Alekmalek quit WITE2 because of WW1 grinding

[Leumas06]

Reading this thread ... I perhaps have a very different take on it than posters. Why? Because before PC wargaming even existed, I was software engineer.

There are two main approaches to design:

Top Down = We take the results we want and we design code that will generate said results.

Bottom Up = We model process details which underlie what we are interested in, and tweak hoping that the model will yield something relatively close to reality.

In everyday English, we could use these terms:

Top Down = Wholistic

Bottom Up = Reductionism

In the early days of games, I would dare to say that Top Down design was more common than now. Why? Lack of compute power. So, these days many sims like flight sims and racing are physics based. But in the very early days, look up tables based on real world performance was used to simulate. This gave realistic results in most cases with minimal computation.

I would dare to say that most games these days are designed bottom up. Why? Because much more CPU power is available; it is an easier coding style/project management; and gives better representation of expected outcomes across a broader spectrum of tests. You may further divide bottom up into statistical simulation and agent simulation. This game is primarily statistical simulation both due to BG legacy and performance given the scope of the game. A side by side contrast between these two styles can clearly be seen in: City Skylines I (agent based) and Anno 1800 (statistical based); both city builders.

But the real issue here is Top Down versus Bottom Up. Bottom up will give better results at finer resolution, but yet often fails to provide historic results. Why? Because real humans at the top of the command of chain (decision making) are often breaking the modeled rules. In some cases, human results were down right stupid and other cases, pure genius.

So, what can games do about this problem of bottom up development not leading to historic results? Historic results are often forced by scripting at the highest levels or other artificial constructs like VL objectives. The problem with this solution is that it may often lead to very deterministic behavior which gamers will ultimately conclude to be boring and limited replayability. For a game such as WITE2 with such a steep learning curve, limited replayability is a sales killer.

Further, when a game clearly becomes predictable, the min-max-meta players often are themselves the factor that breaks historic fidelity. Partially because they know the history which the game is attempting to simulate, and partially because predictable behavior by the game leads the human being to be inside the game's OODA loop or having a few tempos on the game engine in chess terms.

I don't have a solution to WWI grinding or divergence from actual WWII history. I just want to point out a different perspective on the problem with designing such a game which is not intended to be purely flavor based where anything can happen like HOI4 versus a game like WITE2 which is supposed to be flavor based but yielding historical results without appearing to be running on rails.

As software engineer, I consider something like WITE2 to be a very challenging project; in the top 10 that I have seen in my career.

Well, I hope I have added another perspective on this whole issue. Thanks for reading.

Very clarifying SW development statement. With the time I have been realizing that player, in the path of finding better skills in the games, often breaks the mechanics in order to achieve it. With HOI series I had the same problem for years.

You always find ways to optimize the game that is trying to simulate a very complex historical event, but systems like a country doesn't work in perfect synchronization to achieve a specific goal. And that is what we are doing when we try to optimize any of our actions in the game. So how do you simulate a system with heterogenous actions and make it playable by a one player with homogeneous actions? The only way you can get closer is applying some RNG that give some kind of feeling you are not in control of everything but is not a real simulation. Driving a car, flaying a plane... are restricted environments, simulate a conflict like this... is an other thing.

At the end, when you understand perfectly the dynamics of the game, then you find the exploits and the incongruities of the simulator. But it is even worst, because at the end I find myself arguing about game mechanics in order to find a solution of the faults in a perspective completely disconnected from the original purpose of the game, simulate the war.

At some point I am realizing that you can enjoy more the game when less you understand it. Giving this feeling of unpredictability, uncertainty, errors in my planning and in my enemy, process of learning by try and error... At the end this lack of knowledge leads to execute a lot of non-measured actions, creating more unexpected situation that brings a more interesting experience and closer to reality events. If Hitler or Stalin would have known the meta of the real world we would have had more boring WWII.

[Stamb]

At some point I am realizing that you can enjoy more the game when less you understand it.

exactly my thoughts about wite 2

[M60A3TTS]

To be clear, the point of me starting this thread was NOT at all to argue that this particular game was lost or hopeless for the Soviets. I am not even sure that Alek Malek thought that was the case.

Meaning if there were no battle casualty or loss screens he might still be playing.

[RedJohn]

Reading this thread ... I perhaps have a very different take on it than posters. Why? Because before PC wargaming even existed, I was software engineer.

There are two main approaches to design:

Top Down = We take the results we want and we design code that will generate said results.

Bottom Up = We model process details which underlie what we are interested in, and tweak hoping that the model will yield something relatively close to reality.

In everyday English, we could use these terms:

Top Down = Wholistic

Bottom Up = Reductionism

In the early days of games, I would dare to say that Top Down design was more common than now. Why? Lack of compute power. So, these days many sims like flight sims and racing are physics based. But in the very early days, look up tables based on real world performance was used to simulate. This gave realistic results in most cases with minimal computation.

