War in the West

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

A buyer of a game has every right to be disappointed in a product that they buy. Tastes vary, and different people are looking for different things. You have every right to express your disappointment with specifics with what you don't like. As long as people keep things civil, they are free to post, that's the point of the forum. There is always something that can be improved in any game, and no game is perfect. We don't claim WitE to be perfect, and no doubt it could be improved by constant attention from programmers and other development personnel. However, based on the feedback of many, and the many awards that WitE received and continues to receive, I feel we succeeded with WitE

Since we're always wanting to talk history, allow me to remind people who develop computer games that once upon a time, another company with a rock-solid past built what they felt (internally) was the best game in its class out there. It won many significant awards

And it did not listen to anyone from its consumer base that did not share its own opinion of what consumers liked, with the following results:
Within 9 months of release, it had lost half of its active consumer base, losing over 1.09 billion (US) dollars. (See link above)

I coined the term 'Sovie-o-phile' to identify a market segment and its consumer attitudes toward WitE. The Sovie-o-phile market segment appears to me to be the market segment that 2by3 most wishes to please with the WitE design. This symbiosis results (I assert) in group-think between designers/programmers and the "sovie-o-phile" market segment, with the latter forming a protective circle of bias and dismissal around critics from at a minimum, my market segment (people who believe design outcome produces a game that pits a highly optimized Soviet army against a historically tightly constrained Axis, resulting in predictable and dull outcomes when I play either side).

I became angry and at times have been uncivil because it has been my experience that the Sovie-o-phile community behaves as anti-bodies whose sole purpose is to reject divergent opinion, particularly criticisms of the game aimed at giving Germany more gameplay options, and better competitive footing for a 225-turn game.

Despite past praise of the title, and recommendations to newcomers to the community to purchase the product, my well-intended game critiques were greeted with hostility among the Sovie-o-philes (though never by 2by3 or Matrix personnel), and the reflexive dismissal of anything deemed pro-Axis (especially by authors other than me) required me to treat that segment of the audience as hostile, and to 'raise my voice' accordingly (it has been my experience that people who share my market segment attitude feel similarly bullied by the Sovie-o-philes, regardless of our tone and intent, and it's really disappointing to note the silence with which 2by3 personnel react to this reflexive dismissal and unkindness, if not to me, than to others more disciplined in tone than I).

Now that I have reached the realization that nothing significant is going to change in WitE without the expenditure of more money on additional 2by3 products (and particularly in the context of my $80 early adopter investment), I feel betrayed, and lied to.

The two purposes in continuing to make these posts as dispassionately as I can is to tell the Sovie-o-philes to check themselves, because they might just be driving away 2by3 business. Now, maybe they're fine with that, but I doubt Matrix is, and my particular consumer advocacy is solely aimed at keeping people from my market segment from buying future titles if they're this expensive and beta-ish at release, and if the bias-bullying reveals itself as strongly in future titles as it has in WitE.

But the more important reason is to tell 2by3 that I'm a consumer who tells you to your face, "I feel lied to." And I'm looking to see if you care about that, because if you don't, then my prior allegiance to your company is no longer appropriately placed in your company and your products. If you don't care, and WitW releases at a similar price point and the community expresses similar attempts to homogenize opinion, I will share my opinion of War in the East in forums and message boards where my opinions might be most helpful in keeping people in my market segment from walking into a place where they will feel lied to after purchase as well.

The way you have handled people from my market segment is wrong, and the way these Sovie-o-philes have been allowed to treat people from my market segment (with the exception of me myself, because I deserve what I've gotten, and gave what I felt was deserved back) approaches despicable.

Helio,

With this reply I don't want to refute or support your position as explained above and on many other occasions.

I do have one question for you; have you ever played the Soviets against a top notch German opponent?
My understanding from your previous postings you have not. And here lies the problem with your position. While you may have had a strong case in 1.04, in the current version, and I can attest from personal experience, 1941 isn't a cake walk for the Soviet and you can very easily if not outright lose, be so heavily damaged you're not really going to have a pick-nick to Berlin.

Perhaps you should explore the possibility that the game _HAS_ changed to the better the last couple of months and that the Devs _HAVE_ listened to the suggestions and problems reported and made a better game.

Is it perfect: NO. Would I like to see more and other things: YES.
But it's very playable and against equally skilled opponents can be very, very, VERY addictive and a whole lot of fun.

