The core problem with WitE+

[chuckfourth]

Hi Michael T

A poll! A poll!

Sounds like a good Idea to me,
But the wording must be very very very carefully considered.

Just to put a bit of meat on my last post,
Say there are roughly 13000 battles in the campaign.
If the simple game engine results in just one extra heavy artily piece being destroyed per battle, then that's 13000 extra or 'unreal' losses because of the assumption that all artillery is deployed in the front line
If its 2 per battle then its 26000 extra, unnatural, unrealistic losses, etc etc.
The same for AT guns
These, even in this game are big numbers.

maybe the question should be

Should the combat engine model tactics, indirect fire weapons and AT gun/AFV duels
or maybe
Should a warfare simulation take Soviet and German tactics into account.
or maybe
would you like to see all the macro problems solved by implementing a realistic combat engine.

What do you think?

Best Regards Chuck.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
All that stuff is on the margins, MT. The combat model...that's getting at the hearts and guts of the game, and if you really want to change the design you want to be as close to the throne as possible, as it were.

But it is fun reminiscing about about the olden days. And the analog era of wargaming still has things to teach the digital era. I'd like to think so, anyways, being an old fart myself.

You are never going to have an accurate representation of the Eastern Front, or any other front, while you have the power to control every unit on the map, it never happened that way. Something like the John Tiller games with objectives and unit stance being set by the player for subordinate commanders, or Panther games, setting subordinate unit orientation and frontage, defence and attack stance, setting time to move, orders delay, etc..

Making a game highly detailed doesn't make it accurate, it just makes it a highly complex chess game, bigger board more playing pieces, but with the set openings (Lvov manoeuvre), predictable rule sets, etc.. Operating through subordinate commanders would put a realistic feel back into the game, with the historical capabilities of the different nationalities modeled and evolving during the game time period. There could be no bug out if your subordinate commanders are not able to get their units moving in time.

These features were beginning to appear in earlier games, even if the technology was not fully capable, then the drive for complexity took over. I had more enjoyment out of WIR then get from WiTE.

[swkuh]

"Making a game highly detailed doesn't make it accurate..." AMEN.

Resolving battles shot by shot is not my preferred pastime, and as Chuckles says has future consequences from present errors.

Amazing how well detail errors have been detected and corrected, but has it been worth the effort? Could've attended to "playability" issues that some disparage and few complain about (some turns take forever to plot.)


Still, WitE is the best of the genre. Hope for better ability to play at a macro level in WitW and then, WitE 2.

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Board games can also have quite complicated CRTs. Here's one that generates over 40 000 different results (The Lord of the CRT). I still think it's easier to tweak something like that, than WitE combat model, to get desired results...

The thing about computers though is that even when you're dealing with such a complex CRT, the computer will keep track of all the dice-rolling and rules applications and edge cases for you, AND you can just throw up a tooltip giving the player a breakdown of possible outcomes:

50% chance of defender destroyed
20% chance of defender retreat
10% chance of no result
10% chance of exchange
10% chance of attacker loses 1 step

And so on and so forth, regardless of how complicated the underlying CRT is, while still retaining the game design advantage of having a more precise knob for tuning the results.

Anyway, the issue (at least from my viewpoint) with having such a detailed combat simulation instead of a CRT is that the 1:1->2:1 rule doesn't really leverage it.

If the game is modelling every individual rifle squad and every individual tank, why is the "1941 Soviet doctrine" effect being applied to the final combat result instead of against the simulation's moving parts?

[RBednar]

I guess someone should ask the question: what does playability really mean
for a historical simulation of War in the East?

Are we sure the Germans could have won without Stalin's and Hitler's stupidity.

The Russians should have several more million soldiers in December 1941 without Stalin.

There were only 330,000 German soldiers at Stalingrad.

Trying to summarize all arguments into a general solution approach, its seems like players want to not lose
the game until after 1943, and have the German Army not be all 1's in 1944 and 1945.

