Im the only one disappointed?

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

WitW 43 - 45 starts when it does as that was earliest date deemed suitable for a game that didn't require a more in depth naval game and ends unsurprisingly with the defeat of Germany.

As has been mentioned before the wider the scope the longer the development.

I'd love to magic a War in Europe 39-45 out of thin air tomorrow but unfortunately creating games of this complexity take time.

I would confess I haven't got it yet. I likely will, but it will be because I want War In Europe or WITE 2 and that requires interim financial support for the developers, rather than any particular desire to play this one.

I got into a spat a year or two year back when the game was first advertised and I have kept out of things since then, but I think my original reservations remain valid. WITE was an operational war game that worked because the scale chosen gave plenty of room because of the size of the theatre.

WITE gamers coming to WITW will find the same scale being used and it simply doesn't fit operationally IMHO. Not for a second do I doubt the quality of the new air system or the improvements made to logistics. However, given the state of the AXIS in this time frame and the relative balance of forces, the improvements don't look like they offer AXIS much. From an air perspective, the Allies were shooting fish in a barrel from early 44 onwards and from a logistics perspective, the AXIS were living hand to mouth.

I completely understand and appreciate why the same scale would be retained, it makes sense commercially given the development work of WITE that was being built upon, but that doesn't mean it is a good decision from every perspective. The air game, naval improvements, logistical improvements, in fact any improvement exist to support the ground combat model in these sort of titles. I have doubts whether this timescale (given the state of the AXIS) or this scale (given the size of the frontages and troop densities) will have the impact WITE did.

Two further premium priced titles in this theatre under these constraints also sounds questionable to me, but if it is pursued, I wish everyone all the very best with it.

Thanks and regards,
ID

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220
Everything you listed are minor choices compared to WiTE and WiTP. With those games as the Axis you are on the attack for at least a year then the tide turns. In WiTW, with the current scenarios, the Axis is on the strategic defensive from the start and stays on the defensive. I'm not saying there aren't choices to be made. I'm saying that the choices don't make that much difference in the time time period represented.

Actually, the choices can make a huge difference, as can those made by the Allies. In addition, the victory system is geared to challenge you to do better than history. I guess it depends on your playstyle, but personally I really enjoyed playing as both sides during testing. As the Axis, it is a heck of a defensive challenge and filled with strategic choices including balancing the East and West front and deciding on where to focus your air and whether and when to launch local counter-attacks. I don't find it any less engaging than WITP or WITE and the expanded more realistic logistics and air remind me of WITP in some ways.

The Allies are always on the attack. Some different and varied scenarios would have been better. France 40, North Africa and Norway come to mind. Even some alt history scenarios such as Sea Lion or Spain would have been good.

These are all earlier in the war and require a full naval system, which simply wasn't realistically possible within any development timeframe that makes financial sense. It's four years now since WITE was released. I think we came up with a darn good game without adding in the early war and we do still plan to go there in the future.

Scenarios where both sides have a chance of winning outright instead of losing the war but winning on points because you caused more damage than historical. I realize WiTP and WiTE are set up the same way but if you play the full campaigns as the Axis you get to push the Allies around for awhile. Then you dig in and wait the inevitable Allied attacks. Still a points game but much more fun than just sitting on the defensive responding to Allied attacks.

In my experience the most interesting parts of WITE and WITP are not during the times when one side is completely overwhelming, but rather when both sides have a chance. The majority of the WITW campaign is actually like that, you can score some major victories against the Allies and stop them cold, it's not just "keep retreating". When you do get to the point where you just don't have enough to hold the line, then the fighting withdrawal and shuffling of reserves requires a whole different level of skill that I've also seen lots of wargamers master in WITE and WITP.

As for Husky, I know it's a starter scenario. And I have played it with FOW and CHALLENGING settings. The results are usually the same. The only difference is in the point differential. Last night I actually lost by being "outpointed" even though I did seize the island. That's my point. With the scenarios we currently have, the only hope for an Axis player is to win on points. They can't win outright.

I understand, but personally I enjoy the challenge even if I know I'm likely to lose ground. I've held Messina and also lost it - there are all kinds of possibilities, but mostly on a more operational level. Husky is a fun scenario but it's introductory for a reason as it's limited in its strategic options. You really need to play the full 43 campaign to get the sense of how Sicily fits in strategically and let those strategic concerns about slowing down the allies, where else they might land, where to prepare the best welcome party for them, etc. guide your choices more than the more local battles. I've guessed right and defeated an Allied invasion and also made the wrong choice and gotten an army cut off by fighting in Sicily and Southern Italy for too long.

