Finish Theater Box Termination?

[HansBolter]

I'm not under the garrison requirements in any TB.

I don't have the game open now but IIRC I have about 115% in Norway, 120% in Finland, 220% in Soviet Garrison, 125% in Balkans, 320% in Italy and 235% in Western Europe.

I have a the last Panzer army still in reserve and rebuilding before sending it to Western Europe.

The 18th Army is slowly extracting itself from the SE desert area of the Soviet Union where it trekked to hunt down the last surviving Soviets.

Aside from the 18th, the only remaining units in the Soviet Union are an independent infantry corps and an independent panzer corps.

The Lower Normandy event fired last turn and the Allies finally have a presence in France. Pretty FUBAR that no sign of Allied occupation showed up on the map until an entire sector was occupied. Apparently, no one thought to allocate sector status to the beachhead.

This is simply a post publish play test. Pushing the parameters of an engine is how you find its break points. The complete disconnect between the map and the theater boxes is a severe flaw. Events in the theater boxes have consequences for the on map game, but events in the on map game have no consequences for the theater boxes. This is a serious design flaw.

Once Soviet access by land or sea to the Murmansk peninsula has been cut off, the Theater Box should become an untenable position for the Soviets. The same should apply to the Transcaucasus TB.

I noted that after the Allies conquered North Afrika, the NA TB become a no go zone for the Axis. Once the Soviet Union is conquered, the same should be true for every one of the Soviet TBs. The Germans shouldn't have to keep garrisons in the Finish and Soviet Garrison TBs once there is no longer a Soviet Union. All of those forces should be free to be sent to oppose the Western Aliies.

[RedBunny]

I'm having problems seeing the point of this thread Hans,

Big whoop, you found some issues with the game under an edge case condition (utterly defeating the Soviets). Very few players have the skill level or the inclination to play out a game against an opponent as decisively beaten as you have here against the ai. I suggest bumping up the difficulty levels or playing against an experienced human.

Frankly I'm glad the developers spent little of their very limited resources on edge cases and more on the "happy paths".

[HansBolter]

If you're having trouble seeing the point of this thread then I couldn't be more sorry for you.

Your opinion is noted and of little use here.

Your post is borderline trolling.

Happy path for whom? Soviet players? My outcome is the happiest path possible for a German side player.

[chuckfourth]

Another important point redbunny is that these type of impossible "fantasy" results will occour in a Player to Player game when there is a big difference in the two players abilities, not just in games against the AI.

[HansBolter]

It appears much of what is happening is a result of insufficient playtesting to see the potential consequences of a "no early end" scenario.

If the Soviets defeat the Germans the war is over, no matter if it happens early.

If the Germans defeat the Soviets early, the war isn't over, and neither is the game due to the fact that it is going to continue to the programmed scenario end date, but the Germans don't have an adequate mechanism for continuation.

No one thought to include an "Allies are Driven into the Sea, the Invasion Fails" event if the Germans have a 250% Western Europe garrison. A historical Western Europe and Italy result is forced on the German regardless of any ability to alter history through a larger commitment.

[chuckfourth]

Yes You as the master tester of Theatre boxes have found a very disturbing trend in the game. ALL the "errors" always favour the Russians. I had a good look at WITE 1 and found that in almost every category you wish to name that whenever there was an error such as those you have identified with theatre boxes it always favoured the Russian player. I am hoping the same problem isn't in WITE 2. I think it is down to the "communities" involvement

The same problem probably exists with attrition. Supply was the main method of nerfing the Germans in WITE 1 this has been redone in WITE 2 so I am hoping that it is fair this time round. I haven't had time to check it so far.

[Denniss]

While I, and probably all other game devs, appreciate some extreme test according to the screenshots you show and the info you share this testgame is way beyond what a normal player could achieve.
So all this rambling about "massive errors" is just useless and a waste of time.
If you wanna give valuable feedback always keep an eye on events to ensure they fire properly or look out for misuse/underuse of ground elements/aircraft.
I have run many AI/AI testgames but I rarely have a run without finding something to fix. My last issue to fix/work around is a massive underuse of Nashorn TD from late 44 as many units switch to Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger.

[HansBolter]

While I, and probably all other game devs, appreciate some extreme test according to the screenshots you show and the info you share this testgame is way beyond what a normal player could achieve.
So all this rambling about "massive errors" is just useless and a waste of time.
If you wanna give valuable feedback always keep an eye on events to ensure they fire properly or look out for misuse/underuse of ground elements/aircraft.
I have run many AI/AI testgames but I rarely have a run without finding something to fix. My last issue to fix/work around is a massive underuse of Nashorn TD from late 44 as many units switch to Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger.

So you are so focused on the trees you can't see the forest.
The "massive" underuse of Nashorns is certainly having a dire effect on the game and should be prioritized over making Theater Boxes actually relevant.

And I take exception to your allusion that I am an abnormal player.

My efforts are only made "useless and a waste of time" as a result of falling on your deaf ears.

[zebrazwo]

Would be interesting to see the percentage of games that reach the result that Hans has. If it's 10% then some time should be devoted to modifying the events so they reflect the map situation.

If it's 0.0000000001 % then the devs time is better used elsewhere, quashing bugs and (hopefully) adding things.

[Wiedrock]

The game for Germans should simply be won once the Goal of Barbarossa, the Astrakhan-Archangelsk line has been secured.

