Will you keep playing after this patch?

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: janh

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

...

I'm disappointed in the game, I am disappointed in the company, and I am disappointed in the community. This is a game where Germany has no chance at improving on its historical performance.

That's perfectly evident from the large majority of AARs... or isn't it? Granted, there is none that started out under the latest beta patch, but numerous others to consider.

Obviously all Soviet players reach Berlin long before spring of 45, and hardly anybody is delayed by the Axis resistance significantly? In fact, no Soviet player has even had a hard time getting into Germany by summer or autumn 45? On the other hand, apparently the Germans never reach Moscow in a single game by winter 1941, not even to think of anyone having even taken it? Or Rostov? And Leningrad, it has never be taken, even despite the Wehrmacht's hand not being restrained byany Hitler intervention? And in 1942, no offensives are possible for the Wehrmacht anymore because the Soviets are really tough nuts to crack? From the outset of GC, aren't they continuously counterattacking and putting the Axis plans and schedules totally off? As if the German units were mere nuissances?

Hmmh, or is it rather the opposite of what I just described? Well, as far as I have played this game, followed a few AARs in detail and read the discussions, there is as much space for improvement of Axis performance as there is for the Soviets. But the improvements happen in different ways, particularly benefiting from hindsight -- and the lack of FOW on say-- leader stats etc.-- that allow some neat "optimizations of chances" to happen. Which in turn helps with things like storming Leningrad or rushing on towards Moscow by early October. If routinely taking these are not huge improvements for the Germans...

How about the AAR "Disaster in the East"? A novice soviet player losses Moscow,has all kinds of problems and by summer 45' still hasn't reached Minsk. The Germans seemed to do quite well here and did significant damage through 1943 as well. And Terje is not a poor wargamer by any means.

[wmcalpine]

Of the two public AARs, one was a draw (but should have been a German minor victory in my opinion, lasting to the bitter end of turn 225 with Berlin still held) and the other looks likely to be a German minor victory. Shouldn't we wait for some more data before claiming one side has an "easy" button? Two games is not a lot.

For games that end early, Of course, one of the German players that publically posts his record is 12-1-1 as part of his sig. If it is so easy for the Sovs, should not there be a Sov player with a similar record? Is there one with that kind of expertise?

Edit for a spelling error. there are probably more...My spelling stinks....
Edit 2. Corrected 15-1-1 to 12-1-1. Apologies, but looks like my memory stinks too. Aging is no fun

[mmarquo]

[[/quote]

I believe you to be one of the two most disingenuous Soviet-gets-everything advocates in the community, so it is no surprise that you wish to mock me.

I believe we abandoned all pretense at respect some time ago when you tried to wyrmtongue me with feigned warmth to shut me up about Soviet command superiority (which, by the way, was tangentially addressed in the game since then, validating my analyses of the problems with the game), so for those who may yet wonder who I am, I suppose I can also be defined as someone Marquo wishes to have as an enemy, and you may see evidence of such bias in his messages to me.[/quote]

In contradistinction to you, I am an equal opportunity player who enjoys playing both sides, and have no bias in that regard. It is not my lot in life to censor you or your opinions; your cyberpersonality is so full of itself, so arrogant and conceited as to posit that some "may yet wonder" who you are? Are you so imbued with yourself as to think that those who read this forum may otherwise spend a precious moment of their existence wondering who you are? Earth to Heliodorus 04: not really.

And for you to have the temerity to suggest that I wish to have you, or anyone else for that matter, as an enemy is outlandish. My warmth was not feigned, but you are cold as ice when someone has the audacity to disagree with you.

"Adieu, adieu, remember me..."

Adieu et au revoir, cher ami.

[randallw]

The game's design allows a competent Soviet player to avoid a major defeat ( by vic points ), but requires some effort to get a victory. The Soviet player, to win, must do more than simply 'show up'.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Totenkopf by Charles Trang - there's a gratutious 'I read history books too' reference for those who find them necessary)

http://www.amazon.com/Totenkopf-Charles ... 689&sr=1-4

Hardcover: 400 pages
"This detailed text is accompanied by an astonishing collection of some 800 photographs."

400 pages with 800 photos. Now this is a lot of reading history books too.

[EisenHammer]

LOL… A picture is worth a thousand words. I just had to say it.[:)]

[Aurelian]

If the community is such a disappointment, feel free to leave.

[Erik Rutins]

Please keep it civil. Personal insults are a violation of the forum rules. Marquo and Heliodorus, consider yourselves warned.

I have to say that looking in from the sidelines, I'm discouraged that some players are already forming conclusions without any significant play time with the new update. In my experience with games like this, it's very likely that those conclusions are off the mark. We'll see, I guess, but the development team has a lot of experience making these changes and getting the results right.

