Testing WITE

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Well, a country that defend a doper and make a national hero out of him is, err a country with a big problem

About the dutch behavour in the final... that was very hard, often unfair. But to be honest, spain´s record in sport, esp. in soccer is to no degree better.

so why do you whine about hard play by the dutch? spain won - i say that is disapointing for sports... esp. if you know that in spain, doping in sport is normal behaviour...

but again, soccer has nothing to do with this game, only with the character of certain users from spain

Do what you want - as long as you defend doping "sportlers" you do not deserve any victories.

Now, after clearing this criminal mess of spanish doping, you want to say something about the game?[;)]

[alfonso]

I thought that the times of attributing some kind of collective guilt to a whole country have already passed, but I see with deep concern that the feeling that some nations could in some way be “criminal” (and thereby, in this particular case, they don’t deserve to win anything) seems to be present in some individuals even today.

[karonagames]

v1.03 Blizzard survival guide published in the War Room.

[76mm]

bdtj1815,

I am another of the cognitively-challenged Americans but even my feeble pea brain knows that if you don't want to get patches for a computer wargame, buy it long after after it comes out. If you want a flawless computer game, don't buy any, as none are perfect from the perspective of every player. What part of this elementary concept don't you understand?

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Well, first of all - most players (customers) disagree.

A game with the historical result being the "best" one side can reach is broken.
Cause it has so deep attitude to disagree to the history that it can´t seen as realistic.

It doesn´t matter wich side, wich time wich conflict.

Here in WitE you basically say "each axis player has to accept that if he play the gc41, he will get kicked worse than history cause I (or the programmer) think, that the historical result should only be the 1 out of 1000 result.

If this would be true, nobody who is interested in playing better as historical can ignore such game. And it isn´t important if you play the russian or the axis side.
as axis you could only reach "historical" results, or get slapped arount. as the russian player, it is booooooooooooooooooooring, cause only if the opposite player is "near god" he can achive historical results.

I bet, if you ask 100 customers, 99 will say "no interest in such game"... maybe 95... Even fanboys of one side wouldn´t care about such a game (against ai is different, but in a pbem?

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Well, if 90% of the spanish people defend the doping criminal bycical "hero"... in this point the "spanish" people have a problem.

But i wasn´t the guy who brought up soccer/sports. I just slapped the "spanish" behaviour about fair sports that sadly the majority of spanish people support.

You asked, you got what you deserved.
But again i ask, what criminal doping behaviour of spanish "heros" (bycical and soccer) and the overall defence of this behaviour has anything to do with the problems in this game.

You still need to explain yourself about this.

The discussed point was "how should this game handle blizzard" or "what can the customer expect if he spend his money for this game.

you made your point about the silliness of wargaming, cause the historical results should not be the average, only the "best way" for one side.
So you made clear, that i no longer am interested in the things you said.
Thank you... the green button help me

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well, if 90% of the spanish people defend the doping criminal bycical "hero"... in this point the "spanish" people have a problem.

But i wasn´t the guy who brought up soccer/sports. I just slapped the "spanish" behaviour about fair sports that sadly the majority of spanish people support.

You asked, you got what you deserved.
But again i ask, what criminal doping behaviour of spanish "heros" (bycical and soccer) and the overall defence of this behaviour has anything to do with the problems in this game.

You still need to explain yourself about this.

The discussed point was "how should this game handle blizzard" or "what can the customer expect if he spend his money for this game.

you made your point about the silliness of wargaming, cause the historical results should not be the average, only the "best way" for one side.
So you made clear, that i no longer am interested in the things you said.
Thank you... the green button help me

When did I say anything about the silliness of wargaming?

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

v1.03 Blizzard survival guide published in the War Room.

BigAnorak, I was wondering what kind of metrics have been used by the official playtesters in the past, and what would be could items for additional testers? I have seen no uniform statistics used in the AARs, although some have provided detailed spread sheets of some of there forces. In some cases difficult metrics have been used, for example, number of hexes captured. This may inhibit general usage by the gaming community for comparison purposes. What about the AARs summarizing in an Excel-type spreedsheet the following information which I think is easy to obtain? This only needs to be presented once at the end of the game, and not every turn. The proposed metrics to be given as a function of turn could be:

1. Number of troops (Germans)
2. Number of tanks (Germans)
3. Number of troop casualties (German killed, captured, and wounded all totaled
together)
4. Number of tank casualties (German total)
5. Number of troops (Russians)
6. Number of tanks (Russians)
7. Number of troop casualties (Russian killed, captured, and wounded all totaled
together)
8. Number of tank casualties (Russian total)

I have not included the Axis allies to save player time. Also, the software version should be put at the top of the file, with any additional in-house rules which significantly effect combat. The file could be an attachment in the AAR, hopefully near when the game was actually concluded. If necessary, two files could be given (one for Germans and one for Russians). What do you think?

