Will there be any change to production?

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

No need to fix what is not broken.

No only do I consider this a poor attitude, but you're showing your complete ignorance to the issue that's being discussed.

[kirkgregerson]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Wild

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

No need to fix what is not broken.

This is exactly the attitude i was refering to. Do you wish to destroy your customer base for upcoming titles in this series?

I find your casual dismissal of customers concerns insulting.

By giving the Germans some flexability you will only be helping make the rest of your line more attractive to Axis players. By dismissing us it only wants to make me dismiss your products.

1: I don't have a customer base.

2: If you choose to be insulted, by all means feel that way.

3: You claim that it's an issue to be fixed.

A: It doesn't need fixing, as it isn't broken.

B: It was decided long ago how production would be done. tm.asp?m=2166477&mpage=1&key=free%2Cproduction

C: The Soviets get huge pools as well. And they can't choose who gets T-34s vs Matildas either. And yet, I still play.

Well what is fixed and broken is a matter of opinion I guess. Personally I think it's broken and I'm in good company. If you care to give me a justification why the axis player can have hundreds of assault gun, panthers, and tigers sitting in pools with a potential to never be used not something that is broken? Is not this game suppose to make an attempt at some historical realism?

If you're saying it's not broken, then your saying to me your view is that it would have been historical feasible for the Germans to keep many hundreds of top of the line AFV in warehouse. Sorry, but are you that nuts?
Really? You need to read a little history about how desperate the Germans were, especially after winter 41-42, for every available assault gun/tank to be sent eastward to bolster any units at the front. I have no doubt that any 'extra' assault guns/tanks would have been sucked into new independent units if not taken by divs themselves.

This is the history of the conflict so if it ruins your little silly 'If it's not broken' BS, don't get mad at me.

[Gandalf]

Back in the 70's, I enjoyed the heck out of SPI's War in the East/War in the West/War in Europe boardgame design for several years. One of it's more enjoyable design features was adjustable unit production for both sides. There was even a computerized ported over version that was very true to this original boardgame system. Another version of War in the East was Schwerpunkt Games' Russo-German War. That particular design relied more on a reinforcement/replacement system than player controlled production. Nevertheless, both sides, were treated the same and that game was also great fun. Grigsby's War in the East is just not fun for me. I strongly suspect it's mostly because of the unequal game design treatment of the production system for the Soviet side opposed by the more or less rigid reinforcement system for the German side. When you combine this with the predetermined rigid morale changes not based on game performance but on a time schedule, the fun factor is completely blown. Going forward, I'm going to wait for Schwerpunkt Games' release of World War II Europe and forego any more Grigsby/2by3 releases based on this particular flawed design system.

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: Pelton


The game far far better for sure, but the stick it to the Germans is still the redneck mind set of 2 by 3.

I'm sorry, but this is so insulting. You really think we are a bunch of redneck minds sitting here thinking of how to stick it to the Germans? Really? I have to admit when I see this kind of post it takes away any motivation to read the rest of the post and often the rest of the thread and I'm sure there are others that are working on WitE that feel the same way.

I think it's insulting that the game was conceived with the ability to track, as someone else said poignantly, every MG42 on the Eastern Front, and yet SMGs are superior to rifle squads in the combat model and 2 biplanes with untested pilots outperform one Me109 piloted by Adolf Galland himself. I think it's absurd that Soviets have superior C&C to Germany in 1941 and that the Soviet command structure is significantly more flexible than Germany's.

I think it's insulting, quite frankly, that I've been a beta tester for the last 13 months, not even for War in the East, but for War in the West, and the privilege cost me $90.($10 was for a manual that was out of date and wrong when it was printed for my purchase after Christmas of 2010, and you've never offered me so much as in-store credit for this outright fraud, so put that in your poor beset upon insulted heart and smoke it).

I don't think you're rednecks, but I do think you have no idea of your own biases as a production unit, and you're bias is significant in favor of the Soviet Union. If WitP were balanced mechanically the way that WitE is, the Japanese would be forced to comply with their historical pilot training output, they'd be forced to take the same pathway to Midway at the same time in 1942 (codebreaking, you know), and forced into the same god-awful approach to the land war in China. Meanwhile, the US would put Essex class anti-aircraft and radar on Yorktown-class carriers in June of 1942 without restriction.

