Anyone seen the Unicorn?

[Zemke]

Can the Bobo game outcome be accomplished TODAY. Can two players of similar familiarity with the game mechanics replicate what Bobo did? However even the Bobo game does not meet the historical standard of Germans are adjacent to Moscow on Dec 6 1941 and Leningrad has been isolated. The point, is War in the East 2 is trying to replicate history or is it not? A Test game should be able to match historical outcomes. War in the East is down to the Division and Regimental level, and should be able to come close. The hope is the coming changes to Ast HQs will fix this, but the problem IMO is not just the Ast HQ, but also linked to the logistical model and fatigue build up / shedding rates, National morale, in other words a series of things are out of alinement, IF the goal was to make the game match history.

And before Everyone jumps on the above statement. It was known there would be few if any ARRs that matched historical outcomes. If a historical outcomes cannot be achieved, why NOT is what should be asked. Historical advance rates could be tested by two players using a small frontage matching the same moves and attacks as the protagonist made. Road to Leningrad may be a good scenario to runs such a test. Similar tests could be done for late war scenarios to again see if historical advance rates can be matched. I made this same argument for WitE 1, that the standard should be history itself. Any military game that wants to be at the Regimental/Brigade unit scale and 10 mile hex terrain scale with one week turns should be able to get close.

The game is fun, I enjoy the game, but think WitE2 is not "there yet", more work needs to be done. I bought the game to support the effort to create such a game, and would do it again.

[mind_messing]

If a historical outcomes cannot be achieved, why NOT is what should be asked.

A historical outcome would require historical decision making.

Neither OKW nor STAVKA in PBEM play tend to slavishly follow their historical counterparts.

Expecting a slavish recreation of what happened historically is begging for disappointment.

ORIGINAL: Zemke


The game is fun, I enjoy the game, but think WitE2 is not "there yet", more work needs to be done. I bought the game to support the effort to create such a game, and would do it again.

Emphasis mine. You bought a game, not a recreation of the Eastern Front.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If a historical outcomes cannot be achieved, why NOT is what should be asked.

A historical outcome would require historical decision making.

Neither OKW nor STAVKA in PBEM play tend to slavishly follow their historical counterparts.

Expecting a slavish recreation of what happened historically is begging for disappointment.

ORIGINAL: Zemke


The game is fun, I enjoy the game, but think WitE2 is not "there yet", more work needs to be done. I bought the game to support the effort to create such a game, and would do it again.

Emphasis mine. You bought a game, not a recreation of the Eastern Front.

He recently said I should play the AI, not liking what I said about the book he wants the Soviets to follow.

So my suggestion is this: He plays both sides so he can make both sides do what he wants.

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If a historical outcomes cannot be achieved, why NOT is what should be asked.

A historical outcome would require historical decision making.

Neither OKW nor STAVKA in PBEM play tend to slavishly follow their historical counterparts.

Expecting a slavish recreation of what happened historically is begging for disappointment.

ORIGINAL: Zemke


The game is fun, I enjoy the game, but think WitE2 is not "there yet", more work needs to be done. I bought the game to support the effort to create such a game, and would do it again.

Emphasis mine. You bought a game, not a recreation of the Eastern Front.

You and Aurelian seem to be are missing the point. I am asking IF the game was tested using historical as you say decision making, yes, and if so, did the results mirror history. Ideally the results should be the same. If not, then there is a problem. I am not saying players have to make those decisions, that is another thing entirely.

Aurelian, I know you think I am trying to get some sort of scripted play for the Soviets, I am not. I am only wondering how much testing was done based on historical examples. I would assume everyone is striving for that, are we not? The fun of the game for both sides is "can we change history". For the Soviets I think that means if the same decisions are not followed, then different results should come from that, which I agree with that. Same applies to the Axis, if instead they push for the South, different results should come from that, or lets say both sides tried to mirror history, then the results should be very close what took place.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Zemke

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If a historical outcomes cannot be achieved, why NOT is what should be asked.

