Im the only one disappointed?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

A matter of taste of course - the latter would be palatable personally, the former not at all.

Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was.

Then one can argue that Greece and the Balkins should be off limits for any potential Allied invasion in 43+. The Americans would never tolerate it. They were suspicious of Churchill believing he was more interested in preserving empire. The other reason to recapture as much of Eastern Europe before the Soviets was something that simply didn't resonate with the American public or political and military leadership.

warspite1

Churchill's wish to pursue a Balkan strategy was nothing to do do with preserving Empire.

[warspite1]

.

[sfbaytf]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

ORIGINAL: Aurelian




Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was.

Then one can argue that Greece and the Balkins should be off limits for any potential Allied invasion in 43+. The Americans would never tolerate it. They were suspicious of Churchill believing he was more interested in preserving empire. The other reason to recapture as much of Eastern Europe before the Soviets was something that simply didn't resonate with the American public or political and military leadership.

warspite1

Churchill's wish to pursue a Balkan strategy was nothing to do do with preserving Empire.

May be true, but at the time to many in the American camp it was believed to be the case or part of the motivation and perception is often reality. Times and attitudes were far different back then. The special relationship between the British and America we share today was not the same back then.

[warspite1]

No - they thought, with justification, it was putting off Overlord - NOT pursuing Empire (which we never had in the Balkans).

[sfbaytf]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

No - they thought, with justification, it was putting off Overlord - NOT pursuing Empire (which we never had in the Balkans).

Fair enough.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

ORIGINAL: warspite1

No - they thought, with justification, it was putting off Overlord - NOT pursuing Empire (which we never had in the Balkans).

Fair enough.

Though Churchill - and the British - included politics in war which the US didn't. Churchill forsaw Stalin taking over eastern Europe and wanted to prevent it. (At least my take on it)

[warspite1]

Churchill understood Stalin that is certain - and he certainly did not want Greece falling under Russian "influence" in the post-war world.

But I think the biggest driver for Churchill's strategy was a fear of launching a cross-channel invasion too early. Churchill was all too aware of what meeting German troops in an unprepared state (Norway, France, Greece, North Africa) could end up like.

[sfbaytf]

ORIGINAL: miller41

I am treating Germany's position in this game like i do Japan's in WITE-AE. You are going to get overwhelmed in the end, so winning to me is fighting the good fight and making the allies take longer. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, as some players like advancing and conquering but Germany in 43 just is not in a position to do that except locally. The joy I get out of all these games is the chance to tinker with historical outcomes. I have read about all of these campaigns since I was a kid playing boardgames like Battle for Germany, and love military history, so getting a chance to do this on a computer is worth it and these are well made games by people who do there best to make them realistic and playable. Not to many publishers doing that these days[;)]

It takes a certain type of player to play a losing side. I could never do it in WitP-AE and don't think I could in WitW in its current form.

I do love playing the losing and disadvantaged side in h2h Combat Mission games and will gladly play them against some opponents I know and trust who will honor the no reporting of the game just so they can run up their scores. At least I get to see some mayhem and its fun to inflict it. I don't quite get the same feel with high level strategic sort of games. The feedback and feel is just different.

[Dereck]

That is so true.

Although it (in my opinion) looked like Churchill leading the Americans by the nose he and the British chiefs of staff were very correct that the allies weren't ready for a cross-channel invasion in 1942 or 1943.

Another reason why Churchill resisted the cross-channel invasion until the very end was the British memory of the casualties they took in WWI and the fear of repeating that.

[bairdlander2]

It is possible to "win" as Axis based on points.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

A matter of taste of course - the latter would be palatable personally, the former not at all.

Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was.

Then one can argue that Greece and the Balkins should be off limits for any potential Allied invasion in 43+. The Americans would never tolerate it. They were suspicious of Churchill believing he was more interested in preserving empire. The other reason to recapture as much of Eastern Europe before the Soviets was something that simply didn't resonate with the American public or political and military leadership.

First of all, there was no *empire* to preserve in the Balkans, Second, the American way of war at the time was the shortest, most direct, way to win the war. Through France was the best way.

[sfbaytf]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

ORIGINAL: Aurelian




Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was.

Then one can argue that Greece and the Balkins should be off limits for any potential Allied invasion in 43+. The Americans would never tolerate it. They were suspicious of Churchill believing he was more interested in preserving empire. The other reason to recapture as much of Eastern Europe before the Soviets was something that simply didn't resonate with the American public or political and military leadership.

First of all, there was no *empire* to preserve in the Balkans, Second, the American way of war at the time was the shortest, most direct, way to win the war. Through France was the best way.

No disputing any of the above, but at least in some accounts Americans were suspicious of the British motives at the time.

My point in the above no Balkans invasion was in reference to the "Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was."

That is correct, but I took it as meaning that WitW should not have alternative campaign scenarios where players could explore alternative campaigns.

May just be a complete misunderstanding.

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: mesquite5

I would love to see some what if scenarios, such as "no huge Axis loss at Stalingrad", "retreat of Afrika Korps from Tunisia","victory at Stalingrad", or maybe "better handling of the Luftwaffe prior to this game." Not far fetched.

