Interested in buying a Gary Grigsby game - but have some questions...

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

To push the timeline back to 1940 (or 39 for that matter) means that you have two key tasks:

- Developing a naval module that fits and works. This is no easy task. The addition of the WitW changes to air, amphib and logistics took 4 years.
- Expanding the data. This is not only historical land and air data but also adding all the naval data. Even using an EF Box you still need all the data.

Excepting North Africa and the Med - 1941 to late 1942 is not the most exciting period without the Eastern Front. WitW 40-45 would be easier than Europe but WitE2.0 is currently more deliverable.

Perhaps you cant tell us yet but are you thinking about adding big strategic decisions to Wite 2?. I think it is the biggest flaw of wite, as the lack of strategic decisions makes most games too repetitve. Example what Ia am talking about: production decisions: do the germans go for a new powerful tank (panthers and tigers) or they stick with improving the panzer iv? The later would give more tanks but less powerful. Political decisions: what is your stance towards the native population? Agressive could give you more resources but also more partisans to deal with. Less agressive would mean less resources but less partisans also. Do you prioritize reinforcements or the making of new units?. All those are just examples of decisions which might give each game a different feeling each time.

[Wheat]

Very thoughtful initial post, good questions. Someone as sharp as you NagyGL will have no trouble with any of these games.

I own WitP:AE and WitE.

WitP:AE is the oldest and has the poorest interface...and omg, I wish it was just dialed back a bit on the complexity.

WitE has a good interface and is pretty easy to manage despite its scope.

Both of the games have a good "flavor", that intangible factor that makes you feel like you're a part of the experience.

Of those two, I would go with WitE.

But your summary post is accurate and I think you might want to go with WitW for a first try.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: No idea

Perhaps you cant tell us yet but are you thinking about adding big strategic decisions to Wite 2?. I think it is the biggest flaw of wite, as the lack of strategic decisions makes most games too repetitve. Example what Ia am talking about: production decisions: do the germans go for a new powerful tank (panthers and tigers) or they stick with improving the panzer iv? The later would give more tanks but less powerful. Political decisions: what is your stance towards the native population? Agressive could give you more resources but also more partisans to deal with. Less agressive would mean less resources but less partisans also. Do you prioritize reinforcements or the making of new units?. All those are just examples of decisions which might give each game a different feeling each time.

No, just no. This offers so much potential for abuse that balancing this will be a horrible task. Not to mention that games like WitE aren't designed in this scope. If you want all that you should look more towards games like Hearts of Iron.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: No idea

Perhaps you cant tell us yet but are you thinking about adding big strategic decisions to Wite 2?. I think it is the biggest flaw of wite, as the lack of strategic decisions makes most games too repetitve. Example what Ia am talking about: production decisions: do the germans go for a new powerful tank (panthers and tigers) or they stick with improving the panzer iv? The later would give more tanks but less powerful. Political decisions: what is your stance towards the native population? Agressive could give you more resources but also more partisans to deal with. Less agressive would mean less resources but less partisans also. Do you prioritize reinforcements or the making of new units?. All those are just examples of decisions which might give each game a different feeling each time.

No, just no. This offers so much potential for abuse that balancing this will be a horrible task. Not to mention that games like WitE aren't designed in this scope. If you want all that you should look more towards games like Hearts of Iron.

Two things. First I think the politics added to a theater command game as seen in the DC:B decision system is genius. Something like that would only make WiTE/WiTW better. Second something like what he's suggesting about production already exists in WiTP. I don't see how it's a stretch to ask for a production system that's more responsive to player input and on map resources for WiTE.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Two things. First I think the politics added to a theater command game as seen in the DC:B decision system is genius. Something like that would only make WiTE/WiTW better. Second something like what he's suggesting about production already exists in WiTP. I don't see how it's a stretch to ask for a production system that's more responsive to player input and on map resources for WiTE.