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well, first of all - most players (customers) disagree.

A game with the historical result being the "best" one side can reach is broken.
Cause it has so deep attitude to disagree to the history that it can´t seen as realistic.

It doesn´t matter wich side, wich time wich conflict.

Here in WitE you basically say "each axis player has to accept that if he play the gc41, he will get kicked worse than history cause I (or the programmer) think, that the historical result should only be the 1 out of 1000 result.

If this would be true, nobody who is interested in playing better as historical can ignore such game. And it isn´t important if you play the russian or the axis side.
as axis you could only reach "historical" results, or get slapped arount. as the russian player, it is booooooooooooooooooooring, cause only if the opposite player is "near god" he can achive historical results.

I bet, if you ask 100 customers, 99 will say "no interest in such game"... maybe 95... Even fanboys of one side wouldn´t care about such a game (against ai is different, but in a pbem?

Philosophically, I think most of the current debate in the game now is over the relative change from historical caused by the improvement in Russian generalship in the game, compared to better German generalship in the game. The most recent WitE versions seem to give the Russian improvement a great impact, but did marginalize the German improvement. This shows up not only in the Winter 1941 period, but especially in the Summer/Fall 1942 period as well. When one tries to both re-create and change history, the results will always be debatable. Some where down the line it is the decision of the game designers that counts most. I do not see alot of dialogue about what players think better generalship from both sides should have historically resulted in! Most of the comments revolve around the unrealism of the German Army getting crushed in Winter 1941. When this is fixed, the next important question will be how much better the Germans would have performed?

I assume the designers are looking at German victory conditions, but the lack of play until the fall of Berlin may hamper there modifications. I also believe the designers want the game to be fun and challenging. Finally, the historical result was the result of both sides learning as they went along. Players can play the game numerous times, and understand their units much better than historical commanders ever did. Both initial and repeated play should be rewarding.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: bednarre

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well, first of all - most players (customers) disagree.

A game with the historical result being the "best" one side can reach is broken.
Cause it has so deep attitude to disagree to the history that it can´t seen as realistic.

It doesn´t matter wich side, wich time wich conflict.

Here in WitE you basically say "each axis player has to accept that if he play the gc41, he will get kicked worse than history cause I (or the programmer) think, that the historical result should only be the 1 out of 1000 result.

If this would be true, nobody who is interested in playing better as historical can ignore such game. And it isn´t important if you play the russian or the axis side.
as axis you could only reach "historical" results, or get slapped arount. as the russian player, it is booooooooooooooooooooring, cause only if the opposite player is "near god" he can achive historical results.

I bet, if you ask 100 customers, 99 will say "no interest in such game"... maybe 95... Even fanboys of one side wouldn´t care about such a game (against ai is different, but in a pbem?

When this is fixed, the next important question will be how much better the Germans would have performed?

Is it possible for both sides to perform better than in History? Are not the performances of both sides linked? In one does better, the other is worse (does worse?) than historically?. If the Axis does better than history in 1941, does it imply that the Soviets do worse than their historic performance in 1941? Is it likely? Just asking...

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: bednarre
Philosophically, I think most of the current debate in the game now is over the relative change from historical caused by the improvement in Russian generalship in the game, compared to better German generalship in the game.

The German generals seem to be the most improved, they are able to see the future and know EXACTLY when a blizzard will strike!! [:)]

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: bednarre

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well, first of all - most players (customers) disagree.

A game with the historical result being the "best" one side can reach is broken.
Cause it has so deep attitude to disagree to the history that it can´t seen as realistic.

It doesn´t matter wich side, wich time wich conflict.

Here in WitE you basically say "each axis player has to accept that if he play the gc41, he will get kicked worse than history cause I (or the programmer) think, that the historical result should only be the 1 out of 1000 result.

If this would be true, nobody who is interested in playing better as historical can ignore such game. And it isn´t important if you play the russian or the axis side.
as axis you could only reach "historical" results, or get slapped arount. as the russian player, it is booooooooooooooooooooring, cause only if the opposite player is "near god" he can achive historical results.

I bet, if you ask 100 customers, 99 will say "no interest in such game"... maybe 95... Even fanboys of one side wouldn´t care about such a game (against ai is different, but in a pbem?

