Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:46 pm**

Name calling is name calling sport. A rose by any other name ... Dah! Responding to hecklers from the cheap seats is a waste of time, so I guess responding to you is a waste of time. All games are not historical? But we should strive to make them as close as possible for them to be called a historical simulation. Other wise it's a fantasy game. Do I have to state the obvious?

It only took you about 3 pages to get here. If you would've said 3 pages ago that you are basically wrong as there's not really such a thing as a truly historical game if it involves player influence, but that you could make the game as close as possible to history, I don't think people would've responded negatively to your point. However, as it took you 3 pages to respond to objections to your standpoint, that did happen.

To reiterate the lack of Hitler's and Stalin's meddling has a great impact on events. More so on the Germans since I think Stalin learned that he was screwing up early on and interfered less as the war progressed. So saying they negate each other won't fly either.

And who decides exactly how Hitler or Stalin would respond to an event? The designers? People would complain that they were forced into certain hard-coded decisions. The players can't do it either as every playthrough will be different. There is, very simply put, no way Hitler or Stalin decisions could be brought into the game in a historical way, as the game is going to be ahistorical after 1 move by the player.

Posted: **Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:20 pm**

I really think this thread has outlived its usefulness,  Will one of the moderators lock this thread, PLEASE!!!!!

Posted: **Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:38 pm**

I think it is time to close this thread, since there is obviously nothing good coming from it. The design decisions at this point are simply fixed. The only way that any of the voiced ideas, no matter whether Hitler/Stalin meddling or any player influence on the deployments/withdrawals/production/research, will influence the new WitE is if after the release enough other players or reviewers of the game will ask for them. Maybe I am anyways just a singularity with these wishes.

I would hope the devs will consider an expansion of the game in the future, and introduce some of these ideas or a powerful scripting language that allows modding such things. Anyway, this game appears to be destined to become a new milestone of strategy games for WWII in Europe, no matter what.

And, yes, Ironduke, of course you are absolutely correct that with this game we only can test opportunities within the modeling of the engine, i.e. what Gary & Co devised as the plausible/approximated result (on some basis). I am just a fan of testing how Germany would do in the East with the air war being less effective, or the Italians standing their ground in Sicily, or with earlier availability of advanced weapons. However, all without incorporating that into the initial scenario design, but making it a consequence of player actions/decisions during the game -- although anything that does not lead to a 1:1 copy of the historical war can be termed fantasy in a strict sense. And as a side note, my argument on disconnected fronts was more based on player actions in the east not influencing withdrawals even if you assume that the progress east would not lead to changes elsewhere. But maybe the case Pyledriver had with Totenkopf was a worst case scenario that rarely occurs. Enough said now, future will tell whether the waiting for this beast will be greatly rewarded.

Posted: **Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:42 pm**

Yes, this thread no longer has any meaning.

Posted: **Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:17 pm**

I think everyone needs to go back to the basics. For that I must turn you to one of the founding fathers of war games James F. Dunigan:

http://www.hyw.com/Books/WargamesHandbook/1-what_i.htm

A wargame is an attempt to get a jump on the future by obtaining a better understanding of the past. A wargame is a combination of "game," history and science. It is a paper time-machine. Basically, it's glorified chess. If you've never encountered a wargame before, it's easiest to just think of it as chess with a more complicated playing board and a more complex way of moving your pieces and taking your opponents.

A wargame usually combines a map, playing pieces representing historical personages or military units and a set of rules telling you what you can or cannot do with them. Many are now available on personal computers. The object of any wargame (historical or otherwise) is to enable the player to recreate a specific event and, more importantly, to be able to explore what might have been if the player decides to do things differently.

To be a wargame, in our sense of the word, the game must be realistic. And in some cases, they are extremely realistic, realistic to the point where some of the wargames are actually used for professional purposes (primarily the military, but also business and teaching).

