't going to go into sales, but I do think that the discourse on this forum is turning people away. For every one post: "I'm thinking about buying it but I'm reading on the forum....", there's 10 that don't post and go on to the next matrix offerring. Not sure why there's such rivalry. It far exceeds japs vs. allied in WIPTAE, perhaps because the Japs have such little chance for victory, there rivalry is less. In this game, the germans have a real chance.

No worries on the documentation task. I've owned Gary's original board games and am a big admirer. They are ambitious. I've been in technology for 23 years. Could I read C code, certainly. Do I want to? Heck NO! Didn't know Gary was coding. That explains EVERYTHING. LOL. Based on his games I've owned, it's much like a magician waving a hand over a function or procedure, invoking a incantation and returning a result based on phases of the moon. [;)]

Howver, developer notes (reader's digest version) might be helpful. We bumped german TOE in 1941 because...., we added a modifier to soviet winter attacks because...., soviet factory transfer works like this....in other words a bit more information on the basics that are going into 1941 and 1942 (because I haven't seen a whole lot on 1943 or beyond yet...doesn't seem that anyone is getting that far yet, at least in PBEM). Everyone is barking about 41 and 42. It might help with basic tactics and understanding.

I also agree, I'm reading about various tactics that are working and not working on both sides. It's a work in progress, no worries there.

[vicberg]

BTW...about the money thing, I understand that your company doesn't have resources to expose everything going on. But in that vein, if you are looking for someone to expose the workings, I'm willing to do it. It's a good offer Joel. The price is in your budget...free!

[Commanderski]

We acknowledge the game is not perfect

I don't think that there is any computer game out that is running a version 1.0 and is still being played, unless it just came out in the last couple of days. This game is great and I plan on playing this for many hours or years to come even if there are no additional changes or updates.

The guys at Matrix and 2X3 have put out a wonderful product, have great tech support and are more than willing to listen to valid feedback. I hope they continue with their superior support and don't get discouraged from those who are not patient enough to learn how the game operates.

Thanks again Matrix!

[PyleDriver]

Well I started testing WitE in the summer of 2008, and I'm still playing it and loving it... The Axis player is hard pressed from the onset, every move is a test on time and has to be well thought out...

[Klydon]

A few observations/comments:

First, the written word can suck for intent. When the medium of communication is restricted to strictly the typed word, it is sometimes hard to tell if someone is serious with a comment or if they are joking. Statements can be taken the wrong way, etc especially on a board where many are not native speakers of the language in use.

My second observation is I wonder exactly what types of posts the OP expected with a title of "Game has serious issues" along with posting some comments that would leave many of us to believe the OP is in the Axis fan club. Like any community, most here have an agenda; be it for the promotion of the Axis or Russian side or a variety of other things. My comment was attributed to the fact that I visit this forum quite a bit and this was the first time I recall seeing you post here and like a lot of people that post here very early, there are observations/complaints that one side or the other is "broken" because they can't do something in game or had something happen to them in game that they don't like.

I don't know how you can make a statement about the Germans not being able to encircle troops after the initial opening when all you have to do is take the time to look over the many AAR's and see that while it can be difficult to accomplish, it is absolutely possible and has happen more than just a little. Anyone who has done their homework can see it and knows this, yet here we got someone saying the game has serious issues.

Same for the counterattacks. Heck, we have had a lot of people that have complained about the Russians not being able to attack at all like they historically did from the start of the campaign. The one area where there is discussion about Russian attacks is the final odds modifier, which is known about and is being looked at but this does not appear to be a game breaker for the time being.

There are a lot of posts on these threads that are very instructive and offer great insight to the game from the time of the testers before release to the community working on certain questions as well like the Axis opening strats threads in the war room section along with tips and help for newer people to the game to help them out. The players taking the time to do the AAR's are doing it for both entertainment and to also help others out. You can learn a ton reading them over and seeing what people are experiencing and going through.

Finally is the fact that there are no rules about a person having to play just one side. I have seen several people make statements and assumptions that I can bet they have never loaded up the other side or messed with them much at all. The blizzard controversy is a prime example of this and for those that broke down and tried the other side, it became apparent there are issues and those are being looked at.

