One thing that annoys me

[Stelteck]

It would be interesting to switch the high command in some games, for fun (and it was happening IRL all the time) :

- A newbie player fail its german 1941 campaign.
- Then starting from 1942 he is replaced by a german very good player and see what happened.

Server game should be transferable. If a player drop the game, another one should be allowed to take its place and carry on.

Maybe it is already possible by creating a matrix ticket ? [8|]

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

I think I have played something around 20 games as the soviets now. I lost 3 to Birger (he is that good), had to drop one myself because of real life issues. But ALL the other games have either gone into hibernation around December 41, like going from one or several turns per day to perhaps one turn per week, or been dropped by a dissappearing German player.

Then, mysteriously you can see that same player looking for new oponents.

So.... Where does our game fall into the category above? But that is not my point. I dropped our game because there was a "huge" discrepancy in our two skill levels. Maybe because you just returned to WiTE. But what really made up my mind to drop this game was when I received a PM from you stating you had no idea how to stop the Panzers. So instead of continuing the slaughter I felt it best to drop the game since it was so lopsided out of kindness to you. (Game turn 6 dropped)

So my question to everyone is when a game is so lopsided should the time be spent by one or both sides in continuing the endeavour so early in the game?

Well, to be honest I dont give much for the "Im too good for you so Im going to drop the game out of kindness"-attitude. If you are that good, it shouldnt be a problem to take say Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad and Kazan. That should make any further resistance pretty pointless and be a clear win.

In our game you were somewhere between Smolensk and Vyazma on turn 6, and then you just vanished. Now you're here saying you wanted to spare me the slaughter out of kindness. I think the decision to concede or not should be up to the player against the ropes, but apparently you feel differently.

As all soviet players know, stopping the German panzers in 41 and 42 is hellishly hard.

I am not going to invest my time into a game where it is easy to walk all over an opponent. As such I saw no further point in the continuation of a game with mismatched skill levels no matter "HOW EASY" it would have been to take Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad & Kazan. This type of game is NO FUN at all.

I didn't vanish, I sent you a PM, you replied, I resigned from game since I didn't agree with your assessment. Simple as that. You had 57 units in pockets on turn 6 with 3.3 million men in OOB.

My point is that this game is a large investment of time and skill levels should be close for an enjoyable game for all. During all my games I give opponents the chance to back out our of courtesy up to turn 12ish. Some may not agree with it but I feel it is necessary for both opponents to have an enjoyable time.

[Hortlund]

Yeah, whatever dude.

[Dinglir]

I believe there are several things to consider in this discussion:

1) Noone wants to dedicate time to a game that is effectively "over". If you just end up pushing cardboard pieces around on a board without thinking about what you are doing, then I see no point in continuing the game.
2) It is rude to simply stop playing a game without informing your opponent. I usually send a PM asking for a status if a turn is not forwarded for a week.
3) If, as a German player, you simply wish to play the blitzkrieg and then stop - then find a scenario that supports this (or at least state so in your "looking for opponents" thread.

In my current game as the Soviets versus Hermann, I have destroyed some 50+ German divisions during the first winter, and I believe the game is already won, if looking merely at the victory conditions. So the question for me is this: Do I set myself another challenge, eg finishing the Germans off in 1944, or do I stop the game and get another game going as the Germans?

For now I play on, but playing another 100 turns at 4-5 hours pr turn is a serious commitment, and I would hate to play for another 50 turns or so, just to see the game "fizzle out" by then.

[EwaldvonKleist]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Is the number of German players who just fade away if they havent taken Moscow by the start of the blizzard. Or if they feel their Barbarossa isnt going according to plan.
Its really frustrating to notice how the turn frequency suddenly starts dropping, and eventually just stop alltogether.
I mean &%#¤"

I think many of those problems can be solved by describing exactly which kind of Player you are yourself and for which sort of player you are looking for:
-skill level
-approach to the game: historical/relaxed/competitive
-AAR allowed?
-turns per week, including things like "I will have exams in September, turns might Slow down during this time"
-Willingness to talk about gameplay/to exchange tips&tricks
-suggested game settings and house rules
-ppre-defined points to drop the game if one side loses the will to fight on. I myself am completely fine both as Soviet and Axis Player to end in 03.1942 as both sides had their fun and the game is usually pre-decided by that time I think.

You Hortlud vs Hardluck looks like a mismatch because you seem to be a historical player while Hardluck looks more like a competitive player. No approach has higher/lower value, but if they play together, it will lead to conflicts (I count myself to the competitive players, but I still Lack the skill to be a challenge I think )

Just my view on this topic.

[STEF78]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Is the number of German players who just fade away if they havent taken Moscow by the start of the blizzard. Or if they feel their Barbarossa isnt going according to plan.

Its really frustrating to notice how the turn frequency suddenly starts dropping, and eventually just stop alltogether.

WITE requires a lot of hours to be masterized and also takes hours to be played.

I don't think players like Hardluckyetagain are the problem. They are very good (too good for me[:(]) but fair play and do not disapear without a message.

What I don't like is the kind of player who click on the button "resign" without sending a single mail.

But above all, fun is the key! If both players enjoy the game, it will go on and on. If the game is obviously desequilibrated. It's not fun, even for the winner.

Bobo gave up in our game because he didn't have fun anymore. I fully understand it.

PS: If you are looking for a player (either side) who doesn't resign (see presious AAR), I'm your man... but I can only handle one game at a time.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Yeah, whatever dude.

