Trying To Like The Game But...

[Wheat]

ORIGINAL: morvael

CV in combat is a problem. As I have proven using math, that what you see on counters is not what you will see in combat. Expected value of combat CV is not scaling linearily with those you see on counters (simple case: unit with morale 100 has double CV in combat, with 0 it has half CV - thus morale 100 is four times better than morale 0; formula used for on-counter CV introduces completely different relation: normal CV for morale 100, half for 50, zero for 0). Modified CV in combat is divided by 10, to bring it closer to on counter values, but it has different spread. I could have put expected values on counters but it was decided players will be confused by completely new values and those values would have trouble to fit on the counters - a panzer division could have a CV of 60 for example. At least I have made the AI know of those values (which the players learns to "feel" by experience).

The best incentives to fight when it's not optimum choice from pure battlefield result perspecitve is making victory conditions that reward "suicidal" tactics, which cannot be otherwise expected to be used by any sane player. Twilight in the East or Napoleon's Triumph boardgames have been my inspiration in this matter. Unfortunately WitE campaign conditions are not giving any incentives for that. Good VC are the base on which any wargame must be built. Here, they look like they were added half-baked, without real thought behind them ( this is not a sandbox game to which such VCs belong).

One of the best posts.

YOU have to get a feel for what will work. The posted CV's are really a joke.

The victory conditions ARE imo, a major part of the problem as well.

[Flaviusx]

I mentioned this elsewhere, but I'm starting to think that what we need here is a UI change: pop up displays showing predicted attacker odds. These can never be completely precise ex ante. (Lots of things get adjusted only mid combat.) But it would probably help clear up a lot of confusion. Displayed on map CVs just don't tell you a whole lot and the combat model has a ton of stuff going on under the hood that cannot be properly shown on a counter.

My heuristic in this game has always been to look at raw numbers and elements to predict combat results ex ante, not CVs.

[Toidi]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I mentioned this elsewhere, but I'm starting to think that what we need here is a UI change: pop up displays showing predicted attacker odds.

I fully agree. I have been suggesting that for a long time, maybe you will have a better chance of devs listening...

The chances displayed of course should be a range + uncertainties depending on reckon, but I am very convinced that this is the way to go. Good games give information to the player so he can make meaningful decisions, not decisions based on instinct and experience...

[Peltonx]

GamesaurusRex WitE is based mostly on morale.

Turning rules upside down is generally how I look at finding exploits. WAD really? A game this complex is very hard to make air tight of bugs/exploits.
Its not 2by3's fault as a small company there simply is no way they can find everything.
Games like WoW had more bugs/exploits the first few months then WitE x 1000. The group of guys I played with were experts at finding bugs in new MMO's
We loved to win, the best guilds in any MMO is duping (items and cash)/exploiting ect ect most have maxed lvl toons in a week and millions in the bank ect ect.

WitE is very complex for a war game so WAD simply means WAD, but the design might be completely untested in an of itself. It works great AI vs AI or even H v H, but if you simply push the "design" it might work far better then 2by3 wanted.
As you stated one thing leads to another or as we old timers like to say the "Snowball Effect"

Bugs in this game are "feel" for me. The guys I played with understood code, I simply watched and learnt for a few yrs. I was then able to feel something was not right. It sounds weird more art and exp then science most of the time.
I know people get all bitchy when I say something is wrong, because sht is not adding up right. I have zero exp coding ect so how can a retard like Pelton "know" something is screwed up with my code or WAD?

Saper, Pelton, Bomazz and MT ( draw vs Kamil would have been a lose because of swapping bugs) has been bested more then once GamesaurusRex, so if your getting you head handed to you, its because u suck as SHC.

Ok you don't suck, but your average. The guys I played with for yrs were very much in your face and forum warriors hehehe. That's kinda why I really don't fit in on these forums. Someone slams me on forums I look at it as a fun time hehehe A gane withen a game.

All things being equal until .12 SHC should win by late 44. Draws should be very likely now under .12

The game is very even right now and .13 will cap it off.