On a more constructive level, the desire for more flexibility in strategies and outcomes is certainly understandable. There are already many, many possible strategies that are possible and viable, though the metagame may only focus on a few. The points made in this area are well taken though and I'm sure Joel, Gary and Pavel have read them as well and will consider them in their design decisions for War in the West, if not for future updates for War in the East.

Regards,

- Erik

[randallw]

The game isn't perfect, and may never be. The promises of the marketing blurbs probably did a disservice, creating expectations that every under-the-hood feature is extremely close to accurate historical processes ( processes? ).

Perhaps some of the programming, whether it is SMG squads being too deadly for some people, oil stocks that seem high, heavy industry in abundance, or whatever people are poking into, does not break the game for me. The periods of the big campaign where the tide turns one way or the other for a few months is something that fits well enough with my reading of history.

[AFV]

I think he (heliodorus04) does make some valid points. I amy not agree with all of them, but I respect the discussion.

It does seem like if as the German you outplay your opponent, you end up in Berlin in '45, or if you play poorly as the German, you end up in Berlin in '45. And the same can be said from the Soviet side.

I am not saying IN ALL cases this is true, it just seems that way. And with that said, we really have not seen enough results from AARs that were not corrupted by patches occuring during them to really draw firm conclusions. (Again, NOT dissing patches, they are good, needed, and a necessary evil- a game without patches is a dead game, just pointing out a fact).

Perhaps another way of looking at it is like this: I would like the possibility, due to the Soviet outplaying the German, of stopping the German in '42 and even pushing them back. Or the opposite, due to great play of the German, they run wild thru Mother Russia. Right now, I don't think good or bad play can make that much difference (again, please not saying NO difference). It does seem like the game follows a more historical course regardless of play. Perhaps I fall in the category of wanting more of a game than a simulation?

In any event, 2x3 is not gonna please everyone, that is for sure.

[gradenko2k]

While I wouldn't quite say it quite as vitrolic or as pessimistically as heliodorus04 did, I do have to agree with the premise that a lot of the supposed "accurate simulation" part of the game is lost in the shuffle of "forced" combat results, such as National Morale being so low for the Soviets, the First Winter rules, the March Madness rules, et al.

I'm also of the opinion that while a slow Berlin-bound grind might be the only historically plausible outcome, I can empathize with a German player feeling that it's not fun to enter what is essentially a defensive war. If we are to consider that the game frees the player from a lot of the political hoopla of Hitler and Stalin, then I think it's worth examining victory conditions that reflect the apolitical and purely military goals of Operation Barbarossa.

That is, even if we grant that the USSR as a state would not have collapsed with the loss of Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad, that's political. If the Wehrmacht manages to capture the three within 1941 or even 1942, then that's military. I think that there's certainly room for a "this particular grand campaign is separate from the original one and has victory conditions that you may not agree with, but is presented as a consensual alternative" kind of deal.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: AFV
Perhaps another way of looking at it is like this: I would like the possibility, due to the Soviet outplaying the German, of stopping the German in '42 and even pushing them back. Or the opposite, due to great play of the German, they run wild thru Mother Russia. Right now, I don't think good or bad play can make that much difference (again, please not saying NO difference). It does seem like the game follows a more historical course regardless of play. Perhaps I fall in the category of wanting more of a game than a simulation?

I can appreciate your arguments, but as you suggest, I think you are looking for something a bit less tethered to reality than what this game is supposed to be (at least according to my understanding). I really don't think it is realistic that the Sovs push back the Germans in 1942, and many were screaming when this was happening in earlier patches (before revocation of 1:1->2:1). As to the Germans running wild through Russia, I think this should almost never happen, unless the Sov player is a complete noob. So of course the Sovs will always end up in Berlin, but sometimes in Jan 1945, and sometimes in December 1945, or perhaps later...

[Joel Billings]

I see no reason why players can't come up with agreed to auto victory conditions if it will generate for themselves a more interesting game. If you add victory conditions that if Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad are captured, the Germans win automatically, you'll have a game with the same conditions that AH Stalingrad had. Based on various AARs, I'd say these conditions can be achieved given the current game, although they will not be easily achieved. They may be near impossible against a very good Soviet player that doesn't make any major mistakes and knows that these cities must be protected at all costs. I've certainly seen plenty of games where Moscow and Leningrad have fallen.