Since the 1980 edition of this book, computer wargames have largely (but not entirely) displaced paper (or "manual") wargames. The personal computer brought a lot of new capabilities to wargames and it took about as long as was needed for wargamers to get PCs for the majority of them to shift most of their gaming from paper to keyboard and CRT. PC ownership by wargamers went from less than one in ten in 1980 to over two thirds in the early 1990s. The generally well educated and affluent wargamers joined many other PC users in using computerized wargames. The widespread use of PC based wargames has created a much larger audience for wargamers. A lot of this has to do with the fact that it's much easier to get into a computerized rather than a manual wargame. Moreover, computers made possible some types of wargames, namely simulators, that were simply not practical (or possible) as manual games.

Computer wargames are more difficult to learn than other computer games because wargames are, at heart, simulations of real life events. A simulation is, by its nature, a potentially very complex device. This is especially true of historical simulations, which must be capable of recreating the historical event they cover. Recreating history imposes a heavy burden on the designer, and the player who must cope with the additional detail incorporated to achieve the needed realism. Most computer wargames are also designed to allow the user to play against the computer. This means that the program must have a pretty good artificial intelligence (AI) system. The more recent computer wargames have AI for both sides, and often have the option of letting the computer play both sides, turning the game into a rather unique form of video entertainment.

In all war games, paper or otherwise, the designer/developer has to make some choices and determine the scope they wish to achieve. In this case the designers/developers decided not to include or force Hitler/Stalin stand or die/attack at all cost orders and felt the player will be/is or most likely have the ammunition to do this them selves/shoot them self in the foot/trip/forget or make their own mistakes, without any help or assistance from the system. Likewise they decided or choose not to have an event editor system other then some major historical East Front only things.

What some of you are not realizing is that this game is operational in depth and the political die has been cast, in a sense you are more or less the Halder/Jodel or Zhukov's running the war and not the supreme leader. I would say that you are actually the Chief of Staff to the leader. Some things are out of your hands and not in your theater of operations (OKW for example) and that is really just the way it is.

All this name calling or insulting is really not fitting and is really just a turn off for those that seek information or want to have a conversation and ultimately I think a lot of you are not really realizing just how complex a PC war game is to code, test and debug and then to request a significant change when nearing beta would if acted upon may lead to the delay of the game for another year or more, if you think about it that way.

I don't know what else to say about this subject

Posted: **Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:48 pm**

Yep, time to close this thread...Has anyone noticed Joel never did one post on this thread, and it was to him. Go figure guys. Its not that hard to out figure guys...

Posted: **Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:54 am**

Joel only posted 6 times in the last month, all short posts and only 4 in this forum (3 of which were basically a screenshot with a short explanation).

Posted: **Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:02 am**

Joel probably didn't bother to post here because this issue has been answered numerous times before. The game isn't going to change before release. Features are locked and we are weeks from going to beta. This has been discussed ad naseum in the game development forum. Once the game comes out, it would be a good time to revisit the issue.

Trey

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Yep, time to close this thread...Has anyone noticed Joel never did one post on this thread, and it was to him. Go figure guys. Its not that hard to out figure guys...

Posted: **Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:19 pm**

Yes, I've been very busy with development work this month (trying to get to beta) and figured the testers could/would answer for me. Although we're at Alpha and still adding a few new rules here and there, the basic design plan is set and we are trying to get to where we can limit our work to bug fixes, AI improvements and formula tweaks. We're almost there. FYI, this game is in it's way as massive as WitP was, and with WitP we had previously released UV as a testbed for the system. No such testbed here, so we are both creating a new game system and applying it to a massive campaign, so there's no shortage of things to be done, and no shortage of design decisions to be made, and the major ones have all been made, in many cases months or years ago. I'm not taking away from the fact that some people would have preferred to see us do some things differently. We think we have a game that will hold up well, but each of you has to decide for yourself if it's something you're interested in. By the time the game comes out hopefully this forum will have given you a good idea what you'd be getting in War in the East. I want to say that I appreciate all the time the testers spend in this forum answering questions and posting AARs. They are not "yes" men and they are really doing a great service for us and the gaming community.