A historical outcome would require historical decision making.

Neither OKW nor STAVKA in PBEM play tend to slavishly follow their historical counterparts.

Expecting a slavish recreation of what happened historically is begging for disappointment.

ORIGINAL: Zemke


The game is fun, I enjoy the game, but think WitE2 is not "there yet", more work needs to be done. I bought the game to support the effort to create such a game, and would do it again.

Emphasis mine. You bought a game, not a recreation of the Eastern Front.

You and Aurelian seem to be are missing the point. I am asking IF the game was tested using historical as you say decision making, yes, and if so, did the results mirror history. Ideally the results should be the same. If not, then there is a problem. I am not saying players have to make those decisions, that is another thing entirely.

Aurelian, I know you think I am trying to get some sort of scripted play for the Soviets, I am not. I am only wondering how much testing was done based on historical examples. I would assume everyone is striving for that, are we not? The fun of the game for both sides is "can we change history". For the Soviets I think that means if the same decisions are not followed, then different results should come from that, which I agree with that. Same applies to the Axis, if instead they push for the South, different results should come from that, or lets say both sides tried to mirror history, then the results should be very close what took place.

That's a bad premise for testing a game point-blank, and if that was the direction that testing and balance went, there would be howls of protest from all corners.

The other aspect is that it isn't how the game works. There's an element of randomness in the game that will prevent any recreation of the historical outcome with any fidelity. The game departs from history on June 1941, and after that point it only diverges further as the game progresses.

The appropriate way to look at the game is with a view that is sufficiently high level to avoid misinterpretation. Tracking specific hexes is a sure way to misinterpret the state of the game.

Looking at the high level strategic picture is best. What we see there largely mirrors history, in that the Axis make substantial gains in 1941, before slowly running out of steam as the Red Army rebuilds itself into the winter and a 1942 where there is a fine balance between the two sides.

That, to me, feels in the historical space even if a specific hex isn't reached by a specific date.

[GibsonPete]

Zemke is making a valid point. He is simply asking for information gathered during playtesting. Information that led to decisions. Information many of us would like to know about.

[Joel Billings]

I think one thing that is often ignored is that is that in November 1941 the Soviets had amassed several reserve Army’s near Moscow. If I recall correctly, they released one or two of them to hold onto Tula, but they held back to the others. I know few players that would let the axis drive next to Moscow when they had reserve armies sitting nearby unused. How do you factor that into your thinking? It’s for this reason that we purposely create an event to release reserves in late November, but I don’t think we hold back everything. In testing we never told players to purposely play historically. So now I can’t say that we’ve tested that, however the eye place fairly historically and we have test of that. Yes we’d like to think that everything being equal the game would play out historically. That’s our goal, but I can’t for sure that we’ve met it. I don’t think we’re that far off though. We keep finding things to fix and improve and hopefully the game will just keep getting better. In the meantime we think the game is fun to play, but of course we’re biased..

[Aurelian]

"ORIGINAL: Zemke

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005"
_______________________________________________________________________________

This tells me otherwise. So, where are the solutions based on history because the Axis never took Leningrad, stripped AGC of it's panzer groups to help the other two army groups or sending von Richtofen's airgroup to AGN, or Hitler's three priorities, 1: Ukraine, 2: Leningrad (surrounded, not taken), and 3: Moscow, in that order.

Solutions based on history means Russia wins. Every time you play. So, why bother to play a game, much less buy one if you just want to get solutions based on history.

Reminds me of playing AH's Tsushima game. Always played the Russians. Always lost except for the last time I played it. Imagine all the crying about how that isn't historical, etc that I heard when I won.

[Zemke]

That's a bad premise for testing a game point-blank, and if that was the direction that testing and balance went, there would be howls of protest from all corners.

