3 vs. 36

[Grotius]

The conquer-the-world-in-thirty-minutes concept doesn't appeal to me often, plus the last time it did I played Risk.

Respectfully, WaW has nothing in common with Risk other than graphics. You can't "conquer the world" in WaW against any kind of decent opponent, or (for most ordinary mortals) against the AI. WaW players are rather rigorously constrained by history. The ebb and flow of WaW games usually resembles the ebb and flow of the actual war for me. In fact, that may be more true of WaW than of WITP.

[coralsaw]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Can't believe this, coming from WITP fan.... in which way are WITP combat animation graphics significantly better (or worse) than WAW's combat animations?

They are not (other than because WitP is my baby, I think it looks nicer than anybody else's). [:D]

Seriously now, I like the graphics in WitP better, I find the TF silhouettes much more appealing than toy soldiers ready to march. And the map is absolutely stunning. Granted, combat animation sequences are not that good, and fortunately at least we don't have toy soldiers dancing about when B17Es drop bombs onto their heads. But the single most important thing that will make me buy a game is its scope, which is the main reason why I didn't buy WaW (that's why I mentioned scope first in my original post).

Scope aside though, Oleg, the point I wanted to get across about the graphics is that for the last 15 years I've been hearing how grognards don't care about eye candy. Which is absolutely mind-blowingly, death-defyingly untrue. We do expect high standards in all aspects of games these days, the Commodore 64 era is long gone.

I understand that sometimes the art budget is not big enough for graphics, but I also know art students (and perhaps forum modders) that would kill to get their credits on a box with extra small fee.

Regarding the WitP UI, I'm with you. I think WaW has a better interface than WitP, but IMO this is because the complexity of WaW is much lower than WitP. I was never a fun of the WitP UI, or of proprietary UIs to start with, and I can't for the life of me figure out why they did roll a custom UI (other than not having Windoze expertise inhouse).

New UI learning is like learning how to walk again, which distracts from early adoption, unless you find the game so appealing you want to persevere. In my line of business (internet), they say every click losses you 5% of customers, and this stands true of UIs too. From complex sound engineering apps, to embedded systems controller apps, to word processors, to (good complex) games, there are good examples everywhere of rolling out standard Windoze UIs successfully. So it can be done.

Anyway, I was just venting on one of my pet peeves. Hope it hasn't been to deaf ears. [;)]

/coralsaw

[coralsaw]

ORIGINAL: Grotius
Respectfully, WaW has nothing in common with Risk other than graphics. You can't "conquer the world" in WaW against any kind of decent opponent, or (for most ordinary mortals) against the AI. WaW players are rather rigorously constrained by history. The ebb and flow of WaW games usually resembles the ebb and flow of the actual war for me. In fact, that may be more true of WaW than of WITP.

Grotius, I am sure that WaW rules do constrain the player to walk within historical borders, otherwise why would anyone buy it to re-run (not simulate) WW2.

I guess what I wanted to say is that the level of simulation for such a massively scoped event as WW2 has to be from a bird's eye view, and that view is what WaW tries to accomplish. Call it Axis & Allies on steroids if you wish, I'd call it Risk on steroids, with a (strong) WW2 flavor.

It's a matter of taste. Believe me, I've lurked around the WaW forum long enough to understand large parts of its design blueprint, and I was not terribly impressed with the overall design. Of course this is a personal opinion, and GG stands among the proud and few in the industry. Still, I think he was born (sorry GG to talk about you without knowing you [;)]) to design monster games, like WitP and the soon to come Eastern Front game. And I'm really happy he's been doing so for the past 20 years.

/coralsaw

[coralsaw]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Many guys here don't realize how lucky we are to have WITP at all.

Oleg, I respectfully disagree with your point. There is proven demand for wargaming, and the Pacific theatre is one of the most vivid ones. Just search for 'pacific war' in Amazon and see how you get over 100,000 books.

Creating a company that has the right ideas, assets, will and cost structure to support a Pacific wargame among other products is not a prohibitive venture. The Paradox guys (and I'm saying this because I've been a beta tester with them in the past) have created a successful company, not only franchise, out of an obscure medieval board game called Europa Universalis. Let's go back in time a bit, and tell me if you would put money in an unknown Swedish company that would use it to create a medieval historical game. I wouldn't.

What I'm saying is that this relationship we have here with Matrix and 2by3 is a dialectic one. We give, they take, they give, we take. We're not lucky, this is capitalism.

/coralsaw

ps. No personal offense intended, of course. [:)]

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Would it be safe to assume that War in the East will have an AI and be coded differently?

Thou shalt not assume... However, it probably won't be based on WitP, as War in the East will be about land combat, and WitP's land combat routines are a bit simplistic.

If they follow WIR's lead they also won't have any naval units.

[fbastos]

I think you'd really have to have something drawn up by a lawyer to get this to work. After all, it is much more likely that if we did this and GGWAW was a huge success, the reasonable conclusion would be "See, we don't have to spend the time and effort we devoted to WITP to get a winner. We'll just turn out simpler games like GGWAW and make more money".

What RTrapasso is saying is true, of course.

But then, that's true for anything that we buy based on price alone. I don't feel any loyalty for most of the companies, as most of them just take my money, give me a box and pretty much run away. 2by3 can use that formula, but that's a losing proposition in the long term - just consider Talonsoft's case.

2by3's differential is a little known guy called Gary Grisby, which has a loyal legion of fans - myself included. So, you see, it doesn't really take a lawyer. It takes a Public Relations guy to say: "look, it is a good Business approach to keep our most loyal fans as energized as possible, because one energized and talkative fan today will bring 10 customers tomorrow for everything with GG's name".

