So...sell me on this..:-)

[kg_1007]

Well if you can forgive me for the way I talked to you in the beginning on here, would love to play you sometime maybe in June or so when I get some more time.
I really am not as big of a jerk as I probably have come across on here sometimes, I promise.

[76mm]

Actually you generally seem eminently reasonable, but one of my pet peeves is the notion that the Germans "almost won the war" or would have won "if only they'd gone left instead of right", etc.

While I have the utmost respect for the Wehrmacht's professionalism and performance, for a variety of reasons, including economic and demographic, it was a completely inadequate tool for the conquest of Russia. As they say, Germany brought a knife to a gunfight and was utterly smashed as a result.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Various reasons; no one "surrendered" but sometimes they lost interest in continuing. In one game we decided to quit after the umpteeth patch rendered my army impotent (by reducing C&C caps from 30 to 18). I've actually only played a few PBEM games.

Against the AI I reached Berlin before my rail network had reached the Russian border. That doesn't seem right...

On the issue of supply, I do find the devs have fine-tuned quite a bit since the first version. Just a few things that changed over the patches:
1. loss of morale when below 20% supply. This is really noticeable as the German player early in the war. In fact, I'm air dropping supply which is a novelty. Previously I would only drop fuel.
2. supply needed to digin. You really see the difference between a stretch digging in in good supply versus bad.
3. I find that once you get approx. SP20+ no new replacements reach your units. This is very noticeable during blizzard for the Russians. Supply (ammo) may not stop your attacks but a lack of replacements certainly will! Unless you spend a fortune on merging brigades you'll run out of steam pretty fast in places where you don't have good supply.
4. As the Soviet it is certainly possible to burn your truck pool if you're not careful. I haven't gotten that far but in doing so, you may create serious problems down the road when you want to create Corps which use a lot of trucks.
5. Just had a little experiment. I have 2 divs cut-off in Kursk without an airbase. At the start of my turn they has a CV of 17. I dropped 200 tons of supply on them and the CV went up to 25. It's still much less than the CV 60 or so in supply but there is a difference!

There's going to be more but those are the things that come to mind now.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
In addition, fortifications seem more or less irrelevant if your enemy uses pioneers and artillery.

Hmm, actually this is (or should be) normal. You already hint why [:)] To reduce these forts (especially the big ones) you will have to bring pioneers and artillery. So the Soviet player, by having them, is forcing the German to bring more assets.

Just for the record, I always liked (a rare exception among the players) the land combat model in WitP [:D] After all, these [WitP and WitE] are operational games, not tactical. What really matters is what precedes combat, in other words, what you have done to prepare the combat itself (which is then automatic): leaders, support, supplies, morale, fatigue, air support / interdiction.

Perhaps the difference is that in WitP you have more varied choices (or variables) to influence the coming action. And every variable has its sub-branches... and these sub-branches have their own sub sub-branches [8D]

[76mm]

Hmm, actually this is (or should be) normal. You already hint why To reduce these forts (especially the big ones) you will have to bring pioneers and artillery.

sure, it should help to use pioneers and artillery, but these units should not make fortifications simply melt away, as seems to be the case now. to me anyway, it is overkill.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Hmm, actually this is (or should be) normal. You already hint why To reduce these forts (especially the big ones) you will have to bring pioneers and artillery.

sure, it should help to use pioneers and artillery, but these units should not make fortifications simply melt away, as seems to be the case now. to me anyway, it is overkill.

I see it this way: the attack is successful, the position is taken, therefore no more forts, no more enemy units there, you are the one occupying the position [:)]

[76mm]

I see it this way: the attack is successful, the position is taken, therefore no more forts, no more enemy units there, you are the one occupying the position

yeah, but as far as I can tell from the opaque combat system, the forts go away BEFORE combat (hence the dramatic drop from initial or apparent CVs to combat-resolution CVs). Like I say, maybe I'm missing something, but this is how I interpret the CV shenanigans.

[kg_1007]

I have not really seen that..usually if you play with much detail in the combat reports(I test all the way up so that every shot is pretty much recorded, though when I am just playing, I put it on 3 to get a good idea with less detail and time) it takes a long time for the forts to be reduced, and only usually by 2% each time.
edit..
I dont mean 2% of total fort strength, I mean..level 2..28%...then a shot, drop to level 2, 26%...etc.
Saying that though, the shots which drop fort strength seem to cause a lot of casualties, as well, while I would usually assume that casualties will be quite minimal until the fort strength goes down ,and then be heavy.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I see it this way: the attack is successful, the position is taken, therefore no more forts, no more enemy units there, you are the one occupying the position

yeah, but as far as I can tell from the opaque combat system, the forts go away BEFORE combat (hence the dramatic drop from initial or apparent CVs to combat-resolution CVs). Like I say, maybe I'm missing something, but this is how I interpret the CV shenanigans.

I have to admit that I don't really pay attention to this technical stuff [:)] I assume it's working. But the big picture is clear to me: fortified positions should not be impregnable.

[Tarhunnas]

Personally, I think forts are a little bit too weak now. Level 2 fortifications are simply blown away before the battle by attacking forces with plentiful engineering and/or artillery support.

[Flaviusx]

The attacker (either side) can always contrive to mass enough engineering support to overcome level 2 forts. They are very nearly irrelevant and will only stop sloppy play. Even level 3s are kinda meh.