Maybe the basic problem is that a strategic German victory should be almost impossible, and players are
putting it a high priority on their list to play and do so? Maybe we should be talking about informal
victory conditions for draws in 1941, 1942, 1943, or even 1944 (i.e., if draw conditions are met, then either player
may end the game with a draw)? Not declaring a game a victory until the two players each play both sides would be
a good start to this. If we are not modeling Hitler or Stalin, does it really matter how many Panthers will be lost in
a retreat or whether the Russians have to have 5 T3476C's to beat 1 Panther, or 7? Changing the relative morale seems to do
a really good job of this. But if you want the German Army to still have a chance in 1944, I am not sure if that would be
historical!

[topeverest]

As someone with 35 plus years gaming under my belt, several games designed or assisted, and several hundred computer and non computer simulations played (on this topic perhaps a dozen), I want to begin by saying I like this game very much, but I am somewhat confounded too.

Where I struggle is the IGOUGO with no centralized combat resolution phase. I realize no system is ever perfect, and you cannot model out gamer stupidity. In my first campaign which I am doing an AAR, it was very quickly apparent to me that in summer 41 it was very dangerous to counterattack. The time stop attacking sequence of IGOUGO without a consolidated combat phase allows players tremendous flexibility to create accomplishments that have little historical foundation. Move one unit to the fullest potential, do all attacks, and then the next gets full movement to do as desired / 100% control. To be clear, I get what the designers want to do here. I don't disagree that these breakthroughs cant happen, but because time is always moving, the frequency and ease of deep penetrations under this system are beyond historical scope in my opinion. Exiting to play, yes. The system uses 'reserve' as a counter to this large issue. Being new, I have not found any secret sauce in that. I hear and see floated in the forum that the ruskies should counterattack in 41, but that seems to be exactly the wrong thing to do in most circumstances beyond limited hole breaking.

In this age of computer, I look for some other solution that doesn't break the PBEM rule. I think if this game was continuous online like a HOI, it fundamentally would be a different game (and one I wouldn't play because my availability to game usually isn't at the same time as my opponent. The improvement idea that surfaces would include a consolidated combat and exploitation sequence in a series of phases so a turn could still be played in one bundle. One of my favorite games is War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition, and that game while certainly not perfect, does an excellent job of managing combat and exploitation though orders issued by the player and execution though the enging. This continental war simulation would have a combat sequence more complex dues to exploitation nuances, but it is no more complex to create. All other things equal, I think that is an excellent solution to this system and where it wants to go.

In the mean time, I am not leaving the game. I would love to have the capability in the editor to change the number of MP's required to enter enemy hexes. This would get me to the ying yang. I would lean towards testing as more hexes are entered, the more MP's are charged. I also would lean towards follow on units still paying some increased amount.

[Disgruntled Veteran]

ORIGINAL: topeverest

As someone with 35 plus years gaming under my belt, several games designed or assisted, and several hundred computer and non computer simulations played (on this topic perhaps a dozen), I want to begin by saying I like this game very much, but I am somewhat confounded too.

Where I struggle is the IGOUGO with no centralized combat resolution phase. I realize no system is ever perfect, and you cannot model out gamer stupidity. In my first campaign which I am doing an AAR, it was very quickly apparent to me that in summer 41 it was very dangerous to counterattack. The time stop attacking sequence of IGOUGO without a consolidated combat phase allows players tremendous flexibility to create accomplishments that have little historical foundation. Move one unit to the fullest potential, do all attacks, and then the next gets full movement to do as desired / 100% control. To be clear, I get what the designers want to do here. I don't disagree that these breakthroughs cant happen, but because time is always moving, the frequency and ease of deep penetrations under this system are beyond historical scope in my opinion. Exiting to play, yes. The system uses 'reserve' as a counter to this large issue. Being new, I have not found any secret sauce in that. I hear and see floated in the forum that the ruskies should counterattack in 41, but that seems to be exactly the wrong thing to do in most circumstances beyond limited hole breaking.

In this age of computer, I look for some other solution that doesn't break the PBEM rule. I think if this game was continuous online like a HOI, it fundamentally would be a different game (and one I wouldn't play because my availability to game usually isn't at the same time as my opponent. The improvement idea that surfaces would include a consolidated combat and exploitation sequence in a series of phases so a turn could still be played in one bundle. One of my favorite games is War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition, and that game while certainly not perfect, does an excellent job of managing combat and exploitation though orders issued by the player and execution though the enging. This continental war simulation would have a combat sequence more complex dues to exploitation nuances, but it is no more complex to create. All other things equal, I think that is an excellent solution to this system and where it wants to go.