The other aspect is that it isn't how the game works. There's an element of randomness in the game that will prevent any recreation of the historical outcome with any fidelity. The game departs from history on June 1941, and after that point it only diverges further as the game progresses.

The appropriate way to look at the game is with a view that is sufficiently high level to avoid misinterpretation. Tracking specific hexes is a sure way to misinterpret the state of the game.

Looking at the high level strategic picture is best. What we see there largely mirrors history, in that the Axis make substantial gains in 1941, before slowly running out of steam as the Red Army rebuilds itself into the winter and a 1942 where there is a fine balance between the two sides.

That, to me, feels in the historical space even if a specific hex isn't reached by a specific date.

What premise do you test a historically based war game on if not history? I thought that was why we played it otherwise what's point in playing. And, once again you don't seem to understand what I am saying or just ignoring what I am saying.

At Strategic level, it falls short short of history. Players are NOT able to meet German Advance rates as currently modeled, and that is a fact. Turns 1-3 are a given, but after that it does not happen. A few "hexes" may not mean anything, but in a game where the Germans have to meet a minimum VP level or lose early, it kind of does matter, particularly if using historical advance rates and dates to measure, which the game does use.

Also, it was touted that the new victory "system" would create a dynamic of forcing the Soviets' to have to fight, and the Germans to have to push. That is only half true. The Soviets don't have to fight, and the Germans have to push.

So I pose the question, what exactly am I not getting here?

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I think one thing that is often ignored is that is that in November 1941 the Soviets had amassed several reserve Army’s near Moscow. If I recall correctly, they released one or two of them to hold onto Tula, but they held back to the others. I know few players that would let the axis drive next to Moscow when they had reserve armies sitting nearby unused. How do you factor that into your thinking? It’s for this reason that we purposely create an event to release reserves in late November, but I don’t think we hold back everything. In testing we never told players to purposely play historically. So now I can’t say that we’ve tested that, however the eye place fairly historically and we have test of that. Yes we’d like to think that everything being equal the game would play out historically. That’s our goal, but I can’t for sure that we’ve met it. I don’t think we’re that far off though. We keep finding things to fix and improve and hopefully the game will just keep getting better. In the meantime we think the game is fun to play, but of course we’re biased..

I have no doubt that you are trying your best with what you have and it takes time to implement any changes and test those changes for something this complex, and I appreciate that and I appreciate the amount of work done to date by you and others building/creating and testing the game. I love the game, it is the best there is out there hands down.

And thanks for answering my bottom-line question about testing. I do think a test game posted on the forms turn for turn from each player mirroring the German advance engaging Soviet units as happened historically would be very beneficial as a benchmark. Granted this realistically could only be done on one axis of advance, maybe one Army Group.

How Would it be Executed:
Each player would attack and defend with the exact units, and see how the results play out. The German plyer would also attempt to move along the same routes, the Soviet player would defend and attack where they did historically. There would not be a winner or loser, just to measure advance rates, battle out-comes and so on. During each starting turn each player would try to post each unit where it was on that date. Lots of notes taken and those posted with screen shots. This would take some research for each player, but would be fascinating to watch.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Can the Bobo game outcome be accomplished TODAY. Can two players of similar familiarity with the game mechanics replicate what Bobo did? However even the Bobo game does not meet the historical standard of Germans are adjacent to Moscow on Dec 6 1941 and Leningrad has been isolated. The point, is War in the East 2 is trying to replicate history or is it not? A Test game should be able to match historical outcomes. War in the East is down to the Division and Regimental level, and should be able to come close. The hope is the coming changes to Ast HQs will fix this, but the problem IMO is not just the Ast HQ, but also linked to the logistical model and fatigue build up / shedding rates, National morale, in other words a series of things are out of alinement, IF the goal was to make the game match history.

...

I'm sorry but you really are writing utter tosh

Robert took Leningrad, why is his progress to Tikhvin of any relevance, AGN was trying to cut the Soviet connexctions to Leningrad.

