Why not WEGO?

[sol_invictus]

I have no doubts that WEGO is superior for Tactical and Operational level games but for Grand Strategy; especially with auto-defender reactions; IGOUGO should work fine.

[rjh1971]

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

ORIGINAL: rjh1971

It can be more realistic, but it might be slower when playing by email if there are different phases in one same turn and you have to wait for your opponents answer to continue to the next phase, this is what happened in Guns of August, pbem was desperately slow. Igoyougo are better for pbem.
How is it with WitP when pbem?

Every play Combat Mission? That is a WEGO tactical system ... thake three exchanges to complete a turn. I have run regement size battle on it and have had no trouble. But if WitE is an IGOUGO then so be it. Waste of air to talk more about it

Agreed WieT is an IGOUGO and that ain't going to change at this stage, it's a developer's decission. [:)]

[Joel Billings]

One strong arguement for doing IGOUGO was that we wanted a system that gave players more immediate feedback (and enjoyment). By having a continues movement/combat phase (instead of distinct move and than combat phases), you get the fun of working to break an enemy line and then pour units through for the breakthrough. Since this game is so large, it's nice to be able to get the feedback right away. Having to spend an hour plotting movement without ever getting any results would have been tough. War in the Pacific was easier because you could plot TF's to move and not have to replot. It made turns much quicker than a land game with this many ground units. We also thought it was time to try something new since we'd already done several Russian Front games with the WEGO system. They both have strengths and weaknesses, and we have nothing against the WEGO format.

[Endsieg]

can someone explain why WarInRussia (WIR) is considered a WEGO gane and not IGOUGO, like many of the recent posts seem to insist?
In WIR there is no simultaneous or interactive submittal of plot orders by the opponents, whether human or AI, ... you move, you plot and then watch the combat you initiated all within the confines of your own turn, then send your turn(or watch the AI do his turn), ...isnt that IGOUGO ?

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Endsieg

can someone explain why WarInRussia (WIR) is considered a WEGO gane and not IGOUGO, like many of the recent posts seem to insist?
In WIR there is no simultaneous or interactive submittal of plot orders by the opponents, whether human or AI, ... you move, you plot and then watch the combat you initiated all within the confines of your own turn, then send your turn(or watch the AI do his turn), ...isnt that IGOUGO ?

If what you're describing is correct, then yes, it is indeed IGO UGO. Although the plotting of orders may be what people are interpreting as WEGO. Come to think of it, V4V was also IGO UGO but with plotting moves and combat, then resolving it just for your side. WEGO, as you note, implies both sides plotting at the same time and the moves and combat for both sides being resolved simultaneously.

[PyleDriver]

Guys just wait, I've played WIR since it first came out as Second Front, this game is so much better...

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

By having a continues movement/combat phase (instead of distinct move and than combat phases), you get the fun of working to break an enemy line and then pour units through for the breakthrough.

Its the same concept in SSG's games. Suggest you use a similiar type of security. Otherwise some players will re-load the turn. Example:

Advance a lone unit and find the enemy.

Reload the game, advance and destroy the enemy.

-

[sol_invictus]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: Endsieg

can someone explain why WarInRussia (WIR) is considered a WEGO gane and not IGOUGO, like many of the recent posts seem to insist?
In WIR there is no simultaneous or interactive submittal of plot orders by the opponents, whether human or AI, ... you move, you plot and then watch the combat you initiated all within the confines of your own turn, then send your turn(or watch the AI do his turn), ...isnt that IGOUGO ?

If what you're describing is correct, then yes, it is indeed IGO UGO. Although the plotting of orders may be what people are interpreting as WEGO. Come to think of it, V4V was also IGO UGO but with plotting moves and combat, then resolving it just for your side. WEGO, as you note, implies both sides plotting at the same time and the moves and combat for both sides being resolved simultaneously.

V4V was certainly WEGO since all plotted moves and combats were resolved simultaneously for both sides at the end of the turn.

[Zaratoughda]

Hmmm.... guess I am gonna get my comments in on this.... WEGO subject....

In an idealistic world, WEGO is the way to go, but in the real world, IGOUGO is the superior approach, particularly in campaigns of this magnitude.

The thing is, in the VAST MAJORITY of cases, in all campaigns one side was the attacker and the other side was the defender, and the defender would sit in their defensive stance until the attacker made his move.... THEN the defender would respond moving reserves and what not. Meanwhile, on the attacker's side, troops cannot fight every day and would need rest after the first attacks, and also after the first attacks it would be time to re-assess the situation, re how the initial attacks went as well as the defender's response, and THEN make the next attacker move.

So, to me, this is straight forward IGOUGO and was simply the way things were, and trying to take a WEGO approach to something like this.... is a joke.

I just got through trying a V4V game (well, actually WAW: Crusader) and, I like these games, don't mind the plotted movement, etc. However, after having played out II Deuce to a decisive victory on the Italian side, IMO, the game would have been better served with an IGOUGO approach. All's the WEGO system does is add a lot of confusion to things, units bumping into each other all over the place and what not along these lines, and what does it buy you??? Nothing that I can see.