You've had me beta-testing your product for $90 for the last 13 months meanwhile you've admitted no confidence in the WitE combat engine so you're creating a better-balanced one for WitW while telling me the lessons learned from the WitE combat model will not be ported back to WitE. Any lessons learned from WitE will be released in a future title similar in scope and design to WitE but that I'll have to pay for.

THAT is what I find insulting. What Pelton said is simply emotionally driven, vented hyperbole, and I'm surprised you can't tell the difference.

Now you have a meaningful, no-ad-hominem criticism of the company and the product. You're welcome.

Amen

I too have felt like the devs have given lip service on some issues that clearly have been documented, but yet they have their own agenda to fix what they want regardless of how the community feels about the product. Obviously not in all cases.

Still we are spoiled to have devs that do care about making changes and getting the better product. The source of my frustration is really how GOOD WitE could be, but how much the devs seem to want to get there.

It maybe comes down to $$ and they need to move on to making WitW, can't argue with they have to make a living too.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: RCH




This is a perfect example of bias. You say the Axis demand to win.....wrong.....just a historically believable game. You state that Axis players really want leveraged play, again untrue. You say that the Axis player should not expect Stalin, yet the Axis player must still conform to Hitler. Cannot you get it, we want Hitler removed also.

So ah, just how must you conform to Hitler?

Hitler decided to not take Leningrad. Are you forced to do the same?

He decided that Moscow wasn't that important early on. Are you forced to do the same?

He decided that standing fast during the 41-42 winter was the order of the day. Are you forced to do the same?

He decided to drive for both Stalingrad and the oil fields. He decided that Stalingrad would be held to the end. Are you forced to do the same?

From holding cities/territories regardless if it was feasible, to launching offensives that were in the wrong place, (The 6th Panzer would of been better to be used further north than hungary). Are you forced to do the same?

I'm guessing.......no.

So much for conforming.

[Flaviusx]

Gary should have never called national morale national morale. We will never cease getting complaints about it until the nomenclature changes and its actual game purpose is cleared up.

This has led to the most infinite confusion.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

Back in the 70's, I enjoyed the heck out of SPI's War in the East/War in the West/War in Europe boardgame design for several years. One of it's more enjoyable design features was adjustable unit production for both sides.

When I had War in the East 1st edition, and 2nd edition, there were no production spirals for the Germans.

When I had War in the West, there were none for the Allies.

With War in Europe, again, none for the Allies.

There was also 4 different CRTs. The Germans got worse as the game went on. Everyone else got better.

The usual suspects would have fits with that.

[cardolan]

I would not say the game is broken and I really think it was worth the money spent on it but sometimes playing the axis can be frustrating. My main complains are:

-The air war. I see the Luftwaffe as little more than random flying artillery. On the other hand the best strategy with the VVS appears to be to spam air base bombing. I hope this part of the game will be improved in future patches or in WitW.

-Checkerboard defense. I think it is both unhistorical and overpowered. Surely you can blast the first line of defense with infantry, but when you reach the second your troopers are usually our of MP and you usually do not have enough motorized forces to break the second or third line of the checkboard and close a pocket. Next turn the soviets go back 3-4 hexes and again the german will be unable to force a breakthrough without committing lots of units or heavy relying on HQ buildup.

I think some must be done to force the soviet to take a forward defense (maybe linking National Morale with the loss of cities) or at least give a malus to soviet divisions not adjacent to another friendly division.

I have been playing WitE for about 9 months and still feel as a novice. If someone can point me to how defeat a proper checkerboard defense I will be really grateful [:)]

[Flaviusx]

Air base bombing has been fixed. Really it has. Unless you're pigheaded enough to accept 10-1 casualty ratios for doing these missions. It's just not cost effective anymore.

Also: national moral is not national morale. Has nothing to do with territorial gains or losses as such.

As I said uptopic: the nomenclature has led to the most infinite confusion and we keep getting suggestions to tie morale to territory. This is never going to happen because it's not what national morale is. National morale is just a proficiency rating. Nothing more, nothing less. Said proficiency rating changes over time to reflect the professionalism of the military in question. It does track historical developments so far as this goes, not territorial acquisitions or losses.

[Gandalf]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

Back in the 70's, I enjoyed the heck out of SPI's War in the East/War in the West/War in Europe boardgame design for several years. One of it's more enjoyable design features was adjustable unit production for both sides.