I don't think people yet fully realize how huge the SHC guards morale bug impact on 42, 43 , 44 amd 45.

There are so many little things in .12 that could have a snowball effect. I think over all there are enough snowballs in .12 for SHC and GHC that its a great patch.

2by3 game WitP and WitE have many exploits and bugs because it is impossible for a small group of people to make such a complete game without bugs/exploits. It take several yrs of public beta testing to get it right like WitP.

WitE is almost "finished"

Personally I love the CV system, war/battles ect are not 1+1 = 2. I like 2by3's CV system, its drove me crazy until I got a feel for it.

[Peltonx]

Another thing is I really don't spend allot of time micro-managing my armies. I set-up 2 infantry Corp the way I want and that's it. 41-42 summer turns take 1 to 2 hrs, Blizzard 30-45 mins ect

I don't mess with GHC air force or leaders until late 1942, I reorganize German army and air force in about a month over to a defensive set-up. I can do turns after that in 20 to 30 mins.

I focus on the big things, the snowballs.

[GamesaurusRex]

Pelton:
It's not really a question of "getting my head handed to me", but more a question of the quality of the game simulation during the time frame from 6/41-6/42. I have been playing wargames since 1965 and have played pretty much every WW2 Russian Front game in cardboard or on computer out there and can honestly say that this game is the first I've seen that so heavily penalizes the Russian side in that time period that they cannot afford to actually engage in combat. In the real event, there were alot of mass battles between the Polish frontier and Moskow and this is simply impractical in this game with the current extreme logistics/isolation rules and combat resolution model. It is just not a "satisfying" wargame experience for the Russian to have to resort to abandoning western Russia without a fight in order to maintain the army for 43 and beyond.

2by3 could have just as easily adjusted the combat models in such a way that the actual historically scheduled Russian reinforcements are sufficient in number to allow massive losses, while still maintaining total army numbers. That way the game could play out with an actual fighting withdrawal on the part of the Russians.

As for the victory conditions, I agree they need rework. Some sort of time sensitive points should be put on the major industrial/population centers that can be captured by the Germans (taken by certain dates). This would give the Russian an incentive to defend forward of Moskow, BUT OF COURSE, that would have to be predicated upon changing the combat models or reinforcement rates in such a way that the Russian has something to defend with. Like everything else, it is all a matter of model design and balance.

P.S. Great discussion guys ! Thanks to all who responded. Very instructive and helpful. (and I Still like the game... )

[carlkay58]

GamesaurusRex, check out some of the recent AARs. The Soviets are able to fight back in 41 and do a good job of giving the Axis a hard time in some areas of the map. But the Soviets, much like the 42+ Axis, are not able to be everywhere with enough strength to punish their opponent, so you have to pick and choose your battles wisely.

[rmonical]

the first I've seen that so heavily penalizes the Russian side in that time period that they cannot afford to actually engage in combat. In the real event, there were alot of mass battles between the Polish frontier and Moskow and this is simply impractical in this game with the current extreme logistics/isolation rules and combat resolution model.

I think the issue is more a reflection of large movement factors. Think about the change to the game dynamics if, after turn 1, enemy hexes cost more to enter for German high morale motorized units. In addition, I would like to see enemy hexes that have seen combat to be more expensive to enter and I would like hexes adjacent to those that have seen combat to be more expensive to enter but to a lesser extant than the combat hexes.

Add these changes to a slightly bloodier combat system (which may be addressed by the numerous fixes Morvael is finding) and I think the dynamics of the game change a lot.

I have also advocated higher losses for non-isolated units routing out of a pocket and lower losses for isolated units routing out of a pocket.

IMHO, the engine is soooo close.

[Tarhunnas]

Hi all!

I am back after a year or so of WitE fatigue. Good to see the forum alive and vibrant, after reading through some of the latest threads it feels both like nothing has changed and that at lot has changed. One thing that has certainly not changed is Peltons posts with their enthusiastic abrasiveness, there is nothing like that for forum entertainment, they always make me smile.

Good to see that Morvael is apparently doing wonders to improve the game. Great job!