Let's revist those points then. What was mentioned as specific example was the treatment of the native population, problem here is, how far do you allow people to go without drifting into absolute fantasy? The mistreatment of the population as Untermenschen was core nazi policy. You can't just come here and say, what if they had treated them better. Because if you did you would be changing the very nature of the nazi regime. Change its very nature and you don't have a war in the first place. Now, I'm superficially aware of what Deceisive Campaigns Barbarossa does but that game and WitE work differently in that regard with the card system. You can't just copy it over.

As for production, in WitP the power gap between the US and Japan is far bigger than the one between Germany and the Soviet Union. The production there allows the Japanese side to be more creative in how to script its demise. Meanwhile on the Eastern Front a central advantage of the Soviet side was their more efficient production compared to the German side. They were able to churn out far more units with their invested resources than the Germans. Allow the Germans to build and optimise as they desire and you are destroying the historical balance in a way that far exceeds what's being done in WitP. You can't come here and compare apples to oranges.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Two things. First I think the politics added to a theater command game as seen in the DC:B decision system is genius. Something like that would only make WiTE/WiTW better. Second something like what he's suggesting about production already exists in WiTP. I don't see how it's a stretch to ask for a production system that's more responsive to player input and on map resources for WiTE.

Let's revist those points then. What was mentioned as specific example was the treatment of the native population, problem here is, how far do you allow people to go without drifting into absolute fantasy? The mistreatment of the population as Untermenschen was core nazi policy. You can't just come here and say, what if they had treated them better. Because if you did you would be changing the very nature of the nazi regime. Change its very nature and you don't have a war in the first place. Now, I'm superficially aware of what Deceisive Campaigns Barbarossa does but that game and WitE work differently in that regard with the card system. You can't just copy it over.

As for production, in WitP the power gap between the US and Japan is far bigger than the one between Germany and the Soviet Union. The production there allows the Japanese side to be more creative in how to script its demise. Meanwhile on the Eastern Front a central advantage of the Soviet side was their more efficient production compared to the German side. They were able to churn out far more units with their invested resources than the Germans. Allow the Germans to build and optimise as they desire and you are destroying the historical balance in a way that far exceeds what's being done in WitP. You can't come here and compare apples to oranges.

The key about the decisions I propose (I gave just examples that had come out of my mind, but they could be completely different) is not the ability to make things better for one side or the other, but giving you the ability to adapt to circunstances (for example, if the german player has had several panzer units encircled and destroyed he can probably say goodbye to the game, but what if he can decide to concentrate on P IVs instead of goign for Panthers and Tigers? That would give him more production, thus, he will get his panzer divisions again much quicker) and, above all, giving the game the "ability" to be different each time, because so far there isnt much difference from one to another, with just a few exceptions.

Yes I am aware of HoI serie, but I think this game could benefit a lot from a bit of strategic decisions making, not changing its scope or nature, but expanding it a bit.

PS. Regarding the critique about the political decision I said, yes, I am aware that it is the old "if nazis werent nazis", but there are many things in the game that go against what happened irl or are stretched to make the game more interesting or even possible to play, so why not introducing some political elements? As far as they are plausible, I see no problems. After all, nazi ideology didnt dicatate that kicking slvas out of East Europe had to be done during the war. They could have waited unitl later.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: No idea

The key about the decisions I propose (I gave just examples that had come out of my mind, but they could be completely different) is not the ability to make things better for one side or the other, but giving you the ability to adapt to circunstances (for example, if the german player has had several panzer units encircled and destroyed he can probably say goodbye to the game, but what if he can decide to concentrate on P IVs instead of goign for Panthers and Tigers? That would give him more production, thus, he will get his panzer divisions again much quicker)

This is 1941 in Germany, not JIT production on assembly lines. And frankly, bad play (and this is several panzer units getting encircled) should be punished accordingly and not get fantasy-like get-out-of-jail card to soften the impact.

Yes I am aware of HoI serie, but I think this game could benefit a lot from a bit of strategic decisions making, not changing its scope or nature, but expanding it a bit.

This series is an operational war game. You are changing its scope with all that you want.