When I had War in the East 1st edition, and 2nd edition, there were no production spirals for the Germans.

When I had War in the West, there were none for the Allies.

With War in Europe, again, none for the Allies.

There was also 4 different CRTs. The Germans got worse as the game went on. Everyone else got better.

The usual suspects would have fits with that.

My experience was with the War In Europe edition which did have player selectable production for the Germans and Soviets and as you say, none for the Allies. I remember the 4 different CRTs but being able to adjust German production compensated the fun factor somewhat for the CRT changes.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

Back in the 70's, I enjoyed the heck out of SPI's War in the East/War in the West/War in Europe boardgame design for several years. One of it's more enjoyable design features was adjustable unit production for both sides.

When I had War in the East 1st edition, and 2nd edition, there were no production spirals for the Germans.

When I had War in the West, there were none for the Allies.

With War in Europe, again, none for the Allies.

There was also 4 different CRTs. The Germans got worse as the game went on. Everyone else got better.

The usual suspects would have fits with that.

My experience was with the War In Europe edition which did have player selectable production for the Germans and Soviets and as you say, none for the Allies. I remember the 4 different CRTs but being able to adjust German production compensated the fun factor somewhat for the CRT changes.

I took your first post rather literally. (Both sides as in both German and Allies.) IIRC, there was an option to allow the Western Allies some production. It's been decades since I played them.

Never had the room for the whole shebang

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Also: national moral is not national morale. Has nothing to do with territorial gains or losses as such.

As I said uptopic: the nomenclature has led to the most infinite confusion and we keep getting suggestions to tie morale to territory. This is never going to happen because it's not what national morale is. National morale is just a proficiency rating. Nothing more, nothing less. Said proficiency rating changes over time to reflect the professionalism of the military in question. It does track historical developments so far as this goes, not territorial acquisitions or losses.

It probably was not expected that those two words would be taken at face value.

Maybe a sticky stating just what NM really means.

Then again, it may not help.

[KamilS]

Flaviusx


As I said uptopic: the nomenclature has led to the most infinite confusion and we keep getting suggestions to tie morale to territory. This is never going to happen because it's not what national morale is. National morale is just a proficiency rating. Nothing more, nothing less. Said proficiency rating changes over time to reflect the professionalism of the military in question. It does track historical developments so far as this goes, not territorial acquisitions or losses.

So if one of the sides performs better than historical shouldn't that side also have better proficiency?

[Flaviusx]

Kamil, let me turn it around: do you really think the Soviets could have gotten much worse than the shambolic 1941 army? They could hardly avoid improving simply due to combat experience, restoring unitary command, and dialing down the officer purges. The Red Army was so bad in 1941 it could only go up.

Same logic applies to all the allies. An extreme example: Free French units in 1944 versus the 1940 French army. Are the Free French forces worse because all of metropolitan France is under German occupation? Do they magically get better after liberating Paris?

Then there's the USA, where presumably no territorial changes of any kind will occur within the context of this game. Should their national morale never change and the US army never improve?

Etc. etc.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: RCH

Production is not my biggest concern. The number one concern is moral. Moral increases or decreases should be dependent on lost or gained cities and not predetermined. This is clear bias. Not accusations no insults just a plain fact. That system is indefensible. How important is moral in this game?

As has been explained a few times by those who know, national morale is actually a proficiency rating. It has nothing what so ever to do with territory or cities won or lost.

[Jimbo123]

That's the same game I bought! ( SPI WITE )

First of all I really don't care if the original poster dosen't want to play the game. If it is not fun or conforms to his opinion of what should be historically simulated and the answer is to pick up his toys and go home so be it. I really do not understand why there is a need to attack 2x3. It is not rational for me to believe that those who are involved with the game ( most probably unpaid ) have some kind of evil agenda other than to make the game as great as possible. SPI's WITE was cutting edge at the time using a 2 phase movement system for mech units that made it's first appearance in the game Kursk I believe. Overnight it made the AH titles obsolete. In my opinion this game is a similar leap forward. Day 1 it was made totally clear that there would be zero chance of German production. Would it be a fun option button, Yes!, but how do you add those new possibilities, test them and release a game sometime in this century. I am now playing as the German's in 3 current games against humans have lost 2 and won 1 other games so far. All I can say is my respect for the game on increases with each turn I play. I guess that might change but since I have played very deep into the game against the AI I really don't think so.