Regards,

- Erik

[jhdeerslayer]

Opinions are like buttholes... everybody's got one but hell this game is a lot of fun and learning it always part of the fun for me too and lots to learn here. Kudos!

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf
3. Witp AE and WitE are not cheap games, but you can pay the price and get a full game that stands alone on its own. With WitW you pay the same price as WitP AE and WitE, but it's looking like it will be something upwards of $200-300 to get the full 1939/41 to 1945/46 game and adding in any DLC that may be put out there the cost of ownership may be even higher.

Hang on there - for WITP, there was first Uncommon Valor, then WITP, then WITP AE. Each stand-alone full price releases, each improved and more comprehensive. For WITE there was the base release with all the free updates, then Don to the Danube and Lost Battles as very reasonable expansions. We are not planning to do anything different with WITW than we have been doing in the past. I'd like to nip the idea in the bud that WITW is somehow the most expensive of these in fact or by design. It's priced the same as WITE was at release four years ago and comes with a much better physical package.

It also has the entire Western Front from the first landings in Sicily to the end. That is a very logical historical starting point as well. Before that is the initial blitzkrieg and North Africa and a whole lot of nothing going on in Western Europe in between.

While we'd like to do releases that cover more ground in the future, these really would be full new games in terms of the work required. They are not DLCs/Expansions and should not be considered part of the WITW price. For better or worse, it takes a lot of work and time to put these games together.

Regards,

- Erik

[sfbaytf]

I understand. Maybe outsourcing the work to India will keep costs down you could find coders who will work for $25 a day[:D]

There's a reason why the likes of Zuckerburg and others are pushing the myth of a skilled worker shortage and the Silicon Valley knowledge workforce has been replaced by the coolie workforce....

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

The Axis can't win outright in WITP or WITE, either, can it? There's auto-victory in WITP, but that hardly means Japan has won the war. The Axis is doomed in any WW2 game.

You don't find D-Day interesting? The Battle of the Bulge? Market Garden? Anzio?

The Axis can't win a full war scenario outright in WiTP or WiTE but if you play the 1941 campaigns and even some of the others, the Axis can throw it's weight around for quite awhile before the Allies turn things around. I agree that in a WW2 game portraying the whole war the Axis is doomed. But there were campaigns the Axis did win (France 40, Barbarossa, Malaya). Some campaigns given the right circumstances could have went either way also (Midway, Leyte Gulf, North Africa) . The scenarios in WiTW only reflect eventual Allied victories. The Axis spends the whole game responding to Allied moves and the best they can hope for is to "outpoint" them. Even an Axis Bulge type of attack is only going to be a few hexes and last a few turns. The Allies really aren't pushed or challenged.

I find D-Day, Battle of the Bulge and Market Garden very interesting but not at this scale. One week turns and 10 mile hexes are not really going to reflect those campaigns in enough detail to be interesting.

[Baelfiin]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

You do know that Husky is the training scenario, right? Have you played it on Challenging AI with FOW on... the GE will retreat immediately to the Etna line and are very difficult to shift economically... First time I played I hadn't really even got them to start evacuating the island by turn 7. But that is beside the point; play a larger campaign. The choices as Allies are huge, and thus the decisions for Germany are equally huge. Are they going to do Anzio? Or even Husky? Do I contest Sicily seriously or just a fighting retreat... I am playing the 43 campaign as Allies. Based on locating 3 reinforcement PG and a Pzr Div in Sicily, I am completely revising my timetables/plans. I was going to take Sardinia in Mid August, then Italy in Sept. Now I am working out how to trap what is a very strong PzK - almost a full Pz Group (HG, 16Pz, 15PG, 90PG, 29PG, 3PG, not to mention a Pz Bde) in NE Sicily. Not to mention how on earth to shift them with the supplies I can get in... I would reinforce 8th Army but I cant get enough supply in through the damaged ports. I need to move my amphib task forces to NA to a bigger port to prepare to invade the Boot, but this cuts port capacity further. Catania was a mess when I got it, ditto Syracuse. If I take the temporary size 2 ports out before I repair them, Panzer Amree Sicily could probably roll me back in to the sea!

How is that not interesting?