PS. Regarding the critique about the political decision I said, yes, I am aware that it is the old "if nazis werent nazis", but there are many things in the game that go against what happened irl or are stretched to make the game more interesting or even possible to play, so why not introducing some political elements? As far as they are plausible, I see no problems. After all, nazi ideology didnt dicatate that kicking slvas out of East Europe had to be done during the war. They could have waited unitl later.

What you suggested above is not plausible. The Germans were acutely aware of their inability to supply their army and the local population in the east. Their method of feeding their men was based on requisitioning from the local population while letting them starve. You are creating a fantasy setting here.

Frankly, all your ideas fit right into the mold of what Hearts of Iron provides, giving me the impression that you are at the wrong series here.

[RedLancer]

These games are operational / military strategic and not grand strategic. Excepting production and the ability to assign additional units to the East I struggle to think of what else might be added.

As for production this is always a hot topic. We are making some production amendments but whether that will include the ability to allow control has not been decided.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: No idea

The key about the decisions I propose (I gave just examples that had come out of my mind, but they could be completely different) is not the ability to make things better for one side or the other, but giving you the ability to adapt to circunstances (for example, if the german player has had several panzer units encircled and destroyed he can probably say goodbye to the game, but what if he can decide to concentrate on P IVs instead of goign for Panthers and Tigers? That would give him more production, thus, he will get his panzer divisions again much quicker)

This is 1941 in Germany, not JIT production on assembly lines. And frankly, bad play (and this is several panzer units getting encircled) should be punished accordingly and not get fantasy-like get-out-of-jail card to soften the impact.

Yes I am aware of HoI serie, but I think this game could benefit a lot from a bit of strategic decisions making, not changing its scope or nature, but expanding it a bit.

This series is an operational war game. You are changing its scope with all that you want.

PS. Regarding the critique about the political decision I said, yes, I am aware that it is the old "if nazis werent nazis", but there are many things in the game that go against what happened irl or are stretched to make the game more interesting or even possible to play, so why not introducing some political elements? As far as they are plausible, I see no problems. After all, nazi ideology didnt dicatate that kicking slvas out of East Europe had to be done during the war. They could have waited unitl later.

What you suggested above is not plausible. The Germans were acutely aware of their inability to supply their army and the local population in the east. Their method of feeding their men was based on requisitioning from the local population while letting them starve. You are creating a fantasy setting here.

Frankly, all your ideas fit right into the mold of what Hearts of Iron provides, giving me the impression that you are at the wrong series here.

Giving you options to soften the impact of your mistakes is something fully realistic. It is what everybody does when he realizes he has gotten into trouble. Expanding on the options you might have in such a situation is a good move, imho. Many players end their games (especially as german player) after a handflu of turns simply and plainly because they have commited a few mistakes (and not big ones like the one I mentioned). That is not fun at all, expecially from the soviet player point of view, but I can understand the german player, because he knows he is fu... and he cant do anythign about it.

My examples of decisions could be better, but I still think it would make wonders for the game replayability and enjoyment if we could take some strategic decisions. Replayability and enjoyment are never bad for a game. I know those are subjective terms, and that is why I give my opinion.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: No idea

Giving you options to soften the impact of your mistakes is something fully realistic. It is what everybody does when he realizes he has gotten into trouble. Expanding on the options you might have in such a situation is a good move, imho. Many players end their games (especially as german player) after a handflu of turns simply and plainly because they have commited a few mistakes (and not big ones like the one I mentioned). That is not fun at all, expecially from the soviet player point of view, but I can understand the german player, because he knows he is fu... and he cant do anythign about it.