The bottom line is the game isn't perfect, but for most of those that have played it quite a bit and have also participated/read the forum here, they know it to be a great game; not one that has "serious issues" for one side or the other. Look at the threads of people who were undecided on buying and the overwhelming number of posts there suggest buying the game.

I apologize for the wall of text, but if someone comes in as a obvious fan of one side or the other and calling foul about the game being broken, then I think the community is not going to respond in a real positive fashion most of the time. I don't speak for the community at all, but that is my opinion and observation.

@Knavery I generally try to treat others as I would like to be treated, but I am not sure how it is expected everyone is supposed to be all nice and understanding with a post title that is pretty negative. On top of that, reading into the post, I find the basis of the title to be pretty biased and uninformed from what I have seen/experienced. I gave my opinion and why I felt the way I did.

[56ajax]

I don't think that this game could ever be broken because.....its a game!!!!! It does its best to give an historical result, but it deviates from history as soon as you move a unit. Yes, it does seem very hard playing the AXIS, but theres the challenge of the game. And remember we all play with historical hindsight, you only have to go pick up a book to see what actually happened in 1941, so when it xcomes to playing the Russians retreat straight to LG and MW etc...and as Joel said, the developers dont make mega $$$$$$ out of this and they have to pay bills like anyone else; I am amazed that they havent been more creative in their charging for support or upgrades (I would pay extra foer being able to do manual equip upgrades etc or an uptodate manual). Why do we get abusive....well here i am playing the game of my life and I see what appears like the 2000000th thread 'Great game but'...cheers

[PyleDriver]

Well its like Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman" when she goes to the ophra, "Oh these darn are broken" referring to the glasses. Richard Gere mearly turns them upside right...lol...I guess its how you look at things, or not try to figure it out...

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: Knavery

ORIGINAL: ool

ORIGINAL: Mehring



+2

Truly, I get more fed up with German players displacing their own poor performance onto the game than with the game's admitted problems. The fact that the Russians can effectively counter-attack in summer 1941 and the Germans likewise later in the war, is a triumph over more primitive systems which generalise all exceptions out of the game. The Germans did so well in 1941 in large part because they were experienced in a superior doctrine to that of their adversary. If you're not experienced as the German player, you shoudn't do well. Go learn how to play!

AMEN! The amount of German player "whineritis" in this forum is pathetic. Matrix changes this game much further why even bother putting it out if you lose the historical accuracy? Fully agree with Mehring, learn how to plat the game. Plenty of first person shooter games around if you want to win right out of the box without thinking or planning.

I hear this argument a lot--that it's historically accurate if A, B, or C happens, so learn how to play the game. By that logic, there can only be one outcome. So why even bother playing? It then becomes more of an exercise to replicate what the German and Soviet forces did in the war. If you've mastered that, and can't change the outcome, there's nothing left in the game for you.

+1

That is exactly what i critizise

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Knavery

ORIGINAL: ool

ORIGINAL: Mehring



+2

Truly, I get more fed up with German players displacing their own poor performance onto the game than with the game's admitted problems. The fact that the Russians can effectively counter-attack in summer 1941 and the Germans likewise later in the war, is a triumph over more primitive systems which generalise all exceptions out of the game. The Germans did so well in 1941 in large part because they were experienced in a superior doctrine to that of their adversary. If you're not experienced as the German player, you shoudn't do well. Go learn how to play!

AMEN! The amount of German player "whineritis" in this forum is pathetic. Matrix changes this game much further why even bother putting it out if you lose the historical accuracy? Fully agree with Mehring, learn how to plat the game. Plenty of first person shooter games around if you want to win right out of the box without thinking or planning.

I hear this argument a lot--that it's historically accurate if A, B, or C happens, so learn how to play the game. By that logic, there can only be one outcome. So why even bother playing? It then becomes more of an exercise to replicate what the German and Soviet forces did in the war. If you've mastered that, and can't change the outcome, there's nothing left in the game for you.