Regards

[Great_Ajax]

You are treating this 345th Infantry Division as if it was a totally manned and equipped division at the time that the 29th was destroyed in January 1943 even though the division just began forming on 24 November 1942. Also, elements of this new formation were intended to be shipped East in early January 1943 but only one panzergrenadier battalion and a StuG battery were prepared. That suggests that only a very small portion of this unit was equipped and ready for combat action within a month of the 29th being destroyed. Personally, I see the Yorktown analogy as flawed as it seems you are treating a combat vessel to one that is still not even half built in the ship yard.

If indeed the 345th was completely manned and equipped (or even a majority of it) by the time the 29th was destroyed in January 1943, then I would be more receptive to making these changes. I have not been able to find evidence of this and the deployment information of this unit does not suggest that it was anywhere near being combat ready at that time.

Trey

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Trey, to take the WITP example, it really all comes down to whether treating the 2 Yorktowns as one ship, by a game purporting to cover the Pacific War in WWII on an operational level, is a feature or a bug. If you think it's a feature, we'll have to agree to disagree and you need read no further.

ORIGINAL: el hefe

There are a lot more factors at work behind the scenes than a simple extra missing division out there. Many of those points have been pointed out here already. Yes, the 345th Infantry began forming in late November 1942 and was later renamed to the 29th Panzergrenadier Division. I don't think anyone knows how much of that division was actually on-hand in terms of personnel and equipment when the 29th Motorized was destroyed in late Feb/early March 1943 which was just three months after the 345th started forming. It looks like only a Panzergrenadier Battalion and a Stug battery from the 345th were deemed combat ready enough to be sent East by early January but those plans were canceled. You additionally have the issues of the Germans de-motorizing at least two motorized divisions in the summer of 1943 since there were obvious transportation constraints. How would that affect an extra Panzergrenadier division? Would it have been de-motorized as well? Dunno. Do we really want to run this down the rabbit hole in an alternative universe?

The rabbit hole of an alternative universe starts at turn 1 and this particular rabbit hole is unavoidable due to the way the production/unit creation processes are set up in game.

ORIGINAL: el hefe
Historically, there were numerous divisions that were destroyed and were not reconstituted at all by the Germans in any theater. In WitE, the player doesn't have to worry about this since all units destroyed (except for the ones on the withdrawal schedule) are automatically reconstituted and usable by the player. Obviously, there were equipment and personnel bottlenecks in which decisions were made not to reconstitute these units. Do we really want to incorporate additional rules and draw away additional time and resources away from WitW development to look into these obscure issues? If we did, it would probably result in more German units not being reconstituted.

In the end, I think it evens out. The Germans debatefully lose a handful of divisions but the German player's destroyed in-game units aren't subject to being outright disbanded which happened often. I think that is a plus for the German player. Also, the German player benefits from many "free" reinforcements that have not been subjected to production.

The Germans didn't really rebuild destroyed divisions, instead they gave a newly forming one the name of a destroyed unit. The Germans formed, or were in some stage of forming, nearly 500 Infantry/Volksgrenadier/Motorized Divisions. At the same time, the production share of the West is by any measure vastly overinflated until the summer of 44.

Not having most of those 500 odd divisions show up in game in their historic waves and then get fleshed out by "realistic" East front production is a valid design choice. I agree that's a "wash" with the current reinforcement/rebuilding mechanic.

However, taking the historic "rebuilt" unit history and using it to determine the in game "original" unit history doesn't make sense. The in game result of this practice is that every single historically destroyed/rebuilt division is also lost in game, either by an artificial withdrawal or by a missing reinforcement. Exactly how can this be an intended result?

Now for the period from 44 onward, I can see the situation getting fluid to the point that a certain abstraction is unavoidable, but before that, the units involved are fairly few, easy to trace and not hard to correctly represent. Why not do so?

I can't comprehend the amount of resistance that exists to even minor fixes. I get the point that there's not going to be any major changes, but this is a fairly minor common sense OOB fix, needing maybe an hour or so to check the relevant unit histories and another hour to update the game data.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

And it did not listen to anyone from its consumer base that did not share its own opinion of what consumers liked, with the following results:
Within 9 months of release, it had lost half of its active consumer base, losing over 1.09 billion (US) dollars.