Like so many you don't want a scripted game but then miraculously the test of the game becomes making all the mistakes that AGC made in the late autumn/early winter?

now, seriously, what do you think the testing process involved with weekly (sometimes twice a week) exe releases?

My view was that in testing I saw little to worry me at a grand level. I played Robert and 1941 came down to a violent tussle around Tula and Rostov. I played another game (as the axis) and by the time we hit a game breaking exe I was running around in the Caucasus in the summer of 1942 but stalled around Novgorod with AGN (so I'd argue not much to worry over?)

As mind messing says. neither side is going to play historically. It was tested HtH but few of those went that deep (for obv reasons - but the last one I saw had had 1942 pretty historical), vs AI and Ai-AI.

Now I think 1941 is out of kilter now. I suspect that post-release Soviet players are making more use of Assault Fronts, equally from reading various post a lot of Axis players are still trying to play WiTE1.

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

"ORIGINAL: Zemke

Anyway, back to the topic.

Assault HQ are the problem, fix the number the Soviets get at the start, I think is a good solution and an easy one.

If the designers want a more realistic game, and stop the "Sir Robin" retreat, I think implementing some random method that would slow or stop a certain random percentage of Soviet forces from being able to move at all or very much during the first 2 turns. This would balance the game more by implementing a solution based on history, because many Soviet units did not withdrawn for different reasons, either they never received the order to do so, or were executing pre-war plans to counter attack when they could not get through to higher HQ, or they simply were paralyzed by indecision based on rumors and the unknown and fear of making a mistake.

Read Constantine Pleshokov book, "STALIN'S FOLLY, The Tragic First Ten Days of WW II on the EASTERN FRONT". printed by Houghton Mifflin Co, NYC, NY copyright 2005"
_______________________________________________________________________________

This tells me otherwise. So, where are the solutions based on history because the Axis never took Leningrad, stripped AGC of it's panzer groups to help the other two army groups or sending von Richtofen's airgroup to AGN, or Hitler's three priorities, 1: Ukraine, 2: Leningrad (surrounded, not taken), and 3: Moscow, in that order.

Solutions based on history means Russia wins. Every time you play. So, why bother to play a game, much less buy one if you just want to get solutions based on history.

Reminds me of playing AH's Tsushima game. Always played the Russians. Always lost except for the last time I played it. Imagine all the crying about how that isn't historical, etc that I heard when I won.

If it is possible to play the game exactly as took place, the Germans should lose. I agree 100%. Hitler chose to not attempt to take Leningrad, but that does not mean it could not have been taken. Moscow was a near run thing, and there is valid historical debate on if 2nd Pz Group had not been sent South, things would have been different. Operation Typhoon would have started sooner by at least 3 weeks, before the rainy season. Would the Germans have taken Moscow, who knows, but it is interesting to think about, street to street fighting around the Kremlin! Would that have ended the war if Germany has taken Moscow, I doubt it. In War in the East 1 as the Russians, I lost both Leningrad and Moscow, and came back with a massive 9 million man Soviet Army sitting out side of Berlin in June 1945. Soviets won, just it took longer.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Zemke

That's a bad premise for testing a game point-blank, and if that was the direction that testing and balance went, there would be howls of protest from all corners.

The other aspect is that it isn't how the game works. There's an element of randomness in the game that will prevent any recreation of the historical outcome with any fidelity. The game departs from history on June 1941, and after that point it only diverges further as the game progresses.

The appropriate way to look at the game is with a view that is sufficiently high level to avoid misinterpretation. Tracking specific hexes is a sure way to misinterpret the state of the game.

Looking at the high level strategic picture is best. What we see there largely mirrors history, in that the Axis make substantial gains in 1941, before slowly running out of steam as the Red Army rebuilds itself into the winter and a 1942 where there is a fine balance between the two sides.

That, to me, feels in the historical space even if a specific hex isn't reached by a specific date.

What premise do you test a historically based war game on if not history?

