I still say balance

[MarkShot]

Balance is the key to:

* Enjoyment

* Immersion

* Replay value

Yes, hindsight may be skewing the game. This is why balance solutions are important. We cannot eliminate hindsight. And even if we could, I have played a few scenario 10-20 times. THAT IS HINDSIGHT. But why was it worth it? Balance and well conceived systems.

Even Ike, Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and MacArthur would probably fought a very different war if they had a chance to give it a few more tries.

I think balance can be crafted into the structure of the game despite foreknowledge without a total loss of history. Also, I am in favor of the GG philosophy. Which is many systems can be extremely micro-managed, but you can leave it to the AI. This is critical to increasing market share. The buyer knows there are many things which they can put on auto-pilot. The player with years of experience knows it can all be turned off, and they can do AD, rebasings, loadouts, TBs ... this is best chance to bring in new players.

Further, for veteran players, it allows the ability to shut off the parts you don't like. Finally, permitting hybrid auto-pilot is a very clever training wheels approach as peoples skill grow.

In summation, we should embrace hindsight of history and hindsight of play experience and be discussing how to achieve balance and replay.

[GibsonPete]

So what are your suggestions on creating balance and replay. I think the game is pretty good and is getting better with every patch. I for one am looking forward to an editor manual. Also on my list is a better AI air assist that does do not destroy my air fleet in a dozen turns. Until then I will stick to manual ADs. The Development team has responded to a number of issues and are working on others. What do you think they are not accomplishing that they should be doing?

[MarkShot]

That was more directed at the community. 2by3/Matrix is engaged in making a commercial edutainment product.

They are not producing a multi-volume reference on WWII. It is important we care about history. But we must be realistic in that the need for an ROI and recreating history is far different than for those living it. At the time, Stalin didn't trust the WA to not cut a deal, and Hitler was certainly committed to that. And despite that Stalin was mass murderer, can you blame him? The WA had after all cut numerous deals.

And WA was scared of the USSR cutting a deal. And they had valid reasons such as: the pact, and WWI. And that they remained at peace with Japan who had defeated twice in recent memory at sea and on land.

So, we comfortably sit in 2021 and our perspectives skewed, but we cannot know the "unknown" and how it affected all decision making in the 1940s.

I trust that 2by3 will get all working to my satisfaction, but given time. As I said elsewhere, I want to thank the posters here. I am too new to the series and too ignorant to really provide assistance.

[GibsonPete]

Markshot I understand and agree. I have also found the History taught to the general public is nonsense and fits the narrative of those in charge. The why is often ignored and the facts manipulated to fit the norms of today. I hope the community answers your request. I have found the community helpful in uncovering issues and providing tips on how to achieve some sort of victory. The ROI balance of what happened verses playability may be a path that branches. Which path the game takes is to be seen.

[heliodorus04]

Clearly your original hypothesis is mistaken. "Balance" is not key to any of those things. Plenty of people like this game as is - you can read their posts here ubiquitously. Plenty of players - I used to refer to them as Sovio-philes, are happy to punish the Axis side (or player, if there is a human one) into bewilderment using this engine of over-modeled data. There is an entire category of wargamer who simply fantasizes about putting the Nazi regime to an early end in game as though it ameliorates the actual horrors perpetrated by the combatants. I'm relatively sure that at least one designer is among them. They'd be happy with a game that enabled they-as-Stalin to reconquer Poland in 1941 or even to reach Berlin.

You paid your money and took your chances. Now you are at the whim of the designers to do what they like when they like if they like. But it was only about $100 US for the gamble, so it's not like they've committed a crime in any real sense.

The designers have continually refined a game that allows the Soviet side asymmetric advantage. There is simply no way that even the AI doesn't out-gain the Axis from efficiency advantages hard-wired into the engine. A human player can do it even faster and more dramatically than the AI Soviet. This is the same as in WitE1; this leopard did not change its spots.

May I recommend Matrix Games own "War Plan" as a more enjoyable simulation? It's a full strategic recreation down to division level, same as this game in that sense, without all the unnecessary "realism..."

[Yogol]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The designers have continually refined a game that allows the Soviet side asymmetric advantage.