I just took a look back at the various patches to remind myself what's been done so far. There are many improvements and bug fixes in the various patches over the past 14 months. These items stand out to me as the major changes made to impact game balance:

1) December 2010 - Game Released

2) April 2011 - 1.04 version - tried to correct for the overly harsh original first winter rules/first attempt at reducing fort construction rates to increase mobility -- attempting to give the German better survivability into 1942 and allow a better German 42 offensive

3) September 2011 - 1.05 version - 2nd attempt to reduce overly high fortification levels/major changes to national morale rules, intended to reflect that the Soviet army in early/mid 1942 was in some ways less efficient than it was at the start of the war/added Hiwi's -- all helping to increase German offensive capability in 1942 (although these impact other times as well)

4) January 2012 - 1.05.59 (soon to be 1.06) version - 2nd attempt to alter morale rules/addition of Spring 1942 penalties to reduce March Madness/Soviet C&C changes to better reflect Soviet structure and limitations in 1942 and after/various adjustments impacting 42-45, partially based on development and testing of Don to Danube later war scenarios -- intended to better balance what we felt were over corrections made earlier to 1942, while making things harder on the Soviets post 1942 -- also made many AI improvements for those playing against the AI

Those are the highlights. We feel we are done with the major rule changes for 1.06 and hope to make it official within a few weeks. So far we believe that each major update was an improvement on the game and we feel no different about this latest one. It will probably take 3-6 months to see how things go. I can't say for sure how things will come out (I'm optimistic), but I'm ready to go work on WitW for awhile and let those of you who want to play to do so without feeling we're going to be changing the rules again next week or next month.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
...but I'm ready to go work on WitW for awhile and let those of you who want to play to do so without feeling we're going to be changing the rules again next week or next month.

I'd be fine if you introduce a whole slew of new changes in the next week or month, if I had started a new game I could restart without having invested too much time. But given the length of the campaign game, if you introduce a bunch of new changes after six months or a year, then I've wasted huge amounts of time. Several people have suggested playing existing games without patching, but the fact is that most people are not interested in doing so.

I enjoyed this game when first released and would no doubt enjoy any game started under the current patch, but I'm not willing to invest hundreds of hours playing a game that will have to be restarted because of further major patches. I will keep my eye on the forum and hopefully start another game in a year or so if things have truly settled down by then.

[randallw]

As long as people are complaining that parts of the game are not realistic ( or fair ) there will be patches being made, causing the restart potential again and again.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: randallw
As long as people are complaining that parts of the game are not realistic ( or fair ) there will be patches being made, causing the restart potential again and again.

Nah, there will always be some vocal complainers, but at some point the devs should say "no mas", and maybe we've reached that point already, dunno.

The biggest problems with this game (logistics, etc.) won't be fixed in any patch, so maybe it is time to stop the tweaking around the edges (while continuing to fix bugs, etc.).

[koiosworks]

76mm - your problem is much easier solved by simply not feeling the compusive need to patch. just finish outstanding games with the version of the game it started under. this is much preferable to having 2x3 orphan the game development.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: koiosworks
76mm - your problem is much easier solved by simply not feeling the compusive need to patch. just finish outstanding games with the version of the game it started under. this is much preferable to having 2x3 orphan the game development.

Actually I don't care to patch at all, but opponents generally want to keep up with the latest patch, and no one (including me) can be bothered to maintain two versions of the game.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: wosung

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Totenkopf by Charles Trang - there's a gratutious 'I read history books too' reference for those who find them necessary)

http://www.amazon.com/Totenkopf-Charles ... 689&sr=1-4

Hardcover: 400 pages
"This detailed text is accompanied by an astonishing collection of some 800 photographs."

400 pages with 800 photos. Now this is a lot of reading history books too.

While I'm pleased that you could stop massaging Glanz's taint long enough to get both hands on a keyboard, the pleasure is over-ridden by the fact that you cannot understand sarcasm. Am I so a threat to whatever it is you stand for that you have to research the books I'm reading to find matter with which to impugn me, or are you simply jealous that I have row upon row of high-value and rare reading material about the war you claim to know so much about?

This is your intellectual counter to my arguments? Please. I have better reasoned bowel movements than that.

I know I was warned by mods to keep it civil, but these are the people you're allowing to bully. He doesn't like the book I cite, so he's going to call me an idiot. Why isn't he called out by name?

Prior to this post, I said nothing that could not be said in a peer review of a professorial thesis, including what I have said to Marquo. Wosung wants to call me names, then I should get to rebut similarly.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: koiosworks
76mm - your problem is much easier solved by simply not feeling the compusive need to patch. just finish outstanding games with the version of the game it started under. this is much preferable to having 2x3 orphan the game development.

Actually I don't care to patch at all, but opponents generally want to keep up with the latest patch, and no one (including me) can be bothered to maintain two versions of the game.

I wouldn't say no one. I have four seperate game installs.