".. the following results?" C'mon. The game met the same fate as every other recent wannabe 'competitor' to WoW, regardless of whatever listening skills their developers may or may not have had. It's just become apparent (virtually) nobody else can survive on that sales/subscription model given WoW's total market dominance, however good the product.

[Aurelian]

Comparing a MMO to a niche product like WiTE........

Why not compare the budget for Madden 2012 to WiTW.

[JSBoomer]

I am curious on how war in the west is comming along? Any updates?

[Joel Billings]

We don't have much to report other than progress continues. One interesting addition is that a unit OB can be classified as Multi-Role, allowing it to be used either as an on map combat unit or as a support unit. These units can also be set to split into three parts when in "support" mode or remain as one unit when in support mode. British Tank Brigades and American Cavalry Groups are examples of Multi-Role units. Likely in WitE 2.0, Soviet Tank Brigades will be Multi-Role units. These units can change back and forth between support mode and on map mode during a scenario.

[laska2k8]

good news, I hope there will be a discount to WITE and DTD owners

[smittyohio90]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

And it did not listen to anyone from its consumer base that did not share its own opinion of what consumers liked, with the following results:
Within 9 months of release, it had lost half of its active consumer base, losing over 1.09 billion (US) dollars.

".. the following results?" C'mon. The game met the same fate as every other recent wannabe 'competitor' to WoW, regardless of whatever listening skills their developers may or may not have had. It's just become apparent (virtually) nobody else can survive on that sales/subscription model given WoW's total market dominance, however good the product.

He also completely got it wrong in linking Warhammer's failure to the 1.09 billion dollar loss... Warhammer, as bad as it was, still made money. The parent company (EA) lost money due to many other problems. How can a game that cost less than $100 million to make (significantly less) cause a billion dollar loss?

[JSBoomer]

Thanks for the update Joel, I know I have alot of waiting to go, however I am very much looking forward to this game.

[CheerfullyInsane]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

I think Sovie-o-phile is the wrong way to categorize this. It's not about Soviet Fanboy or German Fanboy. There are a lot of people who believe that a game such as this should follow history. I've seen the same arguments in WITPAE. The EXACT same arguments, countless times. Japan should have no chance. Germany should have no chance. These people, IMO, don't seem to realize that every good game has the chance for both sides to win, whether historical or not. It's a game and it needs to be fun for both.

That being said, I'm starting to change my tune concerning Germany in WITE. It's possible to destroy enough of the Red Army in 41 and 42, as well as capture enough Manpower areas, to be able to win in 44/45 as Germany. The game is getting more balanced. Pelton is a perfect case in point. It requires an experienced German player to the degree of Pelton and the many, many games he's played. At this point, he knows the ins and outs of the game and Germany to a degree that, I would bet, no one else does.

Is that a problem? Yes. There won't be many players who stick with the game like Pelton does. Therefore, there won't be many German players. I look at the AARs and the Opponents wanted and it just isn't to the level of WITPAE. It should be much greater. It's newer. Definately more exciting turn to turn. But it doesn't have the same draw. Why? Because it isn't balanced yet from a game perspective, nothing to do with history. WITE requires an expert German player. WITPAE is much more balanced and doesn't require an expert Japanese player, in spite of the many complaints of Allied "Fanboys". Allies generally want a cake walk over from 43 on, which is historical. The "game" keeps Japan into it through 44 and 45, providing no catastrophes.

You'll always have the Historic vs. Game argument, no matter what the game is.
I'm willing to bet that there were chess-players in ancient Persia discussing whether rooks should be able to move at all, and the wisdom of having pawns promoted to queens (the gender-change not withstanding)

Comparing WitE to WITP:AE, while tempting, is a little unfair. WITP:AE has gone through numerous evolutions, patches and what have you. Far as I know (never played it) it took something like 6-8 years for WITP:AE to get to its current state. WitE has been out for a year and a half. [:)]
Far as I can tell, WitE is starting to go through the same process, figuring out what works and what doesn't, then using the lessons in the next iteration (WitW in this case).
I'm sure that when that comes out, they'll find something else to improve, and that'll get folded into WitW ´39, and so on and so forth. So in another 6-8 years we'll have a fully-working War in Europe, with all the kinks ironed out. Which is fine by me.
It would admittedly be nice to have the perfect product in the first attempt.....World peace would also be nice. [:D]

As for why WIPT:AE has a more active following than WitE, I think it's more a case of the conflict in question.
I'm no marketing-analyst, but my gut-feeling is that the Pacific has a greater following than the Eastern Front across the board.
But looking at the Opponents Wanted, I find it interesting that they're about equal German/Russian ads.
So it's not as if there's a dearth of German players, despite the fact that it's definitely the harder side to play.