Here are my points

1. This pro German Russian fan-boy stuff is stupid
2. To believe there is some devious plot by 2x3 to favor a side is stupid ( like some retired Russian General is paying them under the table ) PLEASE!
3. How about some love for a game system that seems to hold up simulating ever changing German and Russian capabilities. It really is amazing. Maybe you can't fully appreicate the tech leap because of age or exposure
4. No game will ever have your " pet opinion " represented 100%.
5. Respect ( a dying virture ) the effort and constant improvement
6. It's a GAME! It's fun! ( for me! )
7. Recgnize that a chess player rated 2400 sees the game much differently that a 900 rated player!
8. Take the time to recognize your OWN bias before you a so quick to accuse others!

Jim

[KamilS]

Flaviusx


Kamil, let me turn it around: do you really think the Soviets could have gotten much worse than the shambolic 1941 army? They could hardly avoid improving simply due to combat experience, restoring unitary command, and dialing down the officer purges. The Red Army was so bad in 1941 it could only go up.

I agree.




It is wargame, that is set in certain period and thus changes have to have certain dynamics and direction. I understand it, but connecting NM to time frame is very ... disappointing. Changes to morale should be consequence of developments on the battlefield (we can influence it) and in industrial and administrative area (we can't influence it). By administrative I mean constant improvement in Soviet C&C and TOE.


Problem would have been much easier to solve if replacements were affecting morale of units. Connecting morale level of replacements to suffered casualties (Germans) and particular year (Soviets, plus casualties as well if Soviet losses are gigantic) supplemented by soft cap of NM (more less constant for Germans and improving for Soviets) would lead in my opinion to more sensible situation and made game even more thrilling.

[Encircled]

Having played the Germans now as well as the Russians, there are a couple of things that are irritating, but no more than that.

Pelton whinges like mad, but at least he sticks to it and works out a strategies that give the Axis a hell of a chance.

There isn't anything close to this as a computer game that fights the Eastern Front. Just enjoy playing it.

[Gandalf]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: RCH

Production is not my biggest concern. The number one concern is moral. Moral increases or decreases should be dependent on lost or gained cities and not predetermined. This is clear bias. Not accusations no insults just a plain fact. That system is indefensible. How important is moral in this game?

As has been explained a few times by those who know, national morale is actually a proficiency rating. It has nothing what so ever to do with territory or cities won or lost.

OK, for the sake of argument, let's agree that National morale is a proficiency rating... What affects German proficiency over time? Obviously, it's the steady wear and tear of the war effort over the period depicted assuming the West Front conditions proceed historically with an abstracted allied war effort which includes strategic bombing. Now, we return to this game and the East Front itself. What effects Soviet proficiency or better stated, the limitation of it's improvement within the game system? Absolutely nothing. No matter what the German player accomplishes he cannot really affect the Soviet proficiency AND he cannot alter his own production to compensate for his own decreasing proficiency whereas the Soviet player can alter his production priorities as he sees fit knowing his proficiency is going to increase year over year even if he loses a heck of a lot more cities/territory than happened historically.

[darbycmcd]

As far as national morale: lets even assume that it is wha it is called and is the 'morale of the armed forces of the nation'. can you give any example of soviet units as a whole exhibiting falling morale tied to German territorial gains? It can be argued that the large POW takes of the early war period reflects that, although I would suggest more operational incompetance. But look at the battles at the furthest extent of German advance, outside Moscow and at Stalingrad. any evidence that the Soviet army was faltering in morale? so even by the misunderstood definition, it is not historical to link morale to city capture, actually probably just the opposite.

Now, German players want the Soviet players to defend forward. This is understandable, not only because it makes the game much easier for the Germans, but it gives a much more historical feel to gameplay. But what you are asking is for the Soviet player to play very badly, to make it easier for you. I doubt you would be willing to be forced to have 'stand fast' orders for the majority of the game in which the Germans are the defenders.... It is understandable but it is very difficult to actualize. The historical forward defense by the RKKA was more about stubbornness and suboptimal 'play' at the top, which is exactly the level at which the player operates, so forcing it to happen unduly hampers gameplay.