I would dare to say that most games these days are designed bottom up. Why? Because much more CPU power is available; it is an easier coding style/project management; and gives better representation of expected outcomes across a broader spectrum of tests. You may further divide bottom up into statistical simulation and agent simulation. This game is primarily statistical simulation both due to BG legacy and performance given the scope of the game. A side by side contrast between these two styles can clearly be seen in: City Skylines I (agent based) and Anno 1800 (statistical based); both city builders.

But the real issue here is Top Down versus Bottom Up. Bottom up will give better results at finer resolution, but yet often fails to provide historic results. Why? Because real humans at the top of the command of chain (decision making) are often breaking the modeled rules. In some cases, human results were down right stupid and other cases, pure genius.

So, what can games do about this problem of bottom up development not leading to historic results? Historic results are often forced by scripting at the highest levels or other artificial constructs like VL objectives. The problem with this solution is that it may often lead to very deterministic behavior which gamers will ultimately conclude to be boring and limited replayability. For a game such as WITE2 with such a steep learning curve, limited replayability is a sales killer.

Further, when a game clearly becomes predictable, the min-max-meta players often are themselves the factor that breaks historic fidelity. Partially because they know the history which the game is attempting to simulate, and partially because predictable behavior by the game leads the human being to be inside the game's OODA loop or having a few tempos on the game engine in chess terms.

I don't have a solution to WWI grinding or divergence from actual WWII history. I just want to point out a different perspective on the problem with designing such a game which is not intended to be purely flavor based where anything can happen like HOI4 versus a game like WITE2 which is supposed to be flavor based but yielding historical results without appearing to be running on rails.

As software engineer, I consider something like WITE2 to be a very challenging project; in the top 10 that I have seen in my career.

Well, I hope I have added another perspective on this whole issue. Thanks for reading.

Very clarifying SW development statement. With the time I have been realizing that player, in the path of finding better skills in the games, often breaks the mechanics in order to achieve it. With HOI series I had the same problem for years.

You always find ways to optimize the game that is trying to simulate a very complex historical event, but systems like a country doesn't work in perfect synchronization to achieve a specific goal. And that is what we are doing when we try to optimize any of our actions in the game. So how do you simulate a system with heterogenous actions and make it playable by a one player with homogeneous actions? The only way you can get closer is applying some RNG that give some kind of feeling you are not in control of everything but is not a real simulation. Driving a car, flaying a plane... are restricted environments, simulate a conflict like this... is an other thing.

At the end, when you understand perfectly the dynamics of the game, then you find the exploits and the incongruities of the simulator. But it is even worst, because at the end I find myself arguing about game mechanics in order to find a solution of the faults in a perspective completely disconnected from the original purpose of the game, simulate the war.

At some point I am realizing that you can enjoy more the game when less you understand it. Giving this feeling of unpredictability, uncertainty, errors in my planning and in my enemy, process of learning by try and error... At the end this lack of knowledge leads to execute a lot of non-measured actions, creating more unexpected situation that brings a more interesting experience and closer to reality events. If Hitler or Stalin would have known the meta of the real world we would have had more boring WWII.

I actually strongly agree with this sentiment. The game is far more enjoyable and dynamic when you're blissfully unaware of its myriad issues. I remember distinctly not repairing a rail hex in my first ever game and 13 turns later I realised that the yellow rail on the map meant it wasn't connected, and my units at stalino were drawing supply from God knows where.

Yet I still reached stalino and did fine because my opponent was equally as inexperience!

When both sides know the games mechanics you need to artificially limit yourself with house rules to keep the game fun, but even that has limits like with grinding - how do you mandate someone goes for pockets? It's not fair, feasible or fun.

[Wiedrock]

Tank setup tested in the Editor StB.
Several issues:

1. The white numbers in the Combat reports are not representing Ground elements fighting, but Ground elements present. This gives a wrong idea of assuming "I've had X strength and he rly beat me with Y?"
2. The DAMaged Elements included in those White head row numbers get (for Guns/AFVs) almost all lost after Combat due to Retreat. For Infantry Squads it seems to be way less losses. (See tested Leader, not sure if he has an impact on that.)
3. Retreating more than 1 Hex is just a short section in the Manual without being specified that much. Here an example of a Pz Div. which was beaten, retreated one Hex and then ended up starting the new following battle with just about ~20% of its initial strength.

Ideas:

1. improving UI
2. Give some more chance escaping battles for elements which were DAMaged already before combat (AFVs & GUNs)
   -> add Additional Leader influenced check?
   OR
   Cause some of the DAMaged elements after each combat being directly transferred to the Transit(repair) pools (Admin check!? Check for Vehicle/Need or Fuel percentage?!)
   OR
   Make it depending on final Odds. (if already used, increase its relevance)
3. If your RDY-TOE drops by X% ot to Y% or so, make a Unit always retreat at least 2 Hexes.