Sorry, but that's just a terrible idea. These players were never in it for the long haul anyway. They are the group of German players to approach the game with an attitude "Leningrad-Moscow-Rostov in 1941 or quit". They can't deal with adversity and can't improvise and want everything to go according to plan. You can change whatever you want, once they see that they can't go on a German world conquest they will quit on you. The game goes long enough to correct such small mistakes and still come out with a draw. You are just giving them free excuses by saying they can't do anything about it, since it is not true at all.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: SigUp



Sorry, but that's just a terrible idea. These players were never in it for the long haul anyway. They are the group of German players to approach the game with an attitude "Leningrad-Moscow-Rostov in 1941 or quit". They can't deal with adversity and can't improvise and want everything to go according to plan. You can change whatever you want, once they see that they can't go on a German world conquest they will quit on you. The game goes long enough to correct such small mistakes and still come out with a draw. You are just giving them free excuses by saying they can't do anything about it, since it is not true at all.

Agree with this here.

Generally I'd like to see the ability for the GHC to be able to optimize their industry not to the level of WITP/Japan but maybe 10 to 20% better trimming
the fat away with some historically bad performers. WITE going the
way of Decisive Campaigns where much stuff is abstracted and or assumed because of historical plausibility
IMO would be heading in the wrong direction for WITE.

To respond to the OP. My favorite game is WITP, most played game the past year has been WITE (because of action per turn and combatants) but if I had to recommend a game out of the three it would be WITW as it is closer mechanically to what you will see in WITE 2.0.

Best of luck in your choice.

[swkuh]

Useful discussion, thoughts are appreciated.

Main issue IMHO is discrepancy between Soviet/Nazi unit formation opportunities/arrival schedules. Seems all +Soviet.

Suggestions following would be small (even "eye candy") but contributing to player interest.

production: variation of all equipment and deployment (as like aircraft.)
troops & units: replacements rate and reinforcement schedules
equipment: development/deployment schedules

Each have negative consequences and although difficult to determine, must be considered. Perhaps would be too controversial. But, after all, its a game.

[NagyGL]

ORIGINAL: Wheat

Very thoughtful initial post, good questions. Someone as sharp as you NagyGL will have no trouble with any of these games.

...

But your summary post is accurate and I think you might want to go with WitW for a first try.

Thanks for the kind words! This seems to be my conclusion as well.

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

To respond to the OP. My favorite game is WITP, most played game the past year has been WITE (because of action per turn and combatants) but if I had to recommend a game out of the three it would be WITW as it is closer mechanically to what you will see in WITE 2.0

Thanks, this is also a consideration. As WITE 2.0 is coming it makes sense for me to buy into WITW now and maybe WITE 2.0 later, as I have no specific and strong preference for the Eastern front.

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: NagyGL
As WITE 2.0 is coming it makes sense for me to buy into WITW now and maybe WITE 2.0 later, as I have no specific and strong preference for the Eastern front.

If you decide for WITW, I might suggest you to buy also Operation Torch. Torch to Tunisia is a very interesting scenario IMHO (less unit density, lot of logistical constraint, both side can make offensives).
Moreover, it adds the option of a cooperative multiplayer to the game...

[solops]

OP,

For time and playability, try From Eagle Day To Bombing the Reich. It will not get you your naval fix, though.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: Revthought
Let's revist those points then. What was mentioned as specific example was the treatment of the native population, problem here is, how far do you allow people to go without drifting into absolute fantasy? The mistreatment of the population as Untermenschen was core nazi policy.

Correct; however, not necessarily Wermacht policy. DC:B--another theatre wide operational game--handles this in this way. With relationships. As overall commander you can make choices about how much you are going to go along with the SS. If you refuse to cooperate, your relationship with Hitler, Himmler, and others tanks.

If it gets bad enough, you will be replaced. Even if it's just bad, this will harm your ability to ask for oil allocations and transfer of units between AG. It will also effect how much influence you have with Hitler regarding the goals he sets (and if you do not try to accomplish these you're sacked).

Or you could take the middle ground and just lodge a protest and let it slide.

On the converse side, what you get for protecting the civilian population as best you can is less partisans. And this doesn't mean that as a whole that nazi policy is actually ignored, it just abstracts that on a day to day basis, the Wermacht is treating the civilians better--maybe you stop the practice of revenge killing in a town somewhere--you do enough to ensure that fewer people see resistance as the only alternative.