Oh, and love the railway limits. Was shifting 5th Army east to Tunis... 1 corps maxes out the railways! You have to walk the rest. Oh how Wite needs the logistic changes in WitW

Everything you listed are minor choices compared to WiTE and WiTP. With those games as the Axis you are on the attack for at least a year then the tide turns. In WiTW, with the current scenarios, the Axis is on the strategic defensive from the start and stays on the defensive. I'm not saying there aren't choices to be made. I'm saying that the choices don't make that much difference in the time time period represented. By then then the war was a foregone conclusion. The Allies are always on the attack. Some different and varied scenarios would have been better. France 40, North Africa and Norway come to mind. Even some alt history scenarios such as Sea Lion or Spain would have been good. Scenarios where both sides have a chance of winning outright instead of losing the war but winning on points because you caused more damage than historical. I realize WiTP and WiTE are set up the same way but if you play the full campaigns as the Axis you get to push the Allies around for awhile. Then you dig in and wait the inevitable Allied attacks. Still a points game but much more fun than just sitting on the defensive responding to Allied attacks.

As for Husky, I know it's a starter scenario. And I have played it with FOW and CHALLENGING settings. The results are usually the same. The only difference is in the point differential. Last night I actually lost by being "outpointed" even though I did seize the island. That's my point. With the scenarios we currently have, the only hope for an Axis player is to win on points. They can't win outright.

Tevans,
How would you suggest winning WW2 outright as the Axis in 1943? Playing board games its pretty easy to know when you win, the other guy chucks the dice cup into the wall and you don't hear from him for a year.
I think almost any game you can find "better than historical" is a victory.

[Baelfiin]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

I understand. Maybe outsourcing the work to India will keep costs down you could find coders who will work for $25 a day[:D]

There's a reason why the likes of Zuckerburg and others are pushing the myth of a skilled worker shortage and the Silicon Valley knowledge workforce has been replaced by the coolie workforce....

Is it Troll Time?

[Qwixt]

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

I understand. Maybe outsourcing the work to India will keep costs down you could find coders who will work for $25 a day[:D]

There's a reason why the likes of Zuckerburg and others are pushing the myth of a skilled worker shortage and the Silicon Valley knowledge workforce has been replaced by the coolie workforce....

Is it Troll Time?

I don't know, is it? My company has been trying to replace (as in layoff) its U.S. developers for Indian ones since 2006 or 2007. No shortage, just trying to find cheaper alternative.

[sfbaytf]

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

I understand. Maybe outsourcing the work to India will keep costs down you could find coders who will work for $25 a day[:D]

There's a reason why the likes of Zuckerburg and others are pushing the myth of a skilled worker shortage and the Silicon Valley knowledge workforce has been replaced by the coolie workforce....

Is it Troll Time?

I don't know, is it? My company has been trying to replace (as in layoff) its U.S. developers for Indian ones since 2006 or 2007. No shortage, just trying to find cheaper alternative.

It is ironic. Here we are playing a game about World War 2 in the Western Front which historians said was what resulted in Pax Americana and the American Century just a couple of weeks after China was determined to have taken over the US as the number 1 economic power...anyway we've veered off topic.

Some are going to be disappointed. Others are pleased with what they see and others are on the fence. I'm very happy with what I have and can't wait to try out a full Campaign against the AI. I would venture to guess that unlike WitPAE this may be a game better suited to playing a full campaign against the AI than WitP is.

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin
Tevans,
How would you suggest winning WW2 outright as the Axis in 1943? Playing board games its pretty easy to know when you win, the other guy chucks the dice cup into the wall and you don't hear from him for a year.
I think almost any game you can find "better than historical" is a victory.

I'm not talking about the whole war. I'm talking about specific campaigns. In 1940 the Axis defeated the Allies outright and caused France to surrender. The best they can hope to do in any WiTW scenario is "outpoint" the Allies. They can shift units from east to west and counterattack but they can't stop the inevitable. Once the Allies get a foothold anywhere in Europe the Axis is going to lose. Whether it's by "better than historical" numbers or not doesn't matter. If there is any historical and factual basis to the scenarios at all they are going to lose.

What is "better than historical" anyway? The Axis lost the war so the only "better than historical" outcome would be for them to win it. Inflicting higher casualties than historical while losing the battle, campaign or war is still losing. Artificial point totals measuring "better than historical" outcomes gets right to the gist of what I'm saying. The Axis can't win any other way. The best they can hope for is to "outpoint" the Allies and hope for a "better than historical" result. At least with these scenarios. But wouldn't you say that pushing an invasion back into the sea should result in a victory? Or splitting the Allies and making it to Antwerp during the Bulge? That's a heck of a lot better measurement of victory than some point total.

What we have is a system where losing better than your historical counterpart is considered some type of victory. To me a loss is a loss. I played Husky as the Allies, took the whole island which was my objective but lost on points. How can anything other than throwing back my invasion and holding Sicily be considered as an Axis victory? It's not even "better than historical". They still lost the island because I didn't worry about casualty figures. An American commander throwing American lives away needlessly would have been replaced. So I basically handed the Axis a victory. They didn't really do anything to earn it.