Terrain >>>>>>> forts now. Engineers can't affect terrain.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Here's my post from the other thread:

Re the Stalingrad withdrawal issue. It is one part myth, one part design. Many units destroyed at Stalingrad were rebuilt and sent to the Western Front. These are the units that we have set to withdraw with the assumption that had they not been destroyed, they, or units like them would have been sent to the Western Front. Now there is some disagreement about this because some of the units were being formed in Germany and took on the names of units that had been destroyed in Stalingrad. IIRC the guys working on this replied that many/most of these units were just starting to be formed and that resources did come from the main pool that would have otherwise been available to go east. In the game, if you have a unit destroyed, it is rebuilt by resources otherwise available in the East and if it was set to withdraw it is still rebuilt and then withdrawn. Bottom line is if you don't lose these units at Stalingrad you end up better off than if you lose them, which is as it should be.


Helio, as I 've said before, I'm sorry you are not happy with the game, but no game pleases everyone . Your continuing to hit the same points over and over again (including having this mythical Stalingrad issue on your sig) is not getting you or the game anywhere. I have never used the forum blocking mechanism before, but I am going to use it now as I see you adding nothing to the conversation at this point and are simply wasting a lot of people's time and energy that could be much better spent elsewhere. I wish you the best and hope you find a game to play that you can enjoy.

Look, Joel (though I know you're not reading me). Above I have emphasized in bold/underline a prime example of your cognitive dissonance.

Please forgive me for repeating my (and some others', though not all) prime complaints of the game repeatedly because they unfairly relegate Germany to a bit player in a Soviet re-enactment campaign foisting itself off as competitive Strategic and Operational level game (by a company that claims to be an industry leader in both design and product support).

I don't recall making many complaints against the AI (which is the only opponent against which I can have an enjoyable, competitive game), nor not enjoying the game. This was a thread about PBEM.

It's quite something to accuse me of having the 'mythical Stalingrad issue' in my signature in a thread in which the prior paragraph states that the 'Stalingrad issue' is "part by design."

You want to focus on the "design" part, and highlight your rationale, while simultaneously ignoring the down-stream consequence on strategic control and competitive balance. Meanwhile, you wish to characterize other opinions about the facts as "myth." If you acknowledge the fact as you have above, then to characterize differing opinions as you do demonstrates what I have harped on for some time as problematic (to the game) bias and inconsistency.

There is a reason I chose the signature I have. I choose this Stalingrad withdrawl fact to criticize your game because it is the easiest, least nuanced point around which to show your company's lack of consideration to both strategic control (of Germany) and anti-competitiveness. It is the easiest fact of game design around which anyone with a rudimentary understanding of World War 2, as well as gameplay, can see that the sides are treated unequally.

In a sentence, people can see the problem.
It's taking a lot longer for your team, though.

As for my complaints about price point and discontinued support, and the beta test characterization, that is an attempt to shame your company into fixing the problems of the game we paid a price premium for (which is probably impossible at this point since the code is too rigid to fix easily, and you want to focus on future titles), or discounting a future purchase in acknowledging certain points about your WitE product, your customer base, and your business model.

With regard to the former, when people ask, I will respond. I am not being unfair. Your Stalingrad issue was your design, and you must stand beside it and own it. I am neither lying nor over-dramatizing the point. Methinks thou dos't protest too much.

With regard to the beta test allegations, you can shut my mouth on those simply by figuring out the math and promising us a reward for our loyalty. I honestly do think we deserve financial consideration for your next product, given that we paid $30 more than Blizzard charges for its best-in-category games. If you think your support is sufficient, I could research patch support in the Starcraft and Starcraft 2 series of games, which might go some distance to silence your supporters on how great your product support is.

And while it would be easy to say that Blizzard has more staff and sells multitudes more units, this would bring us back to the beginning: design a more competetive, better playing game, and the rest follows.

[Farfarer61]

Good god, the game is 'priced' just fine. I am amazed and grateful that such a grognard-or-those-who-are-young-but-have discovered-the-joy type Game can even be profitable.

[Pipewrench]

ORIGINAL: rroberson

man...guess I touched a nerve. Didn't mean too. My apologies.

Was just trying to discover if this game was suitable for what I was looking for in a game.

From what I can gather the air is not very detailed and neither is production. A shame...but the land warfare is very very good. I have to say it would worry me a lot to have half my army withdrawn suddenly into a vacuum. Are there any other things a player would have to contend with that seem out of kilter.

I guess IM desperate for a new strategy level game on the same vein as WITP...as after 9 years IM suffering some burn out there.

This game is worth the cost. The Leningrad scenario alone will offer you challenges playing either side and serves as a great introduction. Taking the Russians in the 41' Campaign will give you all production detail you desire and more. With every game there are issues but these are being addressed.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

Good god, the game is 'priced' just fine. I am amazed and grateful that such a grognard-or-those-who-are-young-but-have discovered-the-joy type Game can even be profitable.

Thus why Joel green buttoned him. Vomits the same tired old lines over and over.

[glvaca]

Yes, he's a crusader remember [;)]

[terje439]

To OP;

I am not a die hard pro-Axis or pro-USSR player, nor am I a good player, nor do I support Matrix titles blindly just because they are Matrixgames games. I play and buy the games that seem to be interesting, and I've bought this one.

I've played two pbem games, both poorly so, yet I have had hours of fun (well as long as you enjoy pulling your hair out by the handfuls because you realize your own folly [:D]) with it.
Are there issues I am not too happy about? Sure, but then again there are in EVERY game I've EVER played (maybe not Diablo I and II, but that is beside the topic).

This game unlike Witp focuses on the war on land, and that part works like a charm for me, add in the fact that the people in this forum (as in any matrixgames forum I've ever visited) are a friendly and helpful bunch (although each with their different ideas and oppinions [:)]), and you have a good game in my book.

True, you will probably get your nose bloodied in pbem, but that is still the best way to learn, and atleast for me, it has been fun so far (even though my Lebensraum has been extremely small [:D]).


Terje

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Yes, he's a crusader remember [;)]

Does he wear a cape? [:D]