In DC:B treating civilians as well as you can does not eliminate partisans. It just reduces their strength.

And this is already in a game, which falls into the same family as WiTE!. WiTE is still the better game, but DC:Bs inclusion of the "politics" of theater command is the most innovative thing this genre has seen in years. I reccomend you play it before you say it just cannot be done..

PS. On this point it was also a matter of policy that the military did not enjoy operational freedom, yet in WiTE you can do whatever you want, including moving whole Panzer Groups between Army Group. This is totally "unrealistic" too.

You can't just come here and say, what if they had treated them better. Because if you did you would be changing the very nature of the nazi regime. Change its very nature and you don't have a war in the first place.

No, but I see no problem (as stated above) with the commanding general lodging a protest, or even saying, "we are not going to integrate your death squads in any way to the army" then living with the potential consequences.

As for production, in WitP the power gap between the US and Japan is far bigger than the one between Germany and the Soviet Union. The production there allows the Japanese side to be more creative in how to script its demise. Meanwhile on the Eastern Front a central advantage of the Soviet side was their more efficient production compared to the German side. They were able to churn out far more units with their invested resources than the Germans. Allow the Germans to build and optimise as they desire and you are destroying the historical balance in a way that far exceeds what's being done in WitP. You can't come here and compare apples to oranges.

Sure; however, I think this is really superficial in as much as we (or at least I) am not saying "give players total control." You cannot have Germans churning out T-34s for instance, or "deciding" to put the reich on a total war footing in 1941. Choosing the "more pz iv's" option will not negate the Soviet advantage in any real way--AND you could link it to a decision/relationship system like DC:B where the worse your relationship with high command, the less likely it is your "reccomendations" about production will be given any merit.

What's more it such a system, broadly, would help remove the current fantasy aspects of this game. For instance, I will move whole panzer groups if I want, I will pursue any objective I want, I will just abandon major cities, I will play like there was never any such thing as "no step back" orders for either side.

In essence, ahistorical play would still be possible; however, like in real life, if Stalin says "defend Kiev to the last drop of blood," and the player ignores this, he might save his men and material, but there will be consequences that the player will have to live with.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: rrbill


Main issue IMHO is discrepancy between Soviet/Nazi unit formation opportunities/arrival schedules. Seems all +Soviet.

Sorry, but this isnt correct. Question of being uninformed, has forstered that notion in some.

First there is a paticular strategy u can use against the russian player, targeting PP. Making small pockets post nov 1941 (if u cant make large) keeping chipping away at the number russian units contisniuosly. If u destroy on average and that is ur goal more than the russian gets PP and this been used by players. U find ur self in a negative PP circle which less and les units as russian. If nothing else delying russian army 2.0. No such strategy is avialble vs the german. yes non divisonal units doesnt come back and thats some thing to possibly change but other than that the current system vs historic russian OOB only favors the axis side.

Not to mention if u take the in game historic russian 1942 OOB and compare it to the in game historic russian 1943 OOB the cost of making just the new units that is in difference costs all the PP of that year less 60. So u have 60 pp to replace any(all) destroyed units, change commanders, make FZ and what not for an entire year. Playing by historic OOB vs the now PP system would make it alot easier on the russian player. Are u able to optimize with the current PP system, sure, but so would u with historic OOB. Just a question of which shell of units and how many u place in the Urals at 0% replacements. All things given u would have many many more units than in the current system.


Question of this side can do some thing i cant they gota have an advantage, forst this, instead of looking at what would the alternative be instead and how does that compare.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

[swkuh]

@Walloc:

You agree, then, that there is a discrepancy +Soviet in this aspect of the game, but you argue that, even so, the German has an outcomes advantage. Maybe so. I'm looking at how the game is played for each side. Perhaps this reflects how the developers imagined the approaches taken by their highest leadership. If so, think this could have been done more transparently, but what do I know?