In the mean time, I am not leaving the game. I would love to have the capability in the editor to change the number of MP's required to enter enemy hexes. This would get me to the ying yang. I would lean towards testing as more hexes are entered, the more MP's are charged. I also would lean towards follow on units still paying some increased amount.

Doesn't WITP have a WEGO system? I've never played it, but being that it is from the same designer I wonder why the 2 games are different?

[SigUp]

Yes, WITP is WEGO, the way to go for a game with a focus on aerial and naval warfare. In my opinion, however, such a system would be horrible for a division-scale East Front game. Just move towards a system with extra cost for hexes that have seen battle and tweak it so that it feels halfway right.

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: Disgruntled Veteran
Doesn't WITP have a WEGO system? I've never played it, but being that it is from the same designer I wonder why the 2 games are different?

That said, War in Russia was also by Gary Grigsby and that particular game was also WEGO despite having virtually the same scope and scale as WITE.

There ultimately isn't a 'best' solution to what sort of turn/movement/combat system a game should have, only what 'feels' better or worse depending on a given context.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

That said, War in Russia was also by Gary Grigsby and that particular game was also WEGO despite having virtually the same scope and scale as WITE.

War in Russia was corps based with a much smaller map.

[topeverest]

Of course, I am new to this game, and I don't understand all the nuances to be sure.

IMO, one conundrum we have here is trying to keep the game PBEM without multiple emails per turn, like a Normandy 44, etc. I think we all want to create a level of explosive blitz exploitation potential, but I personally want reasonable blitz reaction / limitation after the first few turns in the campaign. devil is in the details there. Sig Up, I also infer from your comments that you want to keep the focus of control in exploitation movement with the player rather than as an automated phase through orders. I am indifferent on that. I have played several games that do that kind of thing very well and it is not directly in player control. of course, this game is as close to 100% player control as any and in the spirit of traditional board war games. I see no dramatic need to change that philosophy here, as it works well.

For example, one off-the-wall solution along my issue vein is that town and city hexes create militia with minimal ZOC and combat values when not protected by counter units. These hexes require hurried attacks or extra MP's and create extra casualties for both sides, mostly defender. We might even go so far as to talk about militia settings and link it into the game. In this way, exploitation would be slower where towns are in the path of the advance.

In any event, I struggle with time stop IGOUGO in a continental land war simulation of this scale where units have such large movement potentials. It is where I am with this game. I am open to understanding other concerns and want to understand how others view my concerns.

As always gentlemen, your expertise is appreciated.

[SigUp]

What I would like to see is a completely new system for reserves. The current system offers quite ridiculous results. Against the AI I have seen infantry units sprint over 50 miles across two rivers to engage into a battle and then sprint back those 50 miles. All of this across the frontline (though they weren't ZOCed). Especially this jump in and jump out strikes me as particularly strange. So what I would prefer would be a twofold split into tactical and strategic reserves. Tactical reserves have to be within two hexes for infantry and four hexes for motorized units to have a chance to committ directly into a battle. Strategic reserves meanwhile function differently. They have the chance to activate if a breakthrough in a designated part of the front occurs and react by moving closer to that breakthrough spot, putting formerly empty areas under guard. That would help in reducing perfect planning for post-breakthrough moves.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
That said, War in Russia was also by Gary Grigsby and that particular game was also WEGO despite having virtually the same scope and scale as WITE.

War in Russia was corps based with a much smaller map.

WIR was designed in the 1980s, so not surprising at it was rather limited, but surely with 21st century computing capability we could have better than that. Whilst players have the ability to shovel units almost at will, there will never be an historical feel, there needs to be a more realistic control system, which will more closely simulate real world conditions. WIR was heading that way, in some respects gaming has taken a step backwards.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

What I would like to see is a completely new system for reserves. The current system offers quite ridiculous results. Against the AI I have seen infantry units sprint over 50 miles across two rivers to engage into a battle and then sprint back those 50 miles. All of this across the frontline (though they weren't ZOCed). Especially this jump in and jump out strikes me as particularly strange. So what I would prefer would be a twofold split into tactical and strategic reserves. Tactical reserves have to be within two hexes for infantry and four hexes for motorized units to have a chance to committ directly into a battle. Strategic reserves meanwhile function differently. They have the chance to activate if a breakthrough in a designated part of the front occurs and react by moving closer to that breakthrough spot, putting formerly empty areas under guard. That would help in reducing perfect planning for post-breakthrough moves.