And where in the text you have quoted is anyone putting forward any "logic" that there can only be one outcome? Is anyone argueing that the same units should always fight at the same place and time and achieve the same results? No. It just doesn't follow from what anyone's said, does it? But this is an historical wargame and many of us feel, then, that what is possible within its parameters should bare a significant resemblance to what was historically possible. Is there a relationship between your mechanism of imposing an obviously different meaning over other people's statements and the wish to play an historical war game with fantasy values?

I personally have never attempted to replicate the historical moves since I was a kid playing board WitE, and I have never achieved a carbon copy of the real war. The point is that there are a ton of poeple out there who think the germans should be able to swan around like supermen crushing all before them, suffering no untoward consequences for their commanders poor work. I'm not saying they're all a load of nazis and german supremacists, people can like the same thing for quite different reasons. But when the game, to its credit, doesn't run according to their power fantasy, they come whinging to the forum, or to their opponent, that the game's broken. If you want some broken games, I can give you a list, but for all its faults, this isn't one of them. That WitE allows the weaker side to punish poor play (and I've made my share of mistakes) and rewards good play is excellent and historical. That it is historical does not make it an attempt to replay history. Straw Man.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Knavery

ORIGINAL: ool

ORIGINAL: Mehring



+2

Truly, I get more fed up with German players displacing their own poor performance onto the game than with the game's admitted problems. The fact that the Russians can effectively counter-attack in summer 1941 and the Germans likewise later in the war, is a triumph over more primitive systems which generalise all exceptions out of the game. The Germans did so well in 1941 in large part because they were experienced in a superior doctrine to that of their adversary. If you're not experienced as the German player, you shoudn't do well. Go learn how to play!

AMEN! The amount of German player "whineritis" in this forum is pathetic. Matrix changes this game much further why even bother putting it out if you lose the historical accuracy? Fully agree with Mehring, learn how to plat the game. Plenty of first person shooter games around if you want to win right out of the box without thinking or planning.

I hear this argument a lot--that it's historically accurate if A, B, or C happens, so learn how to play the game. By that logic, there can only be one outcome. So why even bother playing? It then becomes more of an exercise to replicate what the German and Soviet forces did in the war. If you've mastered that, and can't change the outcome, there's nothing left in the game for you.

History= conditions+ decisions+ other things (random factors?). When referring to historical accuracy, it is usually referred to conditions (I think that Ool was referring to that, to the accurate description of the situation at 22-Jun-1941). Some decisions are included in the game (e.g, production), but operationally the player can take his/her own decisions. Therefore, nobody has seen and nobody wishes a replication of the war.

Logically, the conditions included in the game should reflect the general consensus among East Front experts. I would say that there is some consensus now that the Axis was the weakest side. Therefore, it is to be expected that between players of similar skill/experience, the Axis will "win the war" (but not "the game") less than 50% of the time.

A problem is that what for some people is a condition, for others is a decision (e.g, German winter unpreparedness). But this has anything to do with "there's nothing in the game for you". You have the decisions (or what developers feel are decisions available). If you see the games played, there are a lots of results: Axis takes Leningrad, Axis is stopped at the Dnieper, Axis is vaporized during Blizzard, Axis preserves his army during Blizzard, Axis knocks out the Soviet Union in 1941,.... Who said you cannot change anything?

If in order to reach a desired outcome (let's say, 50% chance of reaching better than historical results for the German player, and this is only meant as an example) the decisions, no matter how good they are, are not enough in themselves, and we want a change in the conditions to that effect, there is a loss of historical accuracy, and that is what ool criticized.