I mean no disrespect to you at all Panzerjaeger Hortlund. I think you are a great assest to this community, to this game and to this forum. If I offended you in anyway it was not my intention & I apologize for that.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Is the number of German players who just fade away if they havent taken Moscow by the start of the blizzard. Or if they feel their Barbarossa isnt going according to plan.
Its really frustrating to notice how the turn frequency suddenly starts dropping, and eventually just stop alltogether.
I mean &%#¤"

I think many of those problems can be solved by describing exactly which kind of Player you are yourself and for which sort of player you are looking for:
-skill level
-approach to the game: historical/relaxed/competitive
-AAR allowed?
-turns per week, including things like "I will have exams in September, turns might Slow down during this time"
-Willingness to talk about gameplay/to exchange tips&tricks
-suggested game settings and house rules
-ppre-defined points to drop the game if one side loses the will to fight on. I myself am completely fine both as Soviet and Axis Player to end in 03.1942 as both sides had their fun and the game is usually pre-decided by that time I think.

You Hortlud vs Hardluck looks like a mismatch because you seem to be a historical player while Hardluck looks more like a competitive player. No approach has higher/lower value, but if they play together, it will lead to conflicts (I count myself to the competitive players, but I still Lack the skill to be a challenge I think )

Just my view on this topic.

EwaldvonKleist you always have some very good ideas ;-} Skill level really does come into play for an enjoyable game for both. As such I think your above recommendations could go further into getting competitive games between players.

[sillyflower]

Reading this thread, it seems to me that the main problem is usually a misunderstanding of the expectations, and sometimes the experience level, of one's opponent. Very few on the losing side want to play right up to fulfilling the VCs, and some of the winners too. These can, and perhaps should, before the start of the game or at an early stage if the skill gap is bigger than expected. For example, I like the HR that if 1 side owns L'grad, Moscow, V'nezh and Rostov at the end of '41 that is an auto victory.

What cannot be agreed in advance is that an opponent won't change their mind in mid-game. I have had several games vs G players who promised at the start not to surrender but did so in '42 or '43. I can understand and accept such changes of heart when accompanied by an explanation and apology. Facing 100-150 turns of 1-sided kicking is rather demoralising unless one enjoys setting oneself other targets. What makes a kicking in the summer of '41 just about bearable for the R is the knowledge that it's only 17 turns and then better times come. The G player has nothing to look forward to once stalemate has been reached other than perhaps avoiding R auto-victory: hardly a great motivator for most. In many ways, I have only 1 motivation for playing on vs BrianG. His doggedness in the face of 2 years' disasters means that he has IMHO earned the right to have some positive moments.

The people who annoy me are those who just disappear without a word. Stef is lucky to get opponents who even bother to press the resign button. This is just appalling manners, though there may occasionally be a RL problem that warrants forgiveness and sympathy.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower
it seems to me that the main problem is usually a misunderstanding of the expectations, and sometimes the experience level... Very few on the losing side want to play right up to fulfilling the VCs, and some of the winners too. These can, and perhaps should, before the start of the game or at an early stage if the skill gap is bigger than expected. For example, I like the HR that if 1 side owns L'grad, Moscow, V'nezh and Rostov at the end of '41 that is an auto victory.

Perhaps more extensive break and review points agreed up front would help a lot. I would appreciate a sticky with a list of suggestions which players could select from. At the moment that one seems to be the only common one.

ORIGINAL: Stelteck
It would be interesting to switch the high command in some games, for fun (and it was happening IRL all the time) :
- A newbie player fail its german 1941 campaign.
- Then starting from 1942 he is replaced by a german very good player and see what happened.
Server game should be transferable. If a player drop the game, another one should be allowed to take its place and carry on.
Maybe it is already possible by creating a matrix ticket ? [8|]

I have at various times swapped sides with another player, given them my password while they kept theirs secret etc. But really WitE needs to be developed more to be able to keep games alive. At one time I would have liked to change options to both +1 attack and full blizzard to even things up - but not possible mid-game. If both players agree you should be able to change options. Also changing sides involves both sides knowing each others passwords. In addition there is no way to get an opponent to pass on their password to someone else if they just disappear.

There are ways of balancing a game with options at the outset. But no way to rebalance mid game. Having made the time (and emotional) commitment to a long game it is grueling to see it end prematurely. And yes it can be said to be bad manners or human failing. But there are also ways to design human failings out. Perhaps food for thought for WitE 2?

On another note one of my first games started with us as novices and ended with both of us as experienced. Even if a Soviet player starts of less experienced that will correct itself and unlike a German player time is on their side.

[sillyflower]

All good points Telemecus. Also perhaps players who don't know each other should be clearer about their approach and expectations if they have any, even if they cannot be turned into black and white HRs

[Aufklaerungs]

I think the game options offer the best solution for mismatched players to duke it out. Just requires a little honesty and humility to adjust the difficulty settings for either/both player(s). Let's face it, there is historical bias built into the game in addition to play balance "equalizers." If the Axis player tries to consolidate his gains and switch to defense instead of launching Typhoon in 1941, he faces similar CV, MP, SP & command penalties without ever having overextended himself toward Moscow. The same units that withdrew or disbanded come out of the game on historic schedule in early 43 even when Axis player chooses not to split AGS into AG-A and AG-B or not to send the 6th Army into the Stalingrad meatgrinder.