ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
We feel the game is playable out of the box and very enjoyable. The campaign was balanced as best we could given that a tester 2 player campaign game would take weeks/months and the game was constantly changing during development. We think the smaller scenarios are enjoyable and balanced (they were easier to balance given we could actually play a game in a reasonable amount of time). As for the campaign, all we can say is that we will continue to gather information and make changes that seem appropriate to improve the game. we could have waited another year and the game might have been a little better, but realistically the only way to speed things up was to get the game out to more players. We also could not afford to develop the game for another year without revenue, and as I stated, the game is very playable out of the box as version 1.0.
I owned DNO but was never a big fan. I was a big fan of the boardgame War in the East, but I also spent 4 months playing a 5 player team game only to find that errata had been published after release that added a rule that drastically impacted soviet production. We played for 4 months with the Soviets dug in by 1942 and unmovable, only to find that had we known about the errata things would have been very different. Now some might say we wasted 4 months. On the other hand, we had a great time playing the game. Prior to my playing the team game, I had spent one entire summer playing the game solitaire and had a great time. I wish we had had a system then to let us know about errata like we have now for patching games. If I wasn't a subscriber to Moves magazine I would have never known about the critical errata.
I don't know Matrix's return policy, but if it was up to me I'd happily give you your money back if you are not happy with the game. I've produced over 100 games and feel it's in the top 1/3 in being playable out of the box, but we want satisfied customers. What I see is a game that was good at release and is getting better with each patch. I'm sorry you're not happy with your purchase.
Joel, there seems to be a great pool of potential play testers out there, judging from the intense feedback in the "Winter 1941" forum. These gamers are very frustrated, but can potentially dramatically speed up the tweaking/improvement phases. I understand the length of the game and the current limited number of play testers limit the turn around time, and perhaps limit the improvements actually made. Why not let this new group play a set of historical scenarios,
all with the same software version/patches, before official releases are contemplated. This will provide a fresh set of eyes/strategies on the problem, allow more robust testing since player experience varies, and has the potential to more quickly identify the effects of the changes. Also, AI versus AI results should be made available for comparison. In the latter case, only unit distributions/totals need be in the AARs at key points in the campaigns (not turn by turn). The proposed campaigns compared to historical performance are:
1.
June 22, 1941 - December 5, 1941
Are Russian counterattacks sometime effective? Did the Russians have the capability to coordinate massive withdraws? What happens to Russian moral when units retreat for months? Is the Russian/German casualty ratio within expected tolerances?
2.
December 5, 1941 - April 15, 1942
Are German counterattacks sometime effective? Did the Russians have the capability to coordinate, massive attacks? Is Russian supply reduction adequate? Is the Russian/German casualty ratio within expected tolerances?
3.
April 15, 1942 - November 18, 1942
Are fortifications causing too many German casualties? Are the number of fortifications reasonable? Is the Russian/German casualty ratio within expected tolerances?
4.
November 18, 1942 - April 15, 1942
Are fortifications causing too many Russian casualties? Are the number of fortifcations reasonable? Is the Russian/German casualty ratio within expected tolerances? Are German counterattacks sometime effective?
As supply, fortification, and combat factors are varied, subtle and not so subtle changes will result in all 4 of these key periods. If all periods pass the sanity checks, the rest of the compaign should be reasonably accurate. I think one of the keys to the combat system is to model that the defender totals in a hex are not necessarily the key. The tactical capabilities of the attacker and defender are very important. A competent attacker will only attack the weakest points in the defender hex, and not try to take on the rest of the defenders. This is much more easier accomplished if the defender is much less competent, in which case the weak point may not receive adequate reserves in time and a break through in the line occurs. The rest of the defense does not materially affect losses! On the order hand, a poorly competent attacker tends to attack in the hex across too many sectors, as the Russians did in Winter 1941, allowing a more competent defender to reinforce in time and actually dramatically reduce the
effective attacker to defender combat ratio.
Reginald E. Bednar