And this PR keeps on: "it happens that GG's most hardcore and vocal fans are more into WiTP than into GG:Waw, so let's throw them a bone and some cookies with small regular improvements on WiTP, so we can keep these guys here until we have WiTP II or WiE or whatever else we will cook".

Some companies manage to reach that level; for example, I'm so loyal to Blizzard that I just buy everything they make, I don't really care what.

F.

[Joel Billings]

Interesting posts. For those that want to support 2by3/Matrix because you like the games we do, the best thing you can do is buy a copy of a Matrix wargame (take your pick, of course a 2by3 game would be best [:)]) and give it to someone you know that does not know about Matrix. That person can be either a dedicated wargamer that either hasn't played computer wargames or has, but isn't aware of Matrix's games, or an avid computer gamer that hasn't played wargames. If the person is a lover of monster boardgames with a ton of detail, get them WitP (or UV as a start or another game on a topic you think they'd be most interested in). If the player is a non-wargamer, get them a simpler game like World at War. Ideally get them to promise to play the game (against you if you like to play PBEM) in return for the game. I've heard many reports from people that have done this with WaW and have been very happy with the results. I'd bet that a decent percentage of people exposed to Matrix this way will come back and buy other Matrix titles.

Of course this is very self-serving of us to ask you to spend your money on growing the audience for our products. But why wouldn't you want to bring others into something you love if you think they might enjoy it and you can afford it. I love to play roller hockey. I've managed to get several people into playing by loaning them equipment I have (sometimes permanently) and spending my own money to get some of them out to see a hockey game. I'm helping to create hockey fans, but I also feel that I gain something (it's a lot more fun to be on a team where you're good friends with some of the players). If money is tight for you then don't bother. A lot of us, however, are at a point in life where $30-50 (ok, WitP at $70 seems like a lot) is not a big deal. If my uncle hadn't bought Tactics II for my father as a birthday present in 1965, my dad would have never taught me how to play a wargame, and I probably would have missed out on wargaming entirely.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Interesting posts. For those that want to support 2by3/Matrix because you like the games we do, the best thing you can do is buy a copy of a Matrix wargame (take your pick, of course a 2by3 game would be best [:)]) and give it to someone you know that does not know about Matrix. That person can be either a dedicated wargamer that either hasn't played computer wargames or has, but isn't aware of Matrix's games, or an avid computer gamer that hasn't played wargames. If the person is a lover of monster boardgames with a ton of detail, get them WitP (or UV as a start or another game on a topic you think they'd be most interested in). If the player is a non-wargamer, get them a simpler game like World at War. Ideally get them to promise to play the game (against you if you like to play PBEM) in return for the game. I've heard many reports from people that have done this with WaW and have been very happy with the results. I'd bet that a decent percentage of people exposed to Matrix this way will come back and buy other Matrix titles.

Of course this is very self-serving of us to ask you to spend your money on growing the audience for our products. But why wouldn't you want to bring others into something you love if you think they might enjoy it and you can afford it. I love to play roller hockey. I've managed to get several people into playing by loaning them equipment I have (sometimes permanently) and spending my own money to get some of them out to see a hockey game. I'm helping to create hockey fans, but I also feel that I gain something (it's a lot more fun to be on a team where you're good friends with some of the players). If money is tight for you then don't bother. A lot of us, however, are at a point in life where $30-50 (ok, WitP at $70 seems like a lot) is not a big deal. If my uncle hadn't bought Tactics II for my father as a birthday present in 1965, my dad would have never taught me how to play a wargame, and I probably would have missed out on wargaming entirely.

I have done this...with several different games..(not just Matrix ) and several different friends. It use to be I would purchase a Sid game no matter what it was. The quality was that high...I have boxes of Microprose games for the same reason...once I get one or two products that are that good...I can't think of many reasons why I won't put down the dollars...Matrix has achieved that in my eyes...though I have to admit I still havent purchase WAW...something about the simplistic nature just doesnt appeal to my micromanaging nature I guess.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: coralsaw
It's a matter of taste. Believe me, I've lurked around the WaW forum long enough to understand large parts of its design blueprint, and I was not terribly impressed with the overall design. Of course this is a personal opinion, and GG stands among the proud and few in the industry. Still, I think he was born (sorry GG to talk about you without knowing you [;)]) to design monster games, like WitP and the soon to come Eastern Front game. And I'm really happy he's been doing so for the past 20 years.

I will respectfully disagree here. I think WAW is a brilliant design, best, and in some respect most innovative wargaming design in years! ...which is more or less what I wrote in my review of the game for the local PC mag.

To make a game of such depth, using relatively simple, accessible, and relatively few design "tools" takes nothing short of genius.

WITP is big, and complex, but as far as wargaming *design* goes it's not very innovative. Basic premise when designing WITP seems to have been "let's simulate everything", so indeed, every weapon, and their various interactions, are simulated. Whether it works realistically or not is up to every player to decide for himself (it works for me [:D]).

Now, WAW, is by design much more abstract, and when designing this game, there are many problems that can be summed up as "how do we make very complex historical events simulated by so few, and relatively simple player controlled factors?". I think, the anner in which WAW managed to solve this basic design problem (in fact, design requirement may be better term) is just absolutely brilliant.

As Grotius noted, you have a game that is for many players "relatively simple" and that manages to simulate WW2 sometimes more true to history than mega-detailed WITP! And manages to do so on a bigger scale (whole WW2).

Now mind you, in my reviews for the local mag WITP got 98% (historic milestone in wargaming, game as big and as detailed as it gets, never even attempted before), WAW 93% (wargame of the year) - BUT I do stand behind my words that WAW is better example of design genius than WITP, by a long shot.

O.