Appreciate your postings and glad to them again.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

And this is already in a game, which falls into the same family as WiTE!. WiTE is still the better game, but DC:Bs inclusion of the "politics" of theater command is the most innovative thing this genre has seen in years. I reccomend you play it before you say it just cannot be done..

Quote me on saying that a system can't be done. Anyway, again, different games, different systems. Decisive Campaigns was built from ground-up including this card system, this relationship system etc. is just an extension of this. The engine of WitE and WitW don't contain this, so how are you going to implement that? Not to mention that DC works on a higher abstraction scale. You can't just come here and say, this game is doing that so why can't we have the same. It doesn't work this way. The WitE/WitW and the DC families work off different design philosophies.

Sure; however, I think this is really superficial in as much as we (or at least I) am not saying "give players total control." You cannot have Germans churning out T-34s for instance, or "deciding" to put the reich on a total war footing in 1941. Choosing the "more pz iv's" option will not negate the Soviet advantage in any real way

And what's the gameplay effect then? So basically none. The production system in WitP has an effect on the game because you can tinker with a lot of things, which planes you build, which ones you research, how much you build, which ships to prioritise etc etc. And as I said, do the same degree of freedom for WitE and you knock the power balance around like nothing. With your suggestion the impact on gameplay is minimal, so why waste valuable design and testing time on on a gimmick like this? Time better spent on improving combat system, logistics, air system etc etc. From a equipment-to-unit perspective it would be a far more meaningful change to implement a system of manual direction of equipment change for land equipment. Like an option to prioritise modern equipment to go to certain units/regions, or simply an option to manually swap equipment like AFVs if certain conditions are met.

[Revthought]

Quote me on saying that a system can't be done. Anyway, again, different games, different systems. Decisive Campaigns was built from ground-up including this card system, this relationship system etc. is just an extension of this. The engine of WitE and WitW don't contain this, so how are you going to implement that? Not to mention that DC works on a higher abstraction scale. You can't just come here and say, this game is doing that so why can't we have the same. It doesn't work this way. The WitE/WitW and the DC families work off different design philosophies.

Sorry about quoting you as my text. Posting from a phone.

Having worked in the video game industry and made video games, I disagree with you. Plus, your wrong. It's built on the DC engine, for which the first two titles contained nothing of the sort. And I'm not suggesting an exact copy of DC:B with card play.

A lot of the mechanics are there already, or present in other GG titles. Not only that, I am not making an argument for patching something like that into this game in any case. This whole conversation centers on, "in the future of the franchise, how could you make the game more fun? Can you add an element of choice and consequence that makes the game more engaging without being fantasy?"

By the way, the fantasy argument is the biggest hypocritical argument you can make. While I love WiTE you don't get more fantasy than complete and total operational freedom. Moving units between army groups for the Germans and letting them focus on whatever objective they want, particularly in 1941 is a joke when compared to reality. As is letting the Soviet player endlessly retreat without putting up a fight for population centers--Stalin would have more than just removed me from command if I were a Soviet commander in WW2 and did the things I do in game

And what's the gameplay effect then? So basically none. The production system in WitP has an effect on the game because you can tinker with a lot of things, which planes you build, which ones you research, how much you build, which ships to prioritise etc etc. And as I said, do the same degree of freedom for WitE and you knock the power balance around like nothing. With your suggestion the impact on gameplay is minimal, so why waste valuable design and testing time on on a gimmick like this? Time better spent on improving combat system, logistics, air system etc etc. From a equipment-to-unit perspective it would be a far more meaningful change to implement a system of manual direction of equipment change for land equipment. Like an option to prioritise modern equipment to go to certain units/regions, or simply an option to manually swap equipment like AFVs if certain conditions are met.

Of course there is an effect. That's what you balance the game around, trade offs for decisions. Decisions don't make or break anything, just like in WiTP.

PS. The German player, unless he wins, in 1941or maybe 42 is playing for a win by keeping the Russians out of Berlin for as long as possible. That's no different than the Japanese players position in WiTP.