A complete overhaul and re-development of Gary Grigsby's War in the East, with a focus on improvements to historical accuracy, realism, user interface and AI.
From the initial post I has my suspicions this was a troll post and this one pretty much sums it up for me. This guy doesn't want help, he's just here to troll the game. Goodbye!
Sorry. You've failed to read into the spirit of my post. Not a Troll post. If I am going to drop $100 on a game that I will want to play against another human being, eventually, I don't want to be beaten simply because the other guy can trick his way through any situation.
I hate gimmicky play. And reading some of the AAR's and other posts,I see that many people are able to use gimmicks to prevent the opponent from advancing.
And furthermore, seeing that supply and reinforcements/replacements aren't making it to the front, I have to ask questions.
There are a lot of gimmicks, to be sure, but you can houserule many of them away.
Supply and replacements work fine. The Soviets have it arguably too generous, and refitting panzers can be troublesome sometimes, but they're not insurmountable issues. The debate regarding reinforcements that xhoel brought up is a different kettle of fish but that's not relevant for Germany until their manpower depletes.
And these games have a very long dev cycle with fairly active development for a good few years, so it's not like things are static.
I think a lot of folks are still trying to play WITE2 like WITE1 and looking for the same results. This is understandable initially, but to play WITE2 well and get the most out of your army, whether playing as the Axis or the Soviets, you need to learn the new systems and there are quite a few. Most importantly, the CPP/Delay system for ground combat, the improved Air system and the improved Logistics system. If you expect to do well by just pushing counters forward and using 1941 Panzer Divisions as tools to grind down enemy units, you're not going to do as well as a player who learns how to do a historical blitzkrieg within the game system.
For example, Panzer Divisions in 1941 still have plenty of teeth and they can absolutely wreck Soviet divisions, but they are also easier to misuse and break than in WITE1. If you look at the various AARs, you'll see a pretty huge difference in what the most experiences Axis players can achieve vs. those that are not. They give the Axis a huge early advantage in maneuver, encirclement and breakthrough, but they are not invincible and will lose strength and capability if you treat them as a blunt instrument.
The new victory system with the campaign that includes the sudden death victory checks does a good job of addressing retreat strategies overall, though some players asked for an alternate campaign without those sudden death check and prefer to play that way. However, playing without those checks will also encourage more retreat strategies. That's considered an alternate/optional campaign.
Finally, I'd ask the original poster to come in with an open mind rather than a negative assumption.
I think a lot of folks are still trying to play WITE2 like WITE1 and looking for the same results. This is understandable initially, but to play WITE2 well and get the most out of your army, whether playing as the Axis or the Soviets, you need to learn the new systems and there are quite a few. Most importantly, the CPP/Delay system for ground combat, the improved Air system and the improved Logistics system. If you expect to do well by just pushing counters forward and using 1941 Panzer Divisions as tools to grind down enemy units, you're not going to do as well as a player who learns how to do a historical blitzkrieg within the game system.
For example, Panzer Divisions in 1941 still have plenty of teeth and they can absolutely wreck Soviet divisions, but they are also easier to misuse and break than in WITE1. If you look at the various AARs, you'll see a pretty huge difference in what the most experiences Axis players can achieve vs. those that are not. They give the Axis a huge early advantage in maneuver, encirclement and breakthrough, but they are not invincible and will lose strength and capability if you treat them as a blunt instrument.
The new victory system with the campaign that includes the sudden death victory checks does a good job of addressing retreat strategies overall, though some players asked for an alternate campaign without those sudden death check and prefer to play that way. However, playing without those checks will also encourage more retreat strategies. That's considered an alternate/optional campaign.
Finally, I'd ask the original poster to come in with an open mind rather than a negative assumption.
Regards,
- Erik
There are some interesting things that you write here, Erik. I will try to look into it further. But I still am not sure if it's for me, as I was expecting something more like the original.
There are a lot of gimmicks, to be sure, but you can houserule many of them away.
Supply and replacements work fine. The Soviets have it arguably too generous, and refitting panzers can be troublesome sometimes, but they're not insurmountable issues. The debate regarding reinforcements that xhoel brought up is a different kettle of fish but that's not relevant for Germany until their manpower depletes.
And these games have a very long dev cycle with fairly active development for a good few years, so it's not like things are static.
Thanks for the thoughts. I've had a lot of prospective opponents for other games shy away because of house rules. Some people just don't like them.
I have played both Wite and Wite 2 extensively including play testing it during development and playing numerous games since and can say conclusively that Wite 2 is infinitely superior to Wite 1 reflecting the mammoth amount of game development and historical research that has gone into it.