You test it for head-to-head playability.

Note the choice of words here. Playability. Not balance, not history. You want the game to be playable with two human players. It doesn't need to be balanced, or absolutely historically accurate.

To repeat, a slavish recreation of history does not make a good game. Aurelian's post above makes the point I would make here.

So I pose the question, what exactly am I not getting here?

That your definition of what is "historical" is far too narrow. The butterfly effect of player decisions + the random factors in the game means that you'll never see what you are defining as a historical result.

ORIGINAL: Zemke

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I think one thing that is often ignored is that is that in November 1941 the Soviets had amassed several reserve Army’s near Moscow. If I recall correctly, they released one or two of them to hold onto Tula, but they held back to the others. I know few players that would let the axis drive next to Moscow when they had reserve armies sitting nearby unused. How do you factor that into your thinking? It’s for this reason that we purposely create an event to release reserves in late November, but I don’t think we hold back everything. In testing we never told players to purposely play historically. So now I can’t say that we’ve tested that, however the eye place fairly historically and we have test of that. Yes we’d like to think that everything being equal the game would play out historically. That’s our goal, but I can’t for sure that we’ve met it. I don’t think we’re that far off though. We keep finding things to fix and improve and hopefully the game will just keep getting better. In the meantime we think the game is fun to play, but of course we’re biased..

I have no doubt that you are trying your best with what you have and it takes time to implement any changes and test those changes for something this complex, and I appreciate that and I appreciate the amount of work done to date by you and others building/creating and testing the game. I love the game, it is the best there is out there hands down.

And thanks for answering my bottom-line question about testing. I do think a test game posted on the forms turn for turn from each player mirroring the German advance engaging Soviet units as happened historically would be very beneficial as a benchmark. Granted this realistically could only be done on one axis of advance, maybe one Army Group.

How Would it be Executed:
Each player would attack and defend with the exact units, and see how the results play out. The German plyer would also attempt to move along the same routes, the Soviet player would defend and attack where they did historically. There would not be a winner or loser, just to measure advance rates, battle out-comes and so on. During each starting turn each player would try to post each unit where it was on that date. Lots of notes taken and those posted with screen shots. This would take some research for each player, but would be fascinating to watch.

I think you'd be better watching a day-by-day slideshow of frontline changes.

I think what you are looking for here is not actually a game, but a full fidelity recreation of the Eastern Front. That isn't what this game is, nor will the majority of people who play competitive conform to this.

It's like those who play WITP:AE and complain when the IJN doesn't decide to get tunnel vision on a Central Pacific island called Midway and the US carrier force can't win a clear victory...

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Can the Bobo game outcome be accomplished TODAY. Can two players of similar familiarity with the game mechanics replicate what Bobo did? However even the Bobo game does not meet the historical standard of Germans are adjacent to Moscow on Dec 6 1941 and Leningrad has been isolated. The point, is War in the East 2 is trying to replicate history or is it not? A Test game should be able to match historical outcomes. War in the East is down to the Division and Regimental level, and should be able to come close. The hope is the coming changes to Ast HQs will fix this, but the problem IMO is not just the Ast HQ, but also linked to the logistical model and fatigue build up / shedding rates, National morale, in other words a series of things are out of alinement, IF the goal was to make the game match history.

...

I'm sorry but you really are writing utter tosh

Robert took Leningrad, why is his progress to Tikhvin of any relevance, AGN was trying to cut the Soviet connexctions to Leningrad.

Like so many you don't want a scripted game but then miraculously the test of the game becomes making all the mistakes that AGC made in the late autumn/early winter?

now, seriously, what do you think the testing process involved with weekly (sometimes twice a week) exe releases?

My view was that in testing I saw little to worry me at a grand level. I played Robert and 1941 came down to a violent tussle around Tula and Rostov. I played another game (as the axis) and by the time we hit a game breaking exe I was running around in the Caucasus in the summer of 1942 but stalled around Novgorod with AGN (so I'd argue not much to worry over?)