Philosophically, I think most of the current debate in the game now is over the relative change from historical caused by the improvement in Russian generalship in the game, compared to better German generalship in the game. The most recent WitE versions seem to give the Russian improvement a great impact, but did marginalize the German improvement. This shows up not only in the Winter 1941 period, but especially in the Summer/Fall 1942 period as well. When one tries to both re-create and change history, the results will always be debatable. Some where down the line it is the decision of the game designers that counts most. I do not see alot of dialogue about what players think better generalship from both sides should have historically resulted in! Most of the comments revolve around the unrealism of the German Army getting crushed in Winter 1941. When this is fixed, the next important question will be how much better the Germans would have performed?

I assume the designers are looking at German victory conditions, but the lack of play until the fall of Berlin may hamper there modifications. I also believe the designers want the game to be fun and challenging. Finally, the historical result was the result of both sides learning as they went along. Players can play the game numerous times, and understand their units much better than historical commanders ever did. Both initial and repeated play should be rewarding.

Thanks for your answer.

True - i see the problem also, if you "help" the germans in winter 41 to much, it could cause big problems for realistic gameplay.
The main problem is for me, what should be the "normal" outcome if to similar experienced player do a pbem.
In the moment the russian player do much better as historical (by not "die at the border"), but this cause much stronger german troops in winter41 (if you avoid battle your troops are better - but also the troops of your enemy) and exactly this doesn´t matter in this game

As i wrote earlier:
russian fight and loose lot troops but the german toe goes down? this should cause historical results for winter41.
russian player avoid heavy battles, germans are far better, even in better locations (say leningrad, rostov and a defendable river defence with level3/4-fortifications) - russian attacks in blizzard will be blown away. Blizzard shock should NOT happen (say only 10% of it)
russian wear down germany, has left more troops - german army will be kicked in winter41 and an early russian victory (say mid43 in berlin) is possible and realistic

But still - if the game designer thinks that the historical events in 41 are the "best" the german side can reach - game is not interesting as a gc. Not for me and - as far as i can read the comments here - not for most players.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

ORIGINAL: bednarre
Philosophically, I think most of the current debate in the game now is over the relative change from historical caused by the improvement in Russian generalship in the game, compared to better German generalship in the game.

The German generals seem to be the most improved, they are able to see the future and know EXACTLY when a blizzard will strike!! [:)]

really? in the moment they can think what they want, it doesn´t matter.
on the other side, the russian generals exactly knew that the strongest winter in history will happen and so the unprepared germans (the russians did not know the missing preperations) can be crushed without a problem

So no, the advantages are in the moment exclusive on the russian side (nearly - every german "knows" that leningrad need to be conquered, because the finnish troops are needed to improve the blizzard desaster....

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
really? in the moment they can think what they want, it doesn´t matter.
on the other side, the russian generals exactly knew that the strongest winter in history will happen and so the unprepared germans (the russians did not know the missing preperations) can be crushed without a problem

Yes both sides can predict the future weather with amazing accuracy, I only wish my local weather guy was 1/10th as accurate!

[Adnan Meshuggi]

that is the 20/20 problem.

If we do weather in zones/Hexes, even if historically, this problem will vanish.
Best solution:
each hex has individual weather with zones, in that weather will range

say "northern north zone (finns above leningrad) is "blizzard" you can get snow,blizzard,fog,light snow, cold...

the differences between the weather "effects" could sometimes minimal (combat values), sometime serious... say, fog cold limited your artillery or shooting efficency... blizzard end all combat (cause even if you wear winter clothes, if you have a winter storm with heavy snowing, -50 Degree Celsius with addition Chill-Factor, NOBODY fights.

I do belive that more weather-effects should be possible in a modern computer game... so clear can be "clear, dusty or clear, clear oder clear with light fog....

in a 10miles map, this should be possible... if you have good recon you know more about the weather in the enemy area.... otherwise you ran into slowing area... even if you think you have enough MP.... this would add more reality and fun to the game.

short:
You have 4-8 zones, each zone has a "master-weather" with individual hex-weather...

if you also manage to do the winter-weather in a way to avoid "blizzard-individual" all the time, you have solved the problem with first winter...

cause russian attacking troops advancing one turn ("knowing" they have another Blizzard-turn) can get into a snow-clear-Hex the next turn and their german enemies can kill em with ease... (cause their combat strength returned a lot)

Is it impossible to implement? Then i hope for "Generals Edition"

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

ORIGINAL: bednarre

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well, first of all - most players (customers) disagree.

A game with the historical result being the "best" one side can reach is broken.
Cause it has so deep attitude to disagree to the history that it can´t seen as realistic.

It doesn´t matter wich side, wich time wich conflict.