As a war game and a historical simulation it is a marvel.
I have had already hundreds of hours great enjoyment playing and learning this game since the release. I think learning the game makes for me as much fun as playing it. The game is incredible deep and there is still a lot to discover and learn for me. I am sure that I will have hundreds of hours great joy before me playing WitE2. If I look at the price in money per hour this is maybe the cheapest game I have ever bought.
Sometimes I am just looking and optimizing one little thing in my ongoing campaign for hours with great passion, curiosity and joy for hours without doing actual much. Never had this before in a game.
But I still am not sure if it's for me, as I was expecting something more like the original.
It is far better than the original, hands down.
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2 SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator Tester for WDS games
Having played Computer, Board and Tabletop war Games for some 50 years now I didn't think you could get a better game than some of the later SSG Battlefront Titles or John Tillers later Campaign Series titles or WiTE1, but WiTE2 beats them all in my book.
Yes it has faults, but the game is continually being developed from the feedback received.
v the AI you will find a very challenging game as the Axis Player, more so than in H2H mode, as the Russian Player is armed with all the historical information on where the Axis need to strike to enable the collection of points and can mount a very stern defence at those locations.
Finally (from many hours now on WiTE2) I will repeat what has been said many times on this forum, that you need to forget what you learnt in WiTE1 and start afresh and understand the new system.
There are some interesting things that you write here, Erik. I will try to look into it further. But I still am not sure if it's for me, as I was expecting something more like the original.
I played WITE1 for a very long time and I really enjoyed playing it. I am also not always happy with the changes in the second part of the game. But I stopped playing the original game completely! The second game after training is much more interesting than the first. But you need to change your game strategy and most importantly learn how to manually manage your aircraft, supplies and theaters. Only in this case you will get the maximum pleasure and result from the game!
I think the game is good and can get better in terms of balance, and quality of life.
There are things I'd like - but that won't be here if not via DLC (like Production Control and things that may turn it into a grander strategy game).
It can improve in quality of life stuff (ie. Depot Switches / Cycles; or more Commander Report functions like -move to OKH/Stavka- a mass of SU from HQs and divisions) etc.
For instance it is a chore to filter all the SUs that are under 30% TOE (for example) ... and then the only option is to transfer them to the reserve. Why not a mass move them to -This Target HQ-. It would cut a lot of time and effort, pretty much mindless, repeated clicking. That may murder the 'fun component' of a player.
It can improve in balance (and that's where many forum discussion get on!).
Some mechanics can be reviewed? Maybe in the eyes of some.
But I do not know a single strategy game that once it came out for retail sale, it was flawless. Each game took years to get refined via patches - and very often many games had continued 'balance mods' made by PvP Players (that due to their competitive nature of gaming have a better grip on the game vs people that play exclusively against the AI).
Thus - I believe anyone buying the game should do so with the idea of a product that reaches maturity in time.
In some areas it is very good, notably that it makes the Eastern front over several years actualy a playable experience in a level of detail that's probably as good as it gets. It's Logistics design is topnotch and the C&C model as well as the level of integration of the airwar is very good.
In certain areas it's quite bad. It's unit size/hex size relation does not mesh well with it's stacking rules, excaberated by having corps sized counters and compounded by having no density factor in combat resolution or movement cost. It also lacks time synchronisation. The combat delay feature is a step in the right direction but it's a band aid and probably used too sparingly. This should be the prime factor that's stopping ridiculous penetrations by units in a timewarp (combat delay should arguably be the number of movement points invested in the previous combats if certain CV relation is not reached). It's unfortunate that TOAW's inovations in these areas did not make a bigger impact.
In many cases it seems to overburden itself with unneeded complexity, given the limited developer resources it realistically has.
After watching a few hours of Youtube tutorials, I'm very disappointed to learn that production is completely out of the player's control. I can see limiting certain heavy types... i.e., the Tiger I. But being stuck with PzII chassis in production for a long time seems counter-intuitive to trying to win a war in a grand campaign game.
It seems to me, that interesting and useful things like managing production has been replaced with the tedium of managing logistics.
So much looks good in this game. Yet so many things look bad.
The whole point of playing a big, historical game is to win. And part any winning strategy is to avoid the mistakes made by the people in history.
This is what I also feel. When I saw wite 1 on youtube - Soviet player was afraid of losing armament and heavy industry factories in Ukraine. I was amazed by such a details.
And then I bought wite 2 and...
Nobody pays attention to a resource/armament/heavy industry factories. At all. No mentions in AAR. Why? Because even if you lose it - you will not feel any consequences.
That is why I also say that production is more important than logistics. I hope one day we will have proper production in wite 2.
