The core problem with WitE+

[topeverest]

Don't misunderstand my comments, I find this game very enjoyable and well designed. I recommend buying and playing it.

[hfarrish]

Of course - I was referring to the recent post saying that he wouldn't buy the game after seeing the critiques listed here...

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
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.

Sure it's unique, but for me it is eminently skippable; I have very little time for playing any wargames, and if I have to pick one, it wouldn't be WitE--if I have to switch to one of the many tactical or campaign level games (PzC) out there, then that's OK.

And I don't think I'll pick up WitE 2.0 unless there are fairly massive changes.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Sure it's unique, but for me it is eminently skippable

Every game is skippable. It's just that if one wants to play an operational-level East Front war game that encompasses the entire periode from 1941 to 1945 it's hard to pass up WITE.

[Michael T]

Schwerpunkts WWII in Europe is on my radar, very much so.

[Gizuria]

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.[:(]

Play the scenarios! Buy the scenario packs. I doubt that I will ever play a full campaign but the scenarios are really fantastic. Plus, the VP scoring system is much better.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: SigUp
It's just that if one wants to play an operational-level East Front war game that encompasses the entire periode from 1941 to 1945 it's hard to pass up WITE.

Sure, you're right about that.

And not to quibble, but why do people consider WitE an operational-level game? Despite its divisional scale, given its scope and the decisions allowed to players, I've always considered it to be a "strategic" game (but not "grand strategic")?

[Gizuria]

And not to quibble, but why do people consider WitE an operational-level game? Despite its divisional scale, given its scope and the decisions allowed to players, I've always considered it to be a "strategic" game (but not "grand strategic")?

Probably, and I'm guessing here, because of the scale of the hexes. That seems to me to be a fair scale for Operational wargames. But I agree with you, I feel that this is a strategic level game because of the size of the units.

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Sure, you're right about that.

And not to quibble, but why do people consider WitE an operational-level game? Despite its divisional scale, given its scope and the decisions allowed to players, I've always considered it to be a "strategic" game (but not "grand strategic")?

The size of the map hexes and smallest level of forces makes you carry out activities on an operational scale. It would be a strategic/grand strategic-level game if you controlled Corps or Army-sized units (think No Retreat!)

[Tom Hunter]

Tombo

I'm a critic, and you can see a lot of discussion of game the design on my AAR. I will not be launching a 1941-45 campaign game again. I think its possible that the game works for the scenarios, and I may try some of them. If you already have the game that is what I would recommend.

There is a level of detail in the game that many enjoy, and it can be a lot of fun. I like to understand the design in depth and the actual war. For me there are too many problems with the design, and it strays too far from the actual war. For others its still a lot of fun.

[swkuh]

Always appreciate forum comments about game design as they instruct my play and increase the fun.

To understand the "core problem" you have to consider what players want and cater those needs.

Agree completely that the shorter scenarios are vital and interesting to enjoy the game. +1 to the development team.

My broadest desire is that the Axis & Soviet forces should "feel" like "my" perception of Eastern front warfare throughout WWII. Given that desiderata, it doesn't matter much (to me) that various pools, casualties, units, TOEs, etc. become unhistorical. Its about combat outcomes, force mobility, terrain, etc. It was never a "balanced" conflict, Axis superior early, Soviets unstoppable later.

It might be possible, but I think trying to achieve this "feel" through detail data is a vanity. What a surprise to learn about the 1:1/2:1 rule (and possibly others) that had to be coded to fake late '41 results. Resolving combat through "shot by shot" reporting? Not for me. Interim & final CV's? Why bother. The way I play the game most outcomes seem right, so some of the fantastic detail is just eye candy. BTW, I appreciate the "eye candy."

What might be useful is more macro force management. The Commander's Report does help, but more like it would be useful.

In short, I don't see a "core problem."

[RBednar]

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.

With Russian HQ capability in 1941, the reserves will probably not be deployed. If so, the German Army will have a very tough fight on its hands. Why not just make a turn 3 1/2 days (half-a-week)? This gets the player to be part of the strategic reserve system!

[RBednar]

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.[:(]

There are so many comments in the post because so many players have played it repeatedly. There may be some burnout in the group, but the game is well worth buying and playing. Game balance can be adjusted using morale, etc. modifications. I guess no one likes prolonged World War I style warfare. This seems exactly what you get in the Operational Art of Warfare simulations of the Eastern Front, yet it is very interesting because the lines are never static. They just move slowly with very small encirclements (with some exceptions either way, of course). WITE held the promise of campaigns of encirclements, just like the real war.