Posted: **Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:13 pm**

Both what you are getting, and what you are getting into!!! [;)]   It's early days for me but I feel myself drawn like a moth...

Posted: **Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:24 pm**

I hate when it is compare to WitP as WitP is too big with a very bad interface. I hope it is less massive than war in the pacific. Some anouncement can be counter productive.

I still hope that one day the computer game will be made to have several player on the same side so we can play massive games...

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:17 am**

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

...I still hope that one day the computer game will be made to have several player on the same side so we can play massive games...

Yes, it would be really cool to have an interface that allowed separate human plays at each major level in the chain of command. In that situation I am certain you would soon discover that there is no need for special Hitler/Stalin rules. Let's face it, there is a bit of Hitler in all of us. Why else would we even play these games? [:D]

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:24 am**

Let's face it, there is a bit of Hitler in all of us. Why else would we even play these games?

[:D]

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:59 am**

For me no Hitler lives in I, but Stalin, after all one death is a tragedy and a million but a statistic.
[8D]

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:20 pm**

ORIGINAL: jaw
Yes, it would be really cool to have an interface that allowed separate human plays at each major level in the chain of command. In that situation I am certain you would soon discover that there is no need for special Hitler/Stalin rules. Let's face it, there is a bit of Hitler in all of us. Why else would we even play these games? [:D]

Wow, the idea sounds interesting, but it also sounds like a game with a potentially bad atmosphere -- when players get kick out or "electronically" eliminated regularly by superiors for incapacity, neglect of duty, etc... Imagine the pal playing Stalin decides to do another "upgrade" of his general staff...

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:37 pm**

One parting shot. Let's see if I can fit my size 12's through this "mind" field. Perhaps "yes men" was a bit harsh, groupie might be closer but still demeaning. But when the thread conversation turned from discussing the impact of having a "boss" to contend with to rationalized how WitE is such a good idea I stepped in with both size 12's. Sooooo sorry people but the initial thread point was and is valid. Hell my job at work would be easier with no boss. There would be no Dilbert cartoon with a guy with pointy hair ask Dilbert to do dumb things if there were no bosses. If we're Hitler then we get to meddle in production and if were not Hitler then we need him looking over our shoulder ... I am still a bit confused as to what the command structure is in WitE??
 
So again sorry ... I was just defending the plate. [;)]

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:16 pm**

Chief of Staff

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:49 pm**

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

Chief of Staff

I Googled OKH and got a Wiki site. Now if you believe Wiki OKH was the head of the forces on the eastern front, OKW was for the west. OKH was headed by Gen Walther von Brauchitsch from 1938 to 12/41 when he had a heart attack. From 12/41 and on Herr Hitler ran the show!! So if we believe the Wiki we are technically Chief of Staff only till 12/41 then we become Hitler. The game factors out the production by merely saying that it happens historically, period. I assume Brauchitch heart attack was caused by Hitler interfering and meddling anyway, basically Hitler running the show from the get go.

The question of whether there was a boss is a moot point.

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:58 pm**

Halder, Jodel...

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:45 pm**

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

Halder, Jodel...

They were Chiefs of Staff, see below per Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberkommando_des_Heeres .

"During the Third Reich, the Chiefs of General Staff were,

- from 1 October 1933 - 27 August 1938, General Ludwig Beck
- from 1 September 1938 to 24 September 1942, Generaloberst Franz Halder;
- from 24 September 1942 to 10 June 1944, Generaloberst Kurt Zeitzler;
- from 10 June 1944 to 21 July 1944, Generalleutnant Adolf Heusinger;
- from 21 July 1944 to 28 March 1945, Generaloberst Heinz Guderian;
- from 1 April 1945 to 1 May 1945, General der Infanterie Hans Krebs. "

But us players are in command of OkH, true?

Matrix Games Forums

An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel

RE: An Open Letter To Joel