Im the only one disappointed?

[GrumpyMel]

New to the series and I'm enjoying it so far myself too. I think it's going to be alot more fun once I really start to get the hang of how everything comes together. I think that's going to take a bit of time though. There are alot of factors to manage and even figuring out how they work individualy doesn't mean you've figured out how they all piece together. Right now I feel a bit like a National Guard General who's just been thrown into a shooting war against guys that have been fighting for years.... but it's still fun.

Playing as the Allies against the A.I., I certainly don't feel too pigeon hold, you have alot of different places to choose from where you will come ashore and when and with what sort of force and how. Even if you know the Axis will eventualy lose, no matter what, there is a big difference between marching into Berlin at the head of an Army or reading about the Russians doing it in the paper while sitting on some gods foresaken beachead somewhere while figuring out how to write 2 million letters home to the parents of guys who won't be coming back.

I do wish the Balkans were in though, so one could explore what Churchill wanted to do...or that it started a bit earlier so that you could play around in North Africa a bit but it's still a blast.... at least from the Allied side.... from the Axis side, I imagine it would be more fun playing against another human rather then the A.I.

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



1939: Germans have the initiative and Allies can only respond.
1940: Germans have the initiative and Allies can only respond. Any signs of French initiative will be met with cries of "ahistorical" until beaten down with a nerf bat.
1941: Germans think they have the initative...but Allies are allowed to make stupid mistakes to give them that illusion.
1942: Nothing to see here, move along.
1943: War in the West.

Not sure exactly at what point in the war you have allies = axis. I think what we have here is a classic example of initiative envy.

It's war. You do what you can with what you have.

So I guess you make the exact same moves that were made historically when you play. The minute you make your first move the game becomes ahistorical if you do just one thing different. The Germans did have the initiative and the Allies did respond. But under the right set of circumstances the Allies could have actually won. What if the Allies attacked while Germany was still in Poland? What if the Allies were better prepared in France in 1940? What if the Allies hadn't made "stupid mistakes" in 1941? Those are the types of things that I play war games to explore. I don't see those same type of what ifs being able to be explored in WiTW. I see an Allied side, loaded for bear, constantly on the attack and an Axis side on the defensive hanging on for dear life. There's nothing to really explore. There's no "Can you save Germany and turn the tide of the war" moment. The Axis can't invade or bomb strategically. The best you can do is shift units around, counterattack and hope to inflict "better than historical" casualties" to gain a points win. It's gaming the system and you still lose the war. It doesn't mean that WiTW is a bad game or that I hate it. I'm playing the hell out of it. I just don't think there's enough to keep me interested during this time period.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



1939: Germans have the initiative and Allies can only respond.
1940: Germans have the initiative and Allies can only respond. Any signs of French initiative will be met with cries of "ahistorical" until beaten down with a nerf bat.
1941: Germans think they have the initative...but Allies are allowed to make stupid mistakes to give them that illusion.
1942: Nothing to see here, move along.
1943: War in the West.

Not sure exactly at what point in the war you have allies = axis. I think what we have here is a classic example of initiative envy.

It's war. You do what you can with what you have.

So I guess you make the exact same moves that were made historically when you play. The minute you make your first move the game becomes ahistorical if you do just one thing different. The Germans did have the initiative and the Allies did respond. But under the right set of circumstances the Allies could have actually won. What if the Allies attacked while Germany was still in Poland? What if the Allies were better prepared in France in 1940? What if the Allies hadn't made "stupid mistakes" in 1941? Those are the types of things that I play war games to explore. I don't see those same type of what ifs being able to be explored in WiTW. I see an Allied side, loaded for bear, constantly on the attack and an Axis side on the defensive hanging on for dear life. There's nothing to really explore. There's no "Can you save Germany and turn the tide of the war" moment. The Axis can't invade or bomb strategically. The best you can do is shift units around, counterattack and hope to inflict "better than historical" casualties" to gain a points win. It's gaming the system and you still lose the war. It doesn't mean that WiTW is a bad game or that I hate it. I'm playing the hell out of it. I just don't think there's enough to keep me interested during this time period.

warspite1

Sounds like you would love MWIF. Ever played tevans6220?

[Smirfy]

The timescale and groundscale really dont help the game. Fair enough it has grown on me somewhat, but a couple of bad features have been carried over from WiTE which are beginning to grate.

[Grotius]

Sure, it'd be great to have a game like this that covers the whole war in Europe, but as the devs have said, that's going to take time. In the meantime, why not enjoy what we've got?

As Erik says, there are lots of strategic and operational possibilities in WITW. The big enchilada is D-Day: where to invade as the Allies, how and where to defend as the Germans. My second-ever wargame, Avalon Hill's "D-Day," began with this fateful decision. That game's scale was even more zoomed-out than WITW -- Normandy was just 3 hexes wide or so. I still felt like I never exhausted that game's strategic possibilities, even with its flaws. And it's not like the Germans have no decisions, in that game or in WITW: defend on the beaches, or try to contain?