Nice suggestion with the strategic reserves. I could even imagine those strategic reserves counterattacking advancing spearheads at some advantageous modifier given that they pass a proficiency check or something.

[Ron]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

What I would like to see is a completely new system for reserves. The current system offers quite ridiculous results. Against the AI I have seen infantry units sprint over 50 miles across two rivers to engage into a battle and then sprint back those 50 miles. All of this across the frontline (though they weren't ZOCed). Especially this jump in and jump out strikes me as particularly strange. So what I would prefer would be a twofold split into tactical and strategic reserves. Tactical reserves have to be within two hexes for infantry and four hexes for motorized units to have a chance to committ directly into a battle. Strategic reserves meanwhile function differently. They have the chance to activate if a breakthrough in a designated part of the front occurs and react by moving closer to that breakthrough spot, putting formerly empty areas under guard. That would help in reducing perfect planning for post-breakthrough moves.

Agree completely, but there is so much more wrong with the game it's a question of where to start without resorting to the knife?? I really like your proposed rules for reserves, but a 'designer' would need to design the game from the beginning incorporating the parts into the whole, something the bastard step child that is WitE clearly is missing.

WWII East Front strategic and operational games have been the staple for wargamers for decades. There have been many excellent designs along the way that do a better job of capturing the feel, the ebb and flow, of the campaign than WitE ever will. You know such accepted things such as victory conditions to create the tension of when to retreat or defend, and for how long and how much should I sacrifice. Or implementing some form of logistic restraint to simulate what actually occurred in the campaign, instead of allowing continual offensives all along the Front for no cost like WitE tries to pass off as acceptable.

Really the WitE combat engine can be scrutinized in detail today, but the glaring deficiencies throughout the game would need a thorough rethink in toto as has been pointed out repeatedly by others more knowledgeable than me before the game could ever hope to pass muster. I agree that WitE is finished, actually dead for me. WitW? It will need to show a lot more thought in the design decisions out of the gate before it gets any of my dollars. WitE got a free pass because of the people involved, but WitW will not be so fortunate.

[tombo]

wow...just seeing this thread.
I have WitE but never really got started. It takes allot of time. I guess from above, i should skip it. Sad.[:(]

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: tombo

wow...just seeing this thread.
I have WitE but never really got started. It takes allot of time. I guess from above, i should skip it. Sad.[:(]

Make no mistake, the game still is enjoyable. Those problems are exacerbated in campaign mode. But you should at least give the scenarios a try. They can be quite fun.

[Disgruntled Veteran]

ORIGINAL: tombo

wow...just seeing this thread.
I have WitE but never really got started. It takes allot of time. I guess from above, i should skip it. Sad.[:(]

A sample of opinions of the multitude of players. And as always, people tend to express their critiques more so than their praise. The game has a lot of Pro's too.

I will probably buy WITW despite the fact that that theater is not my cup of tea. I wish to support the designers so that they continue to improve the game. A good question is: Is there a contender for best eastern front strategy game out there? Not that I've seen.

I'm on my 5th game and I still enjoy it reasonably well. The only other game that comes close to me was a modded form of HOI3 but trying to work with 5 or 6 other people at a time to play in a game with a very small player pool is quite challenging.

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: tombo

wow...just seeing this thread.
I have WitE but never really got started. It takes allot of time. I guess from above, i should skip it. Sad.[:(]

Despite its flaws, WITE is a pretty unique game. It's not really skippable because there isn't any other contemporary operational-level Eastern Front wargame out there. In a just world this would be no excuse for its balance problems, but there you are.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: tombo

wow...just seeing this thread.
I have WitE but never really got started. It takes allot of time. I guess from above, i should skip it. Sad.[:(]

I think this is the wrong takeaway...I've been playing the game basically since release and have always had a blast - and I even agree with many of the criticisms. It is vastly improved over the period and is really quite playable in current for.