[RedBunny]

Hans has won and won decisively and that would satisfy most players who would either bump up the difficulty settings and/or seek out a human opponent for a challenge, but I've come to the conclusion that Hans just wants to be able to further obliterate the Soviet AI.  And he's upset the developers didn't put much effort in the game when it reached the state his has.

[chuckfourth]

Stop trolling Redbunny; Hans is not "upset" he pointing out easily fixed, to me unbelievable oversights to do with the game tendency to follow the historical outcomes too closely.

That is a very good comment Weidrock, Or even once the German has removed all the Russians from the map?

Dennis it doesnt matter if its way beyond or maybe it matters even more, because if a German player does play a brilliant game and reachs somewhere near this strong result like Hans he then automatically begins being plagued by the ridiculous theatre box outcomes, how disappointed is he going to be?

Dennis you said
'So all this rambling about "massive errors" is just useless and a waste of time.'
See Dennis to me it looks like you are part of the problem here same as Zovs, you said massive errors in quotes like someone said it, nobody said that, so that counts as trolling clear as day, so when a games devs are trolls this is what you get, nasty posts that play the man not the ball. This is a clear attempt to avoid the topic at hand by launching a personal attack on a genuine contributor. And yet the Moderators will let it pass, no problem.

Belittling Hans genuine helpful contribution to improving the game by pointing out easily fixed ridiculous errors is despicable in my opinion.

Percentages of Hans result do not matter, the game needs to -make sense- however it turns out currently it does -not- make sense. Fixing it will no doubt pick up a whole slew of other bad assumptions throughout the game. It's like saying my cars brakes only fail when I push on them as hard as I can, I hardly ever do that, so just don't worry about it.

[HansBolter]

The game is becoming tedious and I may not play it out to the end.

My turns consist of 5 minutes of input time from me moving the dozen units left on the map and transferring units between TBs. and twenty minutes of wandering around the house drinking coffee while the AI executes the opponent turn and the Axis logistics.

Not much in the way of interactive enjoyment. I've found myself playing more WitPAE game turns per day than WitE2 game turns. AE is a far better game.

The devs have already clearly signaled thier intent to ignore these results, labeling them as fringe and extreme. Labeling me as an abnormal gamer and a trouble maker allows them to walk away from the problems they created without dealing with them. They would rather focus on fixing small problems like nashorn underutilization than take the drastic step of admitting they screwed up and tackle the job of correcting their errors.

[HansBolter]

Would be interesting to see the percentage of games that reach the result that Hans has. If it's 10% then some time should be devoted to modifying the events so they reflect the map situation.

If it's 0.0000000001 % then the devs time is better used elsewhere, quashing bugs and (hopefully) adding things.

Agreed. However, I can guarantee you that I will get this result in far more than 10% of my games. Which means the game hold little appeal for me if I have to deal with this every time I play.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

The game is becoming tedious and I may not play it out to the end.

My turns consist of 5 minutes of input time from me moving the dozen units left on the map and transferring units between TBs. and twenty minutes of wandering around the house drinking coffee while the AI executes the opponent turn and the Axis logistics.

Not much in the way of interactive enjoyment. I've found myself playing more WitPAE game turns per day than WitE2 game turns. AE is a far better game.

The devs have already clearly signaled thier intent to ignore these results, labeling them as fringe and extreme. Labeling me as an abnormal gamer and a trouble maker allows them to walk away from the problems they created without dealing with them. They would rather focus on fixing small problems like nashorn underutilization than take the drastic step of admitting they screwed up and tackle the job of correcting their errors.

What level do you have the AI set at Hans? Also do you have FOW turned on?

If you have the AI set well below your ability then yes the game will be tedious - akin to playing a racing game where you are in a Ferrari whilst your opponents are driving Ford Focuses.

If you find the game enjoyable aside from this TB issue that is vexing you so much I suggest you start a new campaign with FOW turned on and the AI turned up to 110. You might still win but I guarantee you will not be clearing the map of Soviets as you have here. I suspect that with the training wheels removed you may well lose to the AI on your first attempt.

[HansBolter]

As mentioned previously, since this was my first try at a campaign game, I started with the settings on Easy and no FOW so I could see what was happening. I especially wanted to be able to see what happens during the AI turn.

After the first campaigning season, I reset from Easy to level the playing field with everything set for both sides at 100. I left FOW off, but have been frustrated by so much of what happens during the AI turn being hidden from the player no matter the FOW setting.

I expected to be able to watch the AI move each unit with no FOW. I wanted to be able to confirm that the AI is playing by the same rules as I am. Too many times, game designers have programmed AIs to be able to cheat to make them competitive. With this game, there is no way to confirm the AI is playing by the rules because during the AI turns all units routinely disappear from the map and then suddenly reappear.

If I choose to invest more time in this game I will certainly enable FOW and increase the balance settings for the AI. I doubt seriously that this will enable the AI to beat a gamer with the level of experience I bring to the table.

If I do play another game, I'll update you all on the status so you can see for yourselves that my current outcome can not be explained away as being a result of playing in Easy mode.

[Jango32]

If you want to invest more time in this game then singleplayer is not the answer.

[HansBolter]

Single player is the only answer for me.

I have no interest in being beholden to someone to provide them with a daily turn.
I have no interest in having someone else's happiness being dependent on whether, or not, I feel like playing a turn that day.

I also prefer marathon gaming sessions in order to be able to have continuity of thought from one turn to the next and see real progress in game terms from any given gaming session.

Unless the person I am playing is sitting across the table from me pushing cardboard and is prepared for a 4-6 hour minimum gaming session I'll stick to single player gaming.

Remote competitive play has little interest for me.