I have just started up another game as the Soviets against Timmyab. It will be interesting to see how all the changes are playing out.

BTW I completely agree the victory conditions are ridiculously simple for a game of this complexity. I have posted several ideas on how to fix them in the past.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas


BTW I completely agree the victory conditions are ridiculously simple for a game of this complexity. I have posted several ideas on how to fix them in the past.

Agreed. While I dislike the sudden death variants that are too restrictive (game shouldn't end in 1942 or 1943 unless it is an utter blowout), there is a need for more immediate rewards and penalties. That would force players to seriously contemplate prioritizing short-term goals at the expense of the long-term plan. Right now every player can play for the long-term goal from the get-go, which leads to ever increasing perfectionism.

[Tarhunnas]

It need not be sudden death, I agree that might be a bit drastic, it could be VP:s per turn for certain locations. For example giving the Soviets a generous VP bonus for each turn that Kiev and similar places are held should encourage a more forward defense. As the mechanism for this already exists in the scenarios, it should not be too hard to implement in the campaign.

As for the Lvov Pocket, interesting posts regarding the Road to Dnepropetrovsk scenario. Wouldn't it scotch the Lvov pocket if units of AGC were restricted to north of a certain line for the first turn or two? Much like some axis allies are restricted. The mechanisms for that already exist too, so those should perhaps be easy to adapt to this purpose.

[SigUp]

I'm not too fond of a rule restricting AGC armor. While I don't do the Lvov pocket, I still regularly send an extra panzer corps south because I think the South needs 4 panzer corps. Rather with an AGC restriction I would prefer an amendment of the surprise turn rules for the South. Furthermore there is the old problem of some Soviet players just running / railing everything out of the Ukraine when the Germans don't do the Lvov pocket.

[Tarhunnas]

Yeah, but I meant the two should be applied in combination. Restricting the Lvov pocket AND giving the Sovs incentives not to run away.

Ideally, the Soviet player should feel a lot of political pressure (= VP loss or something similar) to fight forward.

One could even envisage connecting commander execution likelihood to what the Soviets hold and where they fight.

[Wheat]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Yeah, but I meant the two should be applied in combination. Restricting the Lvov pocket AND giving the Sovs incentives not to run away.

Ideally, the Soviet player should feel a lot of political pressure (= VP loss or something similar) to fight forward.

One could even envisage connecting commander execution likelihood to what the Soviets hold and where they fight.

Right on Tarhunnas, and good to see you back. I enjoyed reading your earlier AAR's.

And to Flaviusx, wth, now Gamesaurus is stopping my Germans! Please quit giving him advice. I prefer he remain in fear of the all powerful Krauts.

[topeverest]

Very interesting conversation here. Having been a great fan of WITP AE and its predecessors, I have a good feel for how a massive game can be hard to handle. I found that until I had played a few PBEM's and got active modding, I perceived issues where they didn't exist, and I missed genuine issues. In general, I think it is very hard to separate historical outcomes from potential effectiveness. Having done at least a small share of designing myself, let me suggest that average final outcomes are more important in the design than individual elements matching historical expectations. (There is only one time the 41 will play historical, and it already happened.)

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Hi all!

I am back after a year or so of WitE fatigue. Good to see the forum alive and vibrant, after reading through some of the latest threads it feels both like nothing has changed and that at lot has changed. One thing that has certainly not changed is Peltons posts with their enthusiastic abrasiveness, there is nothing like that for forum entertainment, they always make me smile.

Good to see that Morvael is apparently doing wonders to improve the game. Great job!

I have just started up another game as the Soviets against Timmyab. It will be interesting to see how all the changes are playing out.

BTW I completely agree the victory conditions are ridiculously simple for a game of this complexity. I have posted several ideas on how to fix them in the past.

Good to see you back - I think anyone who steps back and looks at the big picture will see the game is in the best state it has ever been. The elimination of the air fuel spam and some other logistical tricks has really made a fight (relatively) forward strategy much more viable...and the reduction of blizzard and the addition of SD, while still being tested and a few issues worked through, is encouraging Soviet players to fight forward. Yes, there are still old arguments like the 1-1 = 2-1 debate, but overall the game is much closer to what I think we all want it to be. I really believe a few more tweaks (maybe reducing rail evac?) and the game will really be done, in a manner of speaking.