I fully agree with this part of your statement. Unless you turn the difficulty setting real low, this game is too one-sided.

The fact that a very, very small group of very, very vocal players say otherwise doesn't change that.

A pity that the DEVs listen mainly to them, but it's like that in many games with a small player base, I'm afraid.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: Yogol

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The designers have continually refined a game that allows the Soviet side asymmetric advantage.

I fully agree with this part of your statement. Unless you turn the difficulty setting real low, this game is too one-sided.

The fact that a very, very small group of very, very vocal players say otherwise doesn't change that.

A pity that the DEVs listen mainly to them, but it's like that in many games with a small player base, I'm afraid.

If you think the DEV's listen mainly to these people(or person) that you reference in your quote then you are seriously mistaken. I personally have seen you need overwhelming evidence of something for the DEVS before a change is made. So implying the few have sway over the DEVS is the farthest from the truth as you can get.

There is only ONE person that has said the Germans are powerful and that is me. I have yet to see anyone else say that. Everyone else has said the same thing that is being propagated in this thread. I have seen Tyronec writing the Soviets are all powerful in BETA if not defeated in 41(paraphrasing here), I have seen Loki write it on this Forum that the Soviets should not lose(paraphrasing here), I even fell into the trap of believing it for awhile. So your writing of "very very small group should be changed to "ONE person"" that is me. I know the Germans are powerful and stand by my writings. I have the key and I know the lock others will have to find it. Or of course the DEVS can make it easier to cater to the masses that is really what is being asked for here.

[MarkShot]

Even historians don't agree on many aspects of WWII military history, draw different conclusion from primary sources, don't believe primary sources ... psychological, sampling, blaming/scape goating, and propaganda skew the primary sources.

The best a designer can do is try to make the game as open/moddable as possible to allow customers to reflect their own analysis.

Also, personally, I think doing clinical trials in a willing world is hard ... imagine trying to do one in the middle of a battlefield?

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Even historians don't agree on many aspects of WWII military history, draw different conclusion from primary sources, don't believe primary sources ... psychological, sampling, blaming/scape goating, and propaganda skew the primary sources.

The best a designer can do is try to make the game as open/moddable as possible to allow customers to reflect their own analysis.

Also, personally, I think doing clinical trials in a willing world is hard ... imagine trying to do one in the middle of a battlefield?

@ Para 1 = Truth is a 3 edge sword... Your side, my side, and the truth

@ Para 2 = Is not the game open/modable already? I believe that is a "yes".

@ Para 3 = huh? what? you forgot time travel.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Even historians don't agree on many aspects of WWII military history, draw different conclusion from primary sources, don't believe primary sources ... psychological, sampling, blaming/scape goating, and propaganda skew the primary sources.

The best a designer can do is try to make the game as open/moddable as possible to allow customers to reflect their own analysis.

Also, personally, I think doing clinical trials in a willing world is hard ... imagine trying to do one in the middle of a battlefield?

@ Para 1 = Truth is a 3 edge sword... Your side, my side, and the truth

@ Para 2 = Is not the game open/modable already? I believe that is a "yes".

@ Para 3 = huh? what? you forgot time travel.

Or we can have;


Fn = Fn-1 + Fn-2

[AlbertN]

Well - I do agree the game is definitely pro-Soviets in design and that balance makes the game more interesting for what concerns longevity.

[Rosencrantus]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Yogol

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The designers have continually refined a game that allows the Soviet side asymmetric advantage.

I fully agree with this part of your statement. Unless you turn the difficulty setting real low, this game is too one-sided.

The fact that a very, very small group of very, very vocal players say otherwise doesn't change that.

A pity that the DEVs listen mainly to them, but it's like that in many games with a small player base, I'm afraid.

If you think the DEV's listen mainly to these people(or person) that you reference in your quote then you are seriously mistaken. I personally have seen you need overwhelming evidence of something for the DEVS before a change is made. So implying the few have sway over the DEVS is the farthest from the truth as you can get.