[RBednar]

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Always appreciate forum comments about game design as they instruct my play and increase the fun.

To understand the "core problem" you have to consider what players want and cater those needs.

Agree completely that the shorter scenarios are vital and interesting to enjoy the game. +1 to the development team.

My broadest desire is that the Axis & Soviet forces should "feel" like "my" perception of Eastern front warfare throughout WWII. Given that desiderata, it doesn't matter much (to me) that various pools, casualties, units, TOEs, etc. become unhistorical. Its about combat outcomes, force mobility, terrain, etc. It was never a "balanced" conflict, Axis superior early, Soviets unstoppable later.

It might be possible, but I think trying to achieve this "feel" through detail data is a vanity. What a surprise to learn about the 1:1/2:1 rule (and possibly others) that had to be coded to fake late '41 results. Resolving combat through "shot by shot" reporting? Not for me. Interim & final CV's? Why bother. The way I play the game most outcomes seem right, so some of the fantastic detail is just eye candy. BTW, I appreciate the "eye candy."

What might be useful is more macro force management. The Commander's Report does help, but more like it would be useful.

In short, I don't see a "core problem."

If the actual nations would have had good, accurate wargames, the campaign would have never occurred! The fact that they didn't shows how really hard it is to do the design. The Allies had much better wargames for the Pacific operations. Both players have way too much information available about the other side's forces and reserves, and way too much super-command/coordination of their forces. In general this favors the one with more units, which will be the Russian side. Also, when the stronger side becomes very strong, a continuous disaster becomes unavoidable.

[swkuh]

"Both players have way too much information available about the other side's forces and reserves, and way too much super-command/coordination of their forces."

Agree.

To some extant the command & control issue can be addressed through the 5 balance factors, players to their own pleasure. But the information available, even with FOW option on, seems too much.

[GamesaurusRex]

For the question of the missing rivers... even simple map like this one show them.

http://stayinkiev.com/uploaded/mapukraine.jpg

[Q-Ball]

I played WITE alot when it came out, then walked away for a year. I just read the last few pages of this little thread, and I am wondering now if I should walk away again, or sit out until a patch.

WITP-AE took several years, and 2 new releases, to get a point that is stable, playable, and basically a well balanced game with few flaws. It took over 6 years to get to that point with the engine. Is that what we are looking at here?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I played WITE alot when it came out, then walked away for a year. I just read the last few pages of this little thread, and I am wondering now if I should walk away again, or sit out until a patch.

WITP-AE took several years, and 2 new releases, to get a point that is stable, playable, and basically a well balanced game with few flaws. It took over 6 years to get to that point with the engine. Is that what we are looking at here?

WitE 2 will be good.

[Saper2229]

I think, that if be rule 1:1=2:1 - easy win to Soviet in 1943 year. Soviet can stand and Germany cannot did easy pockets - Soviet easy re-move his industry. Many succesaful attack - many Guard division (20-30) to 12/41, no pockets and full industry - 6,5-7,0 mln to blizzard offensive, Germany lost many tank (repair damage not good in game (Germany have nice repair in war) and add lost in battles) in 1942 Germany if have not 3000-3500 tank - cannot move forvard (fort level 2-3 easy build by Soviet). Airforces cannot help Germany - in 1941 not supply in airbase to do heavy losse for Soviet - after 1942 Soviet have very, very many aircraft.
I think, that old rules (2:1 to win and first blizzard) can play more fun.

[Tarhunnas]

It is certainly true that many Soviet attacks in 1941 are made not for the attack itself but for "Guards farming".

I am pretty certain the Soviet generals in 1941 did not think "Hmm, i see a weak German/Rumanian unit there, lets attack it with as many divisions as possible so all of them get a better chance at becoming Guards units in a couple of months." As a matter of fact, i suspect they thought more along the lines of "Lets counterattack and drive the invaders back" or even "I know this counteratack is doomed, but if I don't execute it I am doomed...".

So an idea: Why not simply say that victories counting for Guards conversions start accumulating on say 1st november or something? That would at least eliminate Guards farming as a motive for attacks.