[GamesaurusRex]

I am going to repeat this one more time for the latecomers to this thread (and also because I want to emphasize the point, since it is glaringly crucial in my opinion)... The game design model handycaps the Russian player entirely too much in the 6/41-6/42 time period of the campaign.
To whit:
1) The "Lvov Pocket" was and is an historically impossible event as I have explained in detail in other threads on this forum. Players who use it are playing a fantasy version of wargaming the East Front. I have suggested a house rule to correct it that is simple and only affects the first two turns of the game in the south. (Wheat and I used that HR in our current game and he has still reached Stalingrad by July 42. The difference the HR has made though is that the whole Russian front didn't just collapse on turn 2 and leave the Russian with no troops to defend with.
2) Because of the ridiculously overgenerous German logistics and morale levels, combined with the equally ridiculous isolation "pocket" effects, the Russian cannot afford to stand and fight literally anywhere west of Moskow until mid 42, when he can begin to form Corp sized units capable of combating the Germans. Due to the initially low CV, low morale, and low command rating penalties enforced upon the Russian side from 6/41-6/42, attempting a forward defense is simply not practical, given the way the combat resolution sytem is designed. This could be solved by increasing the Russian reinforcements to historical levels (as some have pointed out, the game levels are low by historic comparison) to enable them to afford massive casualties and still maintain sufficent numbers to carry the war into 43 and beyond. This would also give the Russian an incentive to fight a forward defense in order to extract casualties out of the German Army with a long term view of attrition.
3) The Commander "Win-Loss" mechanism is more appropriate to a game of "Chutes and Ladders"... I don't mind reasonable variability in combat results, but completely negating my command appointments is a non-starter. This mechanism should be removed or we need an option switch to turn it off. Grigsby was drunk when he included it.
4) The Victory Conditions are not consistent with the historical imperatives that drove the event. The VP should vary year by year and be won by both sides on a piecemeal basis over time, while playing out the the entire span of the war. Victory or defeat should be something measured against historic reality benchmarks. For example, if the Germans can succeed in stabilizing the front before the historic collapse in the war time frame, adding perhaps something like they did in WITP/AE where points are awarded for destroyed units and points awarded for certain positions controlled over time. As everything else, balance is the key.

(Before anyone gets offended about my Grigsby remark, let me say that it is made "toungue-in-cheek" and only to express my distaste for the Commander "Chutes and Ladders". I really do enjoy the game overall and hope and believe that it gets tweaked to near nirvana. [:)])

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

2) Because of the ridiculously overgenerous German logistics and morale levels, combined with the equally ridiculous isolation "pocket" effects, the Russian cannot afford to stand and fight literally anywhere west of Moskow until mid 42, when he can begin to form Corp sized units capable of combating the Germans.

I don't know why you keep insisting on that point when enough players show it to be untrue. Just watch how sapper manages to stifle Pelton's assault. And Pelton's one of the best German players out there. I don't want to sound like I'm disrespecting your opponent Wheat, but I doubt he is in the same category as Pelton.

See this AAR: tm.asp?m=3492242&mpage=3

[Tarhunnas]

No disrespect Gamesaurus, and many of the issues you raise have indeed been raised by others over the years, but how many games have you played? I would say it takes a couple of games lasting at least well into 1942, and played as both sides, before you truly grasp the complexities and possible outcomes of this game. I do not claim to fully grasp it myself, certainly not after a one year hiatus.

[swkuh]

Gamesaurus is trying too hard... Nothing's perfect, and pursuit of perfection itself can injure the pursuer.

This product needs enhancement to "user friendliness" much more than corrections of historical anomalies of certain details. You'll sell more when that's addressed, and with that a better game will result.

House rules go a long way to avoiding awkward outcomes allowed by the game engine. Using the handicapping factors with discretion improves the appearance of "historicity" and improves play.