[Baelfiin]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin
Tevans,
How would you suggest winning WW2 outright as the Axis in 1943? Playing board games its pretty easy to know when you win, the other guy chucks the dice cup into the wall and you don't hear from him for a year.
I think almost any game you can find "better than historical" is a victory.

I'm not talking about the whole war. I'm talking about specific campaigns. In 1940 the Axis defeated the Allies outright and caused France to surrender. The best they can hope to do in any WiTW scenario is "outpoint" the Allies. They can shift units from east to west and counterattack but they can't stop the inevitable. Once the Allies get a foothold anywhere in Europe the Axis is going to lose. Whether it's by "better than historical" numbers or not doesn't matter. If there is any historical and factual basis to the scenarios at all they are going to lose.

What is "better than historical" anyway? The Axis lost the war so the only "better than historical" outcome would be for them to win it. Inflicting higher casualties than historical while losing the battle, campaign or war is still losing. Artificial point totals measuring "better than historical" outcomes gets right to the gist of what I'm saying. The Axis can't win any other way. The best they can hope for is to "outpoint" the Allies and hope for a "better than historical" result. At least with these scenarios. But wouldn't you say that pushing an invasion back into the sea should result in a victory? Or splitting the Allies and making it to Antwerp during the Bulge? That's a heck of a lot better measurement of victory than some point total.

What we have is a system where losing better than your historical counterpart is considered some type of victory. To me a loss is a loss. I played Husky as the Allies, took the whole island which was my objective but lost on points. How can anything other than throwing back my invasion and holding Sicily be considered as an Axis victory? It's not even "better than historical". They still lost the island because I didn't worry about casualty figures. An American commander throwing American lives away needlessly would have been replaced. So I basically handed the Axis a victory. They didn't really do anything to earn it.

Welp I wish I had some comfort for you. It seems like you are saying Hey I took Sicily despite losing most of my army! I win!! But it doesn't look like you are putting that victory in the context of the rest of the war where all of those guys that got thrown away for the "victory" in sicily were needed to fight in france and Germany etc.

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin
Welp I wish I had some comfort for you. It seems like you are saying Hey I took Sicily despite losing most of my army! I win!! But it doesn't look like you are putting that victory in the context of the rest of the war where all of those guys that got thrown away for the "victory" in sicily were needed to fight in france and Germany etc.

The thing is I didn't lose most of my army. They were pretty beat up but no units actually were destroyed. I just had higher casualties than the Allies had historically. Apparently it was enough to give the Axis a points victory even though they lost the whole island. I see what you're saying about context and I did put my victory into context with the rest of the war. Even in a complete war scenario, I can replace my losses and the Axis can't. The Allies can afford a war of attrition. The only thing they would have to worry about are the political repercussions of sustaining high casualty rates. As I said, any American commander throwing away American lives would have been replaced.

[SigUp]

So you are saying the Allies should auto-win every scenario? Let's face it, was it realistically possible for the Germans to throw the Allies out into the sea in Sicily, at Salerno, at Anzio or at Normandy? No, it wasn't. So unless you want a historical wargame that crosses the boundary into fantasy the Axis cannot "win" per your definition.

[jzardos]

I'm very disappointed now because of the flak bug that made it thought testing / QA phase. Sorry just shouldn't have happened IMO. Don't buy game until next patch is out.

tm.asp?m=3757789&mpage=2&key=�

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

So you are saying the Allies should auto-win every scenario? Let's face it, was it realistically possible for the Germans to throw the Allies out into the sea in Sicily, at Salerno, at Anzio or at Normandy? No, it wasn't. So unless you want a historical wargame that crosses the boundary into fantasy the Axis cannot "win" per your definition.

The Allies thought it was possible. Eisenhower even had a speech prepared in case Overlord failed. Anzio wasn't the success the Allies hoped it would be either. Not sure about Salerno but even at Sicily the Allies had worries of being held at the beaches and pushed back into the sea. You've sort of made my point for me. The Axis can't win any of the scenarios provided other than by "outpointing" the Allies. That's what I've been saying. The scenarios aren't all that competitive compared to other campaigns that could have been done. There's no punch and counterpunch like in WiTE. Once the Allies get a foothold in Europe the war is a foregone conclusion. As the Axis player you can shift troops from east to west and make counterattacks but once the Allies get going the war is basically over. The only hope is to "outpoint" them by doing "better than historical". Which means holding ground longer and/or inflicting more casualties than happened historically.