[Tophat1815]

WiTp-AE is the evolution of WiTp,which is the evolution of Uncommon Valor. We have with WiTp-AE the what will be War in Europe. The correct comparison for WiTe is to Uncommon Valor. And yea,I have stuck around these boards since before WiTp came out so it did take about a decade to get from Uncommon valor to WiTp-AE. And there were gripes about uncommon valor and why is it taking so long for WiTp threads aplenty.

[entwood]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

I coined the term 'Sovie-o-phile' to identify a market segment and its consumer attitudes toward WitE. The Sovie-o-phile market segment appears to me to be the market segment that 2by3 most wishes to please with the WitE design. This symbiosis results (I assert) in group-think between designers/programmers and the "sovie-o-phile" market segment, with the latter forming a protective circle of bias and dismissal around critics from at a minimum, my market segment (people who believe design outcome produces a game that pits a highly optimized Soviet army against a historically tightly constrained Axis, resulting in predictable and dull outcomes when I play either side).

I think Sovie-o-phile is the wrong way to categorize this. It's not about Soviet Fanboy or German Fanboy. There are a lot of people who believe that a game such as this should follow history. I've seen the same arguments in WITPAE. The EXACT same arguments, countless times. Japan should have no chance. Germany should have no chance. These people, IMO, don't seem to realize that every good game has the chance for both sides to win, whether historical or not. It's a game and it needs to be fun for both.

That being said, I'm starting to change my tune concerning Germany in WITE. It's possible to destroy enough of the Red Army in 41 and 42, as well as capture enough Manpower areas, to be able to win in 44/45 as Germany. The game is getting more balanced. Pelton is a perfect case in point. It requires an experienced German player to the degree of Pelton and the many, many games he's played. At this point, he knows the ins and outs of the game and Germany to a degree that, I would bet, no one else does.

Is that a problem? Yes. There won't be many players who stick with the game like Pelton does. Therefore, there won't be many German players. I look at the AARs and the Opponents wanted and it just isn't to the level of WITPAE. It should be much greater. It's newer. Definately more exciting turn to turn. But it doesn't have the same draw. Why? Because it isn't balanced yet from a game perspective, nothing to do with history. WITE requires an expert German player. WITPAE is much more balanced and doesn't require an expert Japanese player, in spite of the many complaints of Allied "Fanboys". Allies generally want a cake walk over from 43 on, which is historical. The "game" keeps Japan into it through 44 and 45, providing no catastrophes.

Good post, that I mostly agree with.

The game should not be a movie or documentary of history, but try hard to, among other fixes still taking place, achieve better historical plausibility and eliminate the ridiculous exploits which are inevitable in any game. Some exploits have been addressed but I feel more is needed.

Exploits, on both sides, are still getting a pat on the back, AAR "standard openings", or why didn't you gank your opponent better, but this is not great arm-chair generalship, I suggest.

There needs to be more risk and reward, unpredictability and yes, more, historical plausibility; No AP cost to breaking down divisions willy-nilly in the face of strong or unknown enemy forces (more FOW), less hard-code, 5 hexes, 20 hexes; calculation percentages, these should all have a variation, +1/-1, +2/-2, +5%/-5%, to simulate local conditions or some unpredictability, including leaders, and more.

I am not playing, except vs.the AI, right now because I just do not want to get ganked by exploits that I don't think should always be successful, based on how much time investment goes into the game. Of course, you should be allowed to try almost anything, but to always get away with it, no.

Fun to play yes, but there is a feeling of discomfort.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We don't have much to report other than progress continues. One interesting addition is that a unit OB can be classified as Multi-Role, allowing it to be used either as an on map combat unit or as a support unit. These units can also be set to split into three parts when in "support" mode or remain as one unit when in support mode. British Tank Brigades and American Cavalry Groups are examples of Multi-Role units. Likely in WitE 2.0, Soviet Tank Brigades will be Multi-Role units. These units can change back and forth between support mode and on map mode during a scenario.

If I may be so bold as to suggest that use of these multi-role units could be a nice way of helping to bridge the gap in terms of the evolution of Russian artillery units (Regts -> Bdes -> Divs).