[Knavery]

Hey Mehring and Alfonso,
Good responses. I understand where your coming from. It's good to know that you can sway history a little bit in the game. I own it, but am still trying to grasp hex based wargaming in general. I didn't grow up with tabletop wargames so the hex thing doesn't come easy to me what-so-ever. I also don't understand the detail of how these forces fought each other. So, I guess my argument is that unless I read a few books first, I'll lose every time. However, if there's some flexibility with what you can do assuming you understand tactics and strategy, I'm cool with that. I wasn't backing the OP so much as trying to find an answer myself that might also help the OP.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Knavery

Hey Mehring and Alfonso,
Good responses. I understand where your coming from. It's good to know that you can sway history a little bit in the game. I own it, but am still trying to grasp hex based wargaming in general. I didn't grow up with tabletop wargames so the hex thing doesn't come easy to me what-so-ever. I also don't understand the detail of how these forces fought each other. So, I guess my argument is that unless I read a few books first, I'll lose every time. However, if there's some flexibility with what you can do assuming you understand tactics and strategy, I'm cool with that. I wasn't backing the OP so much as trying to find an answer myself that might also help the OP.

Well, I am not a wargamer either...but I think the game tends to be won by the player who knows the rules best (and makes profit from that knowledge). History is not that useful, you can win without it. But it can certainly provide some help. For instance, from History you can learn than taking both Leningrad and Moscow is probably difficult (because Germany captured none of those cities). If you add the rule knowledge that if you take Leningrad as the Axis player you can use the Finns to some extent, you can devise a strategy consisting in diverting significant forces from the Centre to the North to make Leningrad your first and foremost objective...deviating irreversibly from History in a very interesting (and funny) way.

As the Soviet, instead of piling Army after Army in the approaches to Moscow, you can design a strategy of defending like crazy Leningrad and Ukrainia, and let (lure?) the German center forces into Moscow. It would be possible for the Winter campaign some kind of pincer movement from the North and the South and finish German Army Group Centre in one climactic and decisive battle?

The 1942 campaign may offer even greater flexibility regarding "what ifs". Turning South to the Caucasus after the initial battles, as happened historically? Turning north to try to smash the powerful Soviet forces defending Moscow?

Regarding the OP, I don't understand him. Pocketing units is a "creative process" involving
both attacker and defender...in 1942 the Soviets learnt that usually is advisable not to be encircled. In the game the Soviet players begin with that lesson well understood. I do not consider that the capability of avoiding being encircled is a serious problem with the game. And playing as a Soviet I have never been able to force the retreat of "significant" German stacks in 1941. Perhaps I am not a good Soviet player. Playing the Germans that never happened to me, but again, it has only been against the AI.

[ool]

It is extremely unlikely to be able to force significant German forces to retreat prior to the blizzard. The overwhelming German air support makes it highly unlikely. I mean some cases I've seen a few hundred fighters and almost three bombers come to the aid of a stack I attacked early on. Gave up on that idea quite quickly. Unless of course you are taking on single Co Axis force. There you have a chance but will pay dearly for a one hex retreat. It just isn't worth it.

Instead I counter maneuver to be a thorn in the side of the German advance and in some cases cause their spearheads to become isolated and out of supply. It doesn't last long but it does cause the AI to stop advancing and clear up the blockage. Time is the most valuable commodity for the Soviets. Buy as much as you can and you will inevitably make it to 43.

AS far as this thread goes it isn't the most pathetic that I've seen. I remember one angry thread where a new purchaser complained that Matrix had blown the game design because he couldn't use the Romanians right away. Obviously not a clue of what occurred historically. So he blames the game and Matrix.

As far as I am concerned as long as the facets are historically accurate, then it is up to the individual player to do what they can with it and if they don't win? Don't whine about the game being faulty. It is up to the individual to learn the game and then be creative. Not much point in buying or playing the game otherwise.

[jjdenver]

To the OP - I don't think it's accurate to say that the Germans can't pocket Sovs - read the AAR's and you see pockets throughout 41/42 for the Germans vs the Reds.

However I tend to agree that the auto-success of 1:1 or better attacks by Sovs is a broken mechanic.

[Joel Billings]

While this isn't the first time someone has suggested the +1 Russian odds attack rule is a bad one (in fact some controversy within the design team on this one), I take exception to the notion that it is a broken mechanic. It works as designed. It may be a poorly designed game mechanic, and of course people are free to argue it's merit, but it isn't broken. [:)]