There is only ONE person that has said the Germans are powerful and that is me. I have yet to see anyone else say that. Everyone else has said the same thing that is being propagated in this thread. I have seen Tyronec writing the Soviets are all powerful in BETA if not defeated in 41(paraphrasing here), I have seen Loki write it on this Forum that the Soviets should not lose(paraphrasing here), I even fell into the trap of believing it for awhile. So your writing of "very very small group should be changed to "ONE person"" that is me. I know the Germans are powerful and stand by my writings. I have the key and I know the lock others will have to find it. Or of course the DEVS can make it easier to cater to the masses that is really what is being asked for here.

+1, I've also said before that Germany is actually strong, and agree even more especially after the current latest public beta. The only thing that is pro Soviet about the game is the fact that Soviet players get to use historical hindsight much more effectively than the Germans do and there is nothing anyone can do about that. I don't see any inherent bias in the design of the game and that is coming from a person who only really plays Axis.

[cristianwj]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Clearly your original hypothesis is mistaken. "Balance" is not key to any of those things. Plenty of people like this game as is - you can read their posts here ubiquitously. Plenty of players - I used to refer to them as Sovio-philes, are happy to punish the Axis side (or player, if there is a human one) into bewilderment using this engine of over-modeled data. There is an entire category of wargamer who simply fantasizes about putting the Nazi regime to an early end in game as though it ameliorates the actual horrors perpetrated by the combatants. I'm relatively sure that at least one designer is among them. They'd be happy with a game that enabled they-as-Stalin to reconquer Poland in 1941 or even to reach Berlin.

You paid your money and took your chances. Now you are at the whim of the designers to do what they like when they like if they like. But it was only about $100 US for the gamble, so it's not like they've committed a crime in any real sense.

The designers have continually refined a game that allows the Soviet side asymmetric advantage. There is simply no way that even the AI doesn't out-gain the Axis from efficiency advantages hard-wired into the engine. A human player can do it even faster and more dramatically than the AI Soviet. This is the same as in WitE1; this leopard did not change its spots.

May I recommend Matrix Games own "War Plan" as a more enjoyable simulation? It's a full strategic recreation down to division level, same as this game in that sense, without all the unnecessary "realism..."

I agree with your point of view.
As a Chinese player, I would like to play with allied side in WW2, and seldom think about play as Imperial Japan in Warplan Pacific or WITP. It's an echo to reflect people's attitude in reality.
In another words, Asian players might not refused to play with Nazi Germany in games, but we clearly know what kind war crime they did. Distance may played some role in side selection.
Back to the topic, I think balance is important for games which players compete each other like football match, but in this case the main focus is to reflect historical elements and accurate in details and real performance. War never be equal for both sides. Just like Iraq in Gulf war.

[MarkShot]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Even historians don't agree on many aspects of WWII military history, draw different conclusion from primary sources, don't believe primary sources ... psychological, sampling, blaming/scape goating, and propaganda skew the primary sources.

The best a designer can do is try to make the game as open/moddable as possible to allow customers to reflect their own analysis.

Also, personally, I think doing clinical trials in a willing world is hard ... imagine trying to do one in the middle of a battlefield?

@ Para 1 = Truth is a 3 edge sword... Your side, my side, and the truth

@ Para 2 = Is not the game open/modable already? I believe that is a "yes".

@ Para 3 = huh? what? you forgot time travel.

I don't think with something as vast and complex as the The East, there is an objective reality caught by surveillance cameras. You will never be able to show that the game's modeled entities and behavior fits objective reality. Even if it were a simulation and not a game.

My point was data collection is hard with collaborative and willing participants. It gets even harder when your subjects are not there to assist your research, but kill one another.

It seems the scenario editor is probably your answer. Adjust values until your perceived pro-Soviet bias is squeezed out of the contest. Hopefully, the stock scenarios are easy to edit, and you can achieve this without perturbing the game engine to implement its intended unbalanced behavior available in the game options for difficulty.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

...There is an entire category of wargamer who simply fantasizes about putting the Nazi regime to an early end in game as though it ameliorates the actual horrors perpetrated by the combatants. I'm relatively sure that at least one designer is among them. ....

I do so enjoy reading well developed conspiracy theories, but they are better when names are named surely?

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Yogol

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The designers have continually refined a game that allows the Soviet side asymmetric advantage.

I fully agree with this part of your statement. Unless you turn the difficulty setting real low, this game is too one-sided.

....