Here in WitE you basically say "each axis player has to accept that if he play the gc41, he will get kicked worse than history cause I (or the programmer) think, that the historical result should only be the 1 out of 1000 result.

If this would be true, nobody who is interested in playing better as historical can ignore such game. And it isn´t important if you play the russian or the axis side.
as axis you could only reach "historical" results, or get slapped arount. as the russian player, it is booooooooooooooooooooring, cause only if the opposite player is "near god" he can achive historical results.

I bet, if you ask 100 customers, 99 will say "no interest in such game"... maybe 95... Even fanboys of one side wouldn´t care about such a game (against ai is different, but in a pbem?

Philosophically, I think most of the current debate in the game now is over the relative change from historical caused by the improvement in Russian generalship in the game, compared to better German generalship in the game. The most recent WitE versions seem to give the Russian improvement a great impact, but did marginalize the German improvement. This shows up not only in the Winter 1941 period, but especially in the Summer/Fall 1942 period as well. When one tries to both re-create and change history, the results will always be debatable. Some where down the line it is the decision of the game designers that counts most. I do not see alot of dialogue about what players think better generalship from both sides should have historically resulted in! Most of the comments revolve around the unrealism of the German Army getting crushed in Winter 1941. When this is fixed, the next important question will be how much better the Germans would have performed?

I assume the designers are looking at German victory conditions, but the lack of play until the fall of Berlin may hamper there modifications. I also believe the designers want the game to be fun and challenging. Finally, the historical result was the result of both sides learning as they went along. Players can play the game numerous times, and understand their units much better than historical commanders ever did. Both initial and repeated play should be rewarding.

Thanks for your answer.

True - i see the problem also, if you "help" the germans in winter 41 to much, it could cause big problems for realistic gameplay.
The main problem is for me, what should be the "normal" outcome if to similar experienced player do a pbem.
In the moment the russian player do much better as historical (by not "die at the border"), but this cause much stronger german troops in winter41 (if you avoid battle your troops are better - but also the troops of your enemy) and exactly this doesn´t matter in this game

As i wrote earlier:
russian fight and loose lot troops but the german toe goes down? this should cause historical results for winter41.
russian player avoid heavy battles, germans are far better, even in better locations (say leningrad, rostov and a defendable river defence with level3/4-fortifications) - russian attacks in blizzard will be blown away. Blizzard shock should NOT happen (say only 10% of it)
russian wear down germany, has left more troops - german army will be kicked in winter41 and an early russian victory (say mid43 in berlin) is possible and realistic

But still - if the game designer thinks that the historical events in 41 are the "best" the german side can reach - game is not interesting as a gc. Not for me and - as far as i can read the comments here - not for most players.

Adnan, I agree that players want more than a sure, decisive defeat in later 1941 playing Germans. I also think the German Army would have had much greater combat ability in 1942 than I am seeing in the AARs, given a Russian retreat strategy. Therefore, when the game becomes more realistic, I expect a very close contest in 1942 to see if:

1) Moscow can be taken
2) Russian economy can be thoroughly wrecked (resources)
3) Russian Army can suffer catastrophic losses (having to stand and fight around Moscow)

The fixing of the German railroad supply net should have given them a tremendous boost in 1942, and keeping overall quality and quantity should make this both an interesting game and an accurate simulation. The game is not there yet!

The German were in a good position in 1942, but not a great position. This is primarily because of the severe German casualties in 1941, compared with their replacement rate. With game play, I still expect the Germans to still be in a good position in 1942. This makes the game's most decisive period in late summer 1942, allowing 1 whole year required to be played before either side sees the light. This should keep most players happy, but assumes the uber-fortress problem can be fixed.


Finally, I had problems with "Don't tickle yourself" comments. If Matrix was like Microsoft, I would agree that the company could pay for more developers/game players. Realistically, there has never been a wargaming company in world history with this type of capability. From the very being of SPI, the father of modern wargaming, volunteer play testers made or broke the game. They provided numerous suggestions, found rule bugs, and fixed game imbalances. As I programmer myself, I know how time consuming just the programming aspects of the game are. If one does not want to help, fine. But it seems very unfair to criticize those who are willing to volunteer time and comments.

[madgamer2]

ORIGINAL: Zort

I will disagree with you that DNO was that good.  Don't want to get into a Europa discussion here.  WitE is a large game and the few testers did what they could.

I for one am having a blast playing the game knowing that fixes were/are going to be done.  Very few computer games are released 100% done, most after it gets into the hands of the players find lots of things that could be better and are patched.