And of course there are other interesting strategic decisions here. For the Allies: Where do you land (if at all) after Sicily? When do you take Sardinia and Corsica? Will you eventually land in the south of France? What will be the focus of your strategic bombing campaign? For the Germans: how do you balance your forces among the various theaters? For that matter, how do you handle the Eastern Front? Where should you concentrate your flak and fighters? Germany is quite interesting. I like playing defense; I'm better at D than O.

And, finally, there's the operational/tactical stuff. I am better at these decisions than strategic ones, and I tend to enjoy them a lot. Which airfields to assign to which aircraft? Which corps should take the lead in a particular attack? How to use the armor? Should I paradrop? All these things have me pretty hooked.

[FroBodine]

ORIGINAL: zakblood

well 47 this year tbh but already retired so nearly 50, so middle aged, too much time and plenty of gaming still left to do

[;)][8|][:D]

You are a very fortunate man to be retired at 47. I am 49 myself and I can't see retirement anywhere on the horizon.

Enjoy your gaming time. I am envious.

[Banquet]

I don't see the 'what-if's' in WitW any less interesting than the 'what-if's' from earlier in the war. I really don't think Germany could have been stopped in 39-40 regardless of what was done differently. They were (on the ground) a class above those they opposed. Changes needed to stop them would have had to be set in place years before the start of the war. I agree,though, it is interesting to play those 'what-if's' so long as the game is set up to play them without unbalancing the game, which it often does unfortunately.

There are plenty of 'what-if's' in WitW, including - what if Germany had launched a full counter attack against Normandy instead of holding back, thinking it was a decoy invasion. What if they had poured more units into Italy in 1943. What if they had pulled more units out of the Eastern Front. What if Bulge had been planned earlier, or differently, and gone better.

At the end of the day, a some people just aren't interested in the time frame and theatre and that's fine. I've never had much interest in American Civil War, so tend to avoid games simulating those battles. But I wouldn't buy one and then go on the forum saying how uninteresting it was. This game simulates a certain time frame of a theatre of the war. If you're not interested in it, then don't buy it. I for one am, and am glad we didn't have to wait another 3-4 years to get a whole war campaign that would have been equally one sided through early/late years.

[zakblood]

i'm disappointed as i still haven't got it yet[:(]

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: zakblood

i'm disappointed as i still haven't got it yet[:(]

I know that feeling....

[Numdydar]

One thing this game does that many do not is it gives the Allies and the Germans late war 'toys' right at the start. No X days/weeks/months playing the '39 - 42' period (or '41-42 period in WitP) over and over again and having the opposing side bail because some risky plan did not go well [:@] As many WitP players know happens with Japanese opponents. And I am sure it happens in HoI 3 and Strategic Command, etc. quite often.

In this game, the stage is set. So a German player in a PBEM games has no illusions about what will happen. So I would suspect that there will be a LOT more player games that last to the end. For that alone makes this a great game [:)]

[LiquidSky]

This game is awesome. There is so much to figure out and do. SO many options... Its nothing like its horrible predecessor.

[Numdydar]

Well I think calling WitE horrible is a little extreme. After all there are a lot of other games that I would use 'horrible' for versus WitE.

Less polished certainly. But the new patch has addressed a lot of the major issues which also reduces its 'horribleness'.

Plus without the learning from WitE, WitW would be having the same discussion WitE had post release versus the forum we have now.

But if you feel WitE is/was that bad, then that is ok. I just think in the larger picture of these types of games, it is a lot better than many others is all.

[Qwixt]

ORIGINAL: zakblood

i'm disappointed as i still haven't got it yet[:(]

I got "Panzer Corp - Allied Corps" and I am pretending it's WITW for now.

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Sounds like you would love MWIF. Ever played tevans6220?

I got it. It's a great game but so is WiTW. Like I said, I just don't care for the 1943 to 1945 time period.

[ivanov]

I have to admit that I'm not so much in the Western Front - I prefer much more the land warfare. Also the nature of the fighting in the west is too static as for my taste ( except for some brief periods like pursuit after the Normandy breakthrough ). Having said this, I enjoy WITW immensely. Especially the smaller matches and I hope that WITE 2 will feature more of army group size scenarios, as I find them more manageable, also in terms of time that I can dedicate to the game. The new logistic and air systems are wonderful but the land warfare has also improved and one can obtain much more realistic results. It's definitely thumbs up from me and I'm already waiting impatiently for WITE2 and African campaigns.

[ratprince]

What is the hate for WITE? I love that game. Massive...simply massive. Lots of fun in the land component and lots of great tactical and strategic implications to all your actions.

WITW is just different. Less massive land war, but more vaired strategic choices. Can both not be great games?