As mind messing says. neither side is going to play historically. It was tested HtH but few of those went that deep (for obv reasons - but the last one I saw had had 1942 pretty historical), vs AI and Ai-AI.

Now I think 1941 is out of kilter now. I suspect that post-release Soviet players are making more use of Assault Fronts, equally from reading various post a lot of Axis players are still trying to play WiTE1.

Yes, and worth repeating the playtest focus on playability and the balance therein.

[Zemke]

I think further debate is pointless as there seems to be either a misunderstanding of my intent or blatant disregard. Joe answered my main question about player testing.

I would ask Joe to think about the VP/Objective model and if that game machinic is serving the original purpose, forcing the Soviets to fight, and the Germans to advance. The latter is working, the former not so much.

[GibsonPete]

I also want to thank Joel for his answers on playtesting and his insight on the outcome of those games. A lot of folks will disagree but I think the game is pretty close to getting it right. Are there issues that need to be tweaked, yep. Are people working on them, yep. Do they need time to do this, yep. At the same time I think Zemke has made some points that need to be discussed without passion getting in the way. My impression is he wishes to make the game better for all players.

[malyhin1517]

ORIGINAL: Zemke
You and Aurelian seem to be are missing the point. I am asking IF the game was tested using historical as you say decision making, yes, and if so, did the results mirror history. Ideally the results should be the same. If not, then there is a problem. I am not saying players have to make those decisions, that is another thing entirely.

It is best to carry out such testing on the Road to Leningrad. Because it will be almost impossible to test a full campaign in this way.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Zemke

That's a bad premise for testing a game point-blank, and if that was the direction that testing and balance went, there would be howls of protest from all corners.

The other aspect is that it isn't how the game works. There's an element of randomness in the game that will prevent any recreation of the historical outcome with any fidelity. The game departs from history on June 1941, and after that point it only diverges further as the game progresses.

The appropriate way to look at the game is with a view that is sufficiently high level to avoid misinterpretation. Tracking specific hexes is a sure way to misinterpret the state of the game.

Looking at the high level strategic picture is best. What we see there largely mirrors history, in that the Axis make substantial gains in 1941, before slowly running out of steam as the Red Army rebuilds itself into the winter and a 1942 where there is a fine balance between the two sides.

That, to me, feels in the historical space even if a specific hex isn't reached by a specific date.

What premise do you test a historically based war game on if not history?

You test it for head-to-head playability.

Note the choice of words here. Playability. Not balance, not history. You want the game to be playable with two human players. It doesn't need to be balanced, or absolutely historically accurate.

To repeat, a slavish recreation of history does not make a good game. Aurelian's post above makes the point I would make here.

So I pose the question, what exactly am I not getting here?

That your definition of what is "historical" is far too narrow. The butterfly effect of player decisions + the random factors in the game means that you'll never see what you are defining as a historical result.

ORIGINAL: Zemke

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I think one thing that is often ignored is that is that in November 1941 the Soviets had amassed several reserve Army’s near Moscow. If I recall correctly, they released one or two of them to hold onto Tula, but they held back to the others. I know few players that would let the axis drive next to Moscow when they had reserve armies sitting nearby unused. How do you factor that into your thinking? It’s for this reason that we purposely create an event to release reserves in late November, but I don’t think we hold back everything. In testing we never told players to purposely play historically. So now I can’t say that we’ve tested that, however the eye place fairly historically and we have test of that. Yes we’d like to think that everything being equal the game would play out historically. That’s our goal, but I can’t for sure that we’ve met it. I don’t think we’re that far off though. We keep finding things to fix and improve and hopefully the game will just keep getting better. In the meantime we think the game is fun to play, but of course we’re biased..

I have no doubt that you are trying your best with what you have and it takes time to implement any changes and test those changes for something this complex, and I appreciate that and I appreciate the amount of work done to date by you and others building/creating and testing the game. I love the game, it is the best there is out there hands down.