WitE let's you have settings on handicapping etc.  No one that I have seen on the forums (except one AAR) has attempted to change the settings to what they think the other side should have or not and played it and reported back.  Yes the game needs tweeting in some areas.  The designers decided on doing things a certain way and they are now hearing that some players don't like the WAD, ie weather.  Will the game be improved, yea.  You have stated in numerous areas the above, thanks.

To me even though I have whined to my opponent about how bad things are it still is a challenge.  If you don't want to play it don't, same with me and the Europa series (oh yea I was a play tester for Total War that hasn't come out yet).

several months ago I sold some70+ bpard games to Noble Knight Games among them the most unusual Europa game series. I had 4 of the games Tne Norway game, the Polish game (both still unpunched) and the the first two(were there more?) parts of the russian front. The strange thing was the counter mix in the Russian games (the second one I think was totally wrong. It had extra sheets of two of the required number and was missing at least on sheet and had at least one sheet that did not belong. They looked at it and could not figure it out so they sold it on there site "AAS IS"...I keep wondering if anyone bought it as it did have the Norweay and Polish games still unpunched.

Madgamer2

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

that is the 20/20 problem.

If we do weather in zones/Hexes, even if historically, this problem will vanish.
Best solution:
each hex has individual weather with zones, in that weather will range

say "northern north zone (finns above leningrad) is "blizzard" you can get snow,blizzard,fog,light snow, cold...

the differences between the weather "effects" could sometimes minimal (combat values), sometime serious... say, fog cold limited your artillery or shooting efficency... blizzard end all combat (cause even if you wear winter clothes, if you have a winter storm with heavy snowing, -50 Degree Celsius with addition Chill-Factor, NOBODY fights.

I do belive that more weather-effects should be possible in a modern computer game... so clear can be "clear, dusty or clear, clear oder clear with light fog....

in a 10miles map, this should be possible... if you have good recon you know more about the weather in the enemy area.... otherwise you ran into slowing area... even if you think you have enough MP.... this would add more reality and fun to the game.

short:
You have 4-8 zones, each zone has a "master-weather" with individual hex-weather...

if you also manage to do the winter-weather in a way to avoid "blizzard-individual" all the time, you have solved the problem with first winter...

cause russian attacking troops advancing one turn ("knowing" they have another Blizzard-turn) can get into a snow-clear-Hex the next turn and their german enemies can kill em with ease... (cause their combat strength returned a lot)

Is it impossible to implement? Then i hope for "Generals Edition"

One of the problems I have with blizzard modeling is that the Army Group North had the best winter defense of the 3 army groups:

1) November 10 at Tikhvin (successfull, but no "blizzard")
2) January 7 Lyuban Offensive (2nd Shock Army cut off in woods and surrendered in Spring)
3) January Nebsky Pyatachok (lasted until May 1943), partially successfull with 10-12 km corridor to Leningrad established (1/2 hex)

Yet it may assumed that it had the worst blizzard situation. This was a case where the Germans had waited on the defensive in established forts, and should be more representative of what is expected in front of Moscow in the AARs.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

HI, about the comment - i copied it in earlier times from a user i disliked because of his narrow mental abilities.
If you or others here have a problem with it, i can clear my sig-line... no problem

But being a member of the "axis of wheasels" in a long forgotten time , i just couldn´t resist.
By the way - just google for mdiehl and WITP... it is fun.

For the game - yes, i want the easy "good play = better shape, normal play=same shape, bad play=bad shape"-thing.
A german player should NOT win in 1941... that is beyond scope for me. But if he can do better (can he do?) or his russian enemy do not fight as hard as the russians did historically, he should be better in winter41, better position for 42.
And - with very good play, he should win in 42 (not that the game is over in 42,but he should have the chance to do so much damage, that he can hold a frontline in 44 or even 45 far away from german border. (Say, game ends in July 45 with a line 12-15hexes eas of the border of 1941

If this can´t be done and the only chance for the axis side is "well, its June 45 and you had 375 points more as average, but you got slapped all the time from autum 43... then the game is broken.

Cause the eastern war was a short thing, even with the big mistakes by the germans... sure, they could not stop the russians any more in 44 or 45. but with less losses, more russian losses, the russians could not do it as they did historically. That is the point and the big difference to WitP. Japan was doomed from day one and had not the industrial power or military strength to hold on. The germans had this power (partly!), so a good german gameplay should avoid the historical results in the game (we have to ignore the western front - as long as we have no "WW2"-Game with 10mile-Hexes.... )

But this should not say that german supermen can easly win against the russians at will. That would be also broken.

[alfonso]

If Germans do better than in History during the first year, that is because Soviets do worse. I would not say that it is impossible, but perhaps somewhat unlikely.