I don't think the time period of 1943 to 1945 in Europe makes for good scenarios. With very few exceptions the Axis is on the defensive everywhere. The Allies had the initiative and never gave it up with the exception of the Bulge. Most people back then thought the war would be over by Christmas of 44. Maybe some find playing as the Axis in this period fun but I don't. Not saying there aren't any strategic options. I just don't think they matter. The Bulge proved that. Within about a month the lines were back where they were before the attack. The difference for me between WiTW and WiTE and WiTP is that when I play the Axis in those games I get a chance to run offensively for a good part of the game. In WiTW I'm on the defensive from Turn 1. To me there's just not a lot to playing on the defensive the entire game. Shifting units from one area to the next and putting out fires but eventually you lose. Winning on points is the same as losing to me. No war or battle was ever won on points.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Grotius
You don't find D-Day interesting? The Battle of the Bulge? Market Garden? Anzio?

No, No, No, and No! [:D]

But that's why I'm probably not going to buy this game...

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin
Welp I wish I had some comfort for you. It seems like you are saying Hey I took Sicily despite losing most of my army! I win!! But it doesn't look like you are putting that victory in the context of the rest of the war where all of those guys that got thrown away for the "victory" in sicily were needed to fight in france and Germany etc.

The thing is I didn't lose most of my army. They were pretty beat up but no units actually were destroyed. I just had higher casualties than the Allies had historically. Apparently it was enough to give the Axis a points victory even though they lost the whole island. I see what you're saying about context and I did put my victory into context with the rest of the war. Even in a complete war scenario, I can replace my losses and the Axis can't. The Allies can afford a war of attrition. The only thing they would have to worry about are the political repercussions of sustaining high casualty rates. As I said, any American commander throwing away American lives would have been replaced.

You had higher casualties and were pretty beat up. The Allies, especially the US were extremely concerned about losses. If the Allies had experienced much higher losses than historical, then I would think that it should have a major impact on how well you do in the game.

Also, as someone that plays Japan in WitP, I do not have a problem with this in WitW [:)] But as a lot of people can't play Japan in WitP, then it would not surprise me that the same would be true here. Especially sine you did not get the 'fun' years beforehand.

One other point that needs to be made.

Uncommon Valor and War in the pacific were both made by 2by3. War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition was not. AE was made by Henderson Field which were a group of WitP fans that wanted to improve the original WitP game. So 2by3 had nothing to do with AE. Furthermore the beta patches that are still being released for AE are being done on a 100% volunteer basis by ONE person. Who was one of the Henderson Field group. So before people start throwing accusations around, they should make sure they have the correct facts in place before they do.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

I'm very disappointed now because of the flak bug that made it thought testing / QA phase. Sorry just shouldn't have happened IMO. Don't buy game until next patch is out.

tm.asp?m=3757789&mpage=2&key=�

You don't think you are being a little premature, not to say arrogant here? It might be that there is a bug, but reading the link, it is by no means established yet. Even if it is established, you are presuming that it was present in the beta versions (and hence the volunteer betas missed it and you create the implication they weren't doing their job).

If it is a bug, it is at least possible it crept in with the production release process? If so, it will be swiftly fixed. In the mean time a gentleman's agreement on bombing alts, and you can go bug hunting in the rest of the game.

Alternatively, as I read your post, attack the game and the team from some self imposed moral high ground, and self advertise with links into other threads.

What goes around comes around I say!

[zakblood]

i still haven't got actively involved in the game and the discussions as yet, as i still don't own the game either, it's a Christmas present from my girlfriend so will have to wait a while longer, but my take on this thread and topic are as follows...

the price is good and fair... for the amount of time and effort that's gone into it and still is, and will be for the next 4 to 5 years at least, with patches and fixes and upgrades etc...

you can't put a price on support, not at any cost!

while the game on release may not be perfect for every ones taste, it's not full of bugs etc either, for me it's still maybe a tad too hard for the beginner like me as i still haven't managed to finish one battle in WITE so i know this won't be a part time game either, so may just sit there on my drive for a few months or year maybe or so, which is no problem either for me or my games, as time can always be found later for good stuff, and by then a few more issues may have been ironed out, changed or updated etc... or a patch or 2 down the road, after some more tweaking, as these games always need the tweaks and lets be honest the developers always tinker a lot anyway so i'm just glad it's at least been released as they do tend to keep adding and altering bits etc as they are all gamers as well, and are never truly happy with anything released either and are alwasy thinking of doing more stuff, which is the main reason we all like there games[;)]


so lets keep up the fight, with the right people, in game and not on the forums and say merry Christmas to all involved and a big thank you and hope you all have a happy new year, as you all deserve it...