...I have seen Loki write it on this Forum that the Soviets should not lose(paraphrasing here), ...

...

which is not so much a paraphrase - more being deliberately misleading?

What I wrote, and stand by, is I don't believe that Nazi Germany could have won the real war vs the USSR. Not going to rehearse why here.

What I equally wrote was that it was important there was a feasible route to an Axis victory 'in the game' - which I now think there clearly is.

and yes I agree with the other comments that the Soviet player tends to gain more from hindsight, which is an endemic problem across a whole category of games.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Even historians don't agree on many aspects of WWII military history, draw different conclusion from primary sources, don't believe primary sources ... psychological, sampling, blaming/scape goating, and propaganda skew the primary sources.

The best a designer can do is try to make the game as open/moddable as possible to allow customers to reflect their own analysis.

Also, personally, I think doing clinical trials in a willing world is hard ... imagine trying to do one in the middle of a battlefield?

@ Para 1 = Truth is a 3 edge sword... Your side, my side, and the truth

@ Para 2 = Is not the game open/modable already? I believe that is a "yes".

@ Para 3 = huh? what? you forgot time travel.

I don't think with something as vast and complex as the The East, there is an objective reality caught by surveillance cameras. You will never be able to show that the game's modeled entities and behavior fits objective reality. Even if it were a simulation and not a game.

My point was data collection is hard with collaborative and willing participants. It gets even harder when your subjects are not there to assist your research, but kill one another.

It seems the scenario editor is probably your answer. Adjust values until your perceived pro-Soviet bias is squeezed out of the contest. Hopefully, the stock scenarios are easy to edit, and you can achieve this without perturbing the game engine to implement its intended unbalanced behavior available in the game options for difficulty.

there is a research methodology that is useful for one-off unrepeatable situations. Was originally developed in the field where political science intersects with modern history and is useful for building interpretations and theory off the sort of situation covered by WiTE2.

If anyone is interested, go off and read about process tracing and its more structured off-springs.

[MarkShot]

Roger,

Do you have any good links, I think I would like to know more? Thanks.

I've done all types of history courses, and documentaries. I would think for WWII, there is no shortage of documents compared to ancient times when few were literate and much of our knowledge are based on a few elite writers.

Thanks.

[jubjub]

The designers have continually refined a game that allows the Soviet side asymmetric advantage. There is simply no way that even the AI doesn't out-gain the Axis from efficiency advantages hard-wired into the engine. A human player can do it even faster and more dramatically than the AI Soviet. This is the same as in WitE1; this leopard did not change its spots.

I fully agree with this part of your statement. Unless you turn the difficulty setting real low, this game is too one-sided.

I'm curious to why there is the perceived imbalance. What is happening in your games, and which side are you playing?

[jubjub]

May I recommend Matrix Games own "War Plan" as a more enjoyable simulation? It's a full strategic recreation down to division level, same as this game in that sense, without all the unnecessary "realism..."

Seems like a fine game from some videos I watched, but I feel like it would feel like going from Brass: Birmingham back to Catan...

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

...There is an entire category of wargamer who simply fantasizes about putting the Nazi regime to an early end in game as though it ameliorates the actual horrors perpetrated by the combatants. I'm relatively sure that at least one designer is among them. ....

I do so enjoy reading well developed conspiracy theories, but they are better when names are named surely?

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Yogol



I fully agree with this part of your statement. Unless you turn the difficulty setting real low, this game is too one-sided.

....

...I have seen Loki write it on this Forum that the Soviets should not lose(paraphrasing here), ...

...

which is not so much a paraphrase - more being deliberately misleading?

What I wrote, and stand by, is I don't believe that Nazi Germany could have won the real war vs the USSR. Not going to rehearse why here.

What I equally wrote was that it was important there was a feasible route to an Axis victory 'in the game' - which I now think there clearly is.

and yes I agree with the other comments that the Soviet player tends to gain more from hindsight, which is an endemic problem across a whole category of games.

Germany lost the real war.

Misleading? I don't think so after reading your rebuttal.

You said, "A feasible route to an Axis Victory 'in the game'" Is that not the same as not wining? Which is losing? A NON Victory is not equal to Victory. Thank you Loki for making it clear I was not misleading.