Can these and other suggestions be made in the editor?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

My point in the above no Balkans invasion was in reference to the "Possibly, but there was just no way that Germany was not going to invade Russia. That's where all the desired living space was."

The invasion of Russia was inevitable. It is what Hitler wanted, spelled out in his first and I think second book. All his writings and such through out the pre war years pointed to it. Russia had everything Germany did not have. Living space for an overcrowded nation, resources to feed the industries. Tens of thousands of acres of farmland to feed the people. (The book Wages of Destruction goes into great detail about that.)

An invasion of the Balkans was not, and could not be. The British could not go it alone, and the US was *not* going to divert the resources away from a cross Channel attack.

If anything, baring a D-Day, the emphasis could of very well shifted to the Pacific. Something that Admiral King, who controlled the landing craft, wanted.

And are the Balkans even playable in this game? Are the divisions that were there in the game? I don't have it yet so I don't know. How are you going to deal with the Soviet advance into the Balkans when that happens?

If and when War in Europe comes out, you'll be able to do what you want.

[Kel]

On paper everything is better, and I am sure that a lot of work went in WitW. But something (what? that is the key question) just does not feel right : no tension, no excitement, not much interest. I do not regret putting some money in it however, because it fuels the development of the system and having WitW behind us brings us one step closer to the good game I trust WitE II will be.

[LiquidSky]

I can't see how anyone could be disappointed in the game, it hasn't been out long enough to become disappointed...

[sitito]

ORIGINAL: Kelblau

On paper everything is better, and I am sure that a lot of work went in WitW. But something (what? that is the key question) just does not feel right : no tension, no excitement, not much interest. I do not regret putting some money in it however, because it fuels the development of the system and having WitW behind us brings us one step closer to the good game I trust WitE II will be.

Amen. I suscribe nearly all your points. Same thinking here. But i dont agree in everything: i dont quite understand why the devs did not develop in a row the whole western campaing game (39-45)Theyve got the map and the system ready...
It will have give the much needed alternance and excitement to the product. They didnt do that in the pacific. Dont remember seeing WIPT 41-42, and then 43-45.
Well that was many years ago when the business was still pure. Now its a plum to sell thousands of dlcs and modules...Much more profit. So dont be too much excited about wite 2. First they have to sqeeze the western golden goose eggs with a module of naval system; poland, france, Weseberung, Greece, Africa...Thats how the world works today...You transform a 100$ product in one of 300$. Not being critic or crying. Nobody put me a gun in the head when a bought the game. Im big enough to choose my decisions. But thats how things are...sadly.
Its witw 43-45, half campaing, mutilated, and without naval system and production worth 80$?? [:-]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: sitito

i dont quite understand why the devs did not develop in a row the whole western campaing game (39-45).......Now its a plum to sell thousands of dlcs and modules...Much more profit. So dont be too much excited about wite 2. First they have to sqeeze the western golden goose eggs with a module of naval system; poland, france, Weseberung, Greece, Africa...Thats how the world works today...You transform a 100$ product in one of 300$.

They didnt do that in the pacific. Dont remember seeing WIPT 41-42, and then 43-45. Well that was many years ago when the business was still pure.

warspite1

That's quite a cynical post.

Look at the sheer scale of the European War. Surely modelling 1941-45 in the Pacific is a much "easier" proposition than Europe 39-45 with all the vagaries contained within...what happens if the timescale goes off track? There are a huge number of variables to model and program, from the very first attack on Poland, then there is Norway, the Low Countries, France, The Balkans, intervention in the desert - before you even get to Barbarossa. So many options, so many possibilities - how long would it take to devise systems for that and then to play test everyone of them?

Maybe the developers thought, no way could we get something out and working on something that size within 10 years (The infinitely less problematic and relatively straightforward WITW took 4-years if I have read correctly). In addition to the land "stuff", the economy, there is the politics to devise and model, there is a whole new naval system to work out.

So was the decision purely all about the evils of making money [When the business was still pure. Really??] or was it about the real world and the need for companies to keep cash flow rolling in while they develop new, and ever more complex games for our enjoyment?

Taking the second point, my understanding is that the highly complex monster WITP-AE came from the already established WITP. So a) in terms of money, the company was already earning and b) it made the Admirals Edition easier as they were not starting from scratch.

Not being a critic? Yes you are; and that's fine if that's how you feel but then don't make out you are not. How things are? Yes in the real world companies need to make money and where the returns are limited (because of a niche product) that means the cost in production has to be tightly managed. There is nothing new in that. That's simple economic reality.

[SigUp]

Get real man. 2by3 consists of how many full time people, three? You are asking Gary, Pavel and Joel to develop another naval system for another couple of years with no new income generating product in between?

They didn't do that with WITP? I guess you must have missed the progression from Uncommon Valor to WITP to WITP-AE with War Plan Orange in between. [8|]

[sitito]

Yeas you're right im being cinical and critic. Its true. But i think there is a solid base in what a think. A know its a complex subject. And i know that 2by3 its not Ubisoft. Right. But c'omon 5 more games in the western? or 4?