And thanks for answering my bottom-line question about testing. I do think a test game posted on the forms turn for turn from each player mirroring the German advance engaging Soviet units as happened historically would be very beneficial as a benchmark. Granted this realistically could only be done on one axis of advance, maybe one Army Group.

How Would it be Executed:
Each player would attack and defend with the exact units, and see how the results play out. The German plyer would also attempt to move along the same routes, the Soviet player would defend and attack where they did historically. There would not be a winner or loser, just to measure advance rates, battle out-comes and so on. During each starting turn each player would try to post each unit where it was on that date. Lots of notes taken and those posted with screen shots. This would take some research for each player, but would be fascinating to watch.

I think you'd be better watching a day-by-day slideshow of frontline changes.

I think what you are looking for here is not actually a game, but a full fidelity recreation of the Eastern Front. That isn't what this game is, nor will the majority of people who play competitive conform to this.

It's like those who play WITP:AE and complain when the IJN doesn't decide to get tunnel vision on a Central Pacific island called Midway and the US carrier force can't win a clear victory...

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Zemke

Can the Bobo game outcome be accomplished TODAY. Can two players of similar familiarity with the game mechanics replicate what Bobo did? However even the Bobo game does not meet the historical standard of Germans are adjacent to Moscow on Dec 6 1941 and Leningrad has been isolated. The point, is War in the East 2 is trying to replicate history or is it not? A Test game should be able to match historical outcomes. War in the East is down to the Division and Regimental level, and should be able to come close. The hope is the coming changes to Ast HQs will fix this, but the problem IMO is not just the Ast HQ, but also linked to the logistical model and fatigue build up / shedding rates, National morale, in other words a series of things are out of alinement, IF the goal was to make the game match history.

...

I'm sorry but you really are writing utter tosh

Robert took Leningrad, why is his progress to Tikhvin of any relevance, AGN was trying to cut the Soviet connexctions to Leningrad.

Like so many you don't want a scripted game but then miraculously the test of the game becomes making all the mistakes that AGC made in the late autumn/early winter?

now, seriously, what do you think the testing process involved with weekly (sometimes twice a week) exe releases?

My view was that in testing I saw little to worry me at a grand level. I played Robert and 1941 came down to a violent tussle around Tula and Rostov. I played another game (as the axis) and by the time we hit a game breaking exe I was running around in the Caucasus in the summer of 1942 but stalled around Novgorod with AGN (so I'd argue not much to worry over?)

As mind messing says. neither side is going to play historically. It was tested HtH but few of those went that deep (for obv reasons - but the last one I saw had had 1942 pretty historical), vs AI and Ai-AI.

Now I think 1941 is out of kilter now. I suspect that post-release Soviet players are making more use of Assault Fronts, equally from reading various post a lot of Axis players are still trying to play WiTE1.

Yes, and worth repeating the playtest focus on playability and the balance therein.

This. And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu3p7dxrhl8&t=328s Better than a slideshow

[Zemke]

That is a lot of stuff we have already read man! That is like the entire response.

Not sure what you are saying by repeating all that.

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517

ORIGINAL: Zemke
You and Aurelian seem to be are missing the point. I am asking IF the game was tested using historical as you say decision making, yes, and if so, did the results mirror history. Ideally the results should be the same. If not, then there is a problem. I am not saying players have to make those decisions, that is another thing entirely.

It is best to carry out such testing on the Road to Leningrad. Because it will be almost impossible to test a full campaign in this way.

Yes that would be about right.

[Zemke]

Have not been very active in the last six months, but was wondering if the game has gotten closer to historical outcomes?

By now most have all played through several games. My question remains the same, "how many German players have been able to reach the outskirts of Moscow, surround Leningrad, and reach Rostov in the 1941 campaign season?" Are we still looking for the Unicorn?