OK, I am sure there are some things that are better simulated with the WEGO approach but IMO they are quite minor compared to the IGOUGO conflict that was really going on in these campaigns.

Zaratoughda

[Pford]

IGOUGO would be unbeatable if someone came up with anti-cheat mechanics for PBEM. If we can send a man to the moon...

[siRkid]

ORIGINAL: Pford

IGOUGO would be unbeatable if someone came up with anti-cheat mechanics for PBEM. If we can send a man to the moon...

Sad to say but we no longer have the technology to put a man on the moon.

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: Pford

IGOUGO would be unbeatable if someone came up with anti-cheat mechanics for PBEM. If we can send a man to the moon...

The Combat Mission games are WEGO and uncheatable! To my knowledge that is. Let's see ... player 1 plots his moves ... sends turn to player 2, player two plots his turn then executes the turn watchin events, then sends to player 2. Player 1 loads turn and watches turn execution and then plots turn. Seems to work.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

ORIGINAL: Pford

IGOUGO would be unbeatable if someone came up with anti-cheat mechanics for PBEM. If we can send a man to the moon...

The Combat Mission games are WEGO and uncheatable! To my knowledge that is. Let's see ... player 1 plots his moves ... sends turn to player 2, player two plots his turn then executes the turn watchin events, then sends to player 2. Player 1 loads turn and watches turn execution and then plots turn. Seems to work.

The WitE has HUGE map and many many many units... it also has turns that are numbered in time bigger than minutes... [:)]

Plotting all those units in WEGO would be very very hard thing to do... and not to mention all the possible calculations of tracking movement / combat in WEGO...



Here is what Joel wrote about this on page 1:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

One strong arguement for doing IGOUGO was that we wanted a system that gave players more immediate feedback (and enjoyment). By having a continues movement/combat phase (instead of distinct move and than combat phases), you get the fun of working to break an enemy line and then pour units through for the breakthrough. Since this game is so large, it's nice to be able to get the feedback right away. Having to spend an hour plotting movement without ever getting any results would have been tough. War in the Pacific was easier because you could plot TF's to move and not have to replot. It made turns much quicker than a land game with this many ground units. We also thought it was time to try something new since we'd already done several Russian Front games with the WEGO system. They both have strengths and weaknesses, and we have nothing against the WEGO format.

Thus the WitE IGOUGO is very very good way of doing things and with all checks and balances (i.e. opponent units on "React") I find it extremely satisfying and rewarding! [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Zaratoughda]

Hmmm...... WEGO seems pretty secure but..... the person that runs the game in the execution phase could always hack and cheat. They could run the execution phase multiple times until they got the results they wanted. Also, if they can hack, they could go in and change their orders... and then run the execution phase.

So, there is no system that is unhackable.

But, if you use a secure server approach.... then cheating becomes almost impossible.

With this, someone (Matrix, 2x3 or whomever) would have to have a server running and, when playing the game with this most secure feature, the game would connect to the server with information on the game and then when that player finished their turn or otherwise got out of the game, there would be another transaction. Sending information like the CRC of the save file would make cheating by reload as well as cheating by hacking, virtually impossible.

Some games (Steel Panthers winSPww2 and, I believe, TOAW) use systems along these lines except using the registry on the computer instead of a remote server, and if a player can hack the registry, then they can hack these systems.

The problem is PBEM attracts cheaters like dog crap attracks flies. Ya gotta wonder what is WRONG with these suckers but whatever it is it is there and they are out there. Maybe getting a rise outta doing something they are not supposed to I don't know. I only tried PBEM twice and the one guy was blatantly cheating while the other didn't technically cheat but relative to the spirit that we started the game with, he indeed cheated.

Yeah, just wanting to have a fun game and having to deal with things like this really detracts from PBEM.

Hmmm.... the system I put on the table above (and I have mentioned this elsewhere) is not that difficult to implement.... I could wip off the server code in a couple of hours that is all it would take... would be nice because it would be 'bye-bye cheaters'.

Zaratoughda

[Pford]

I played dozens of email games with Combat Mission in the past. (CM2 doesn't float my boat). I attempted a couple of PBEMs with another Grigsby game and had a negative experience: 4 reloads by my opponent. He provided convincing reasons- 2 crashes- but eventually the weight of probability began weighing on my mind. So I quit- no more non-WEGO PBEMs.

[Erik Rutins]

Combat Mission is cheatable, as are other PBEM games. It may be a bit harder in WEGO, but it can be done. Ultimately, try to play against trustworthy people and if they prove not to be, write them off your list of opponents.

[Erik Rutins]

One more note, I had a couple of experiences with opponents cheating in PBEM in the past. I never found that their cheating was able to sufficiently sway the outcome of the game to actually turn a defeat into a victory. It can spoil the enjoyment of a fair fight, but I don't think those who compulsively "reload" looking for a better result will really get much out of it.

Considering the number of "die rolls" in an average WITE turn, for example, I'd say they're just gluttons for punishment. Even if different results were possible, they should average out to about the same overall over the course of the turn.

Regards,

- Erik

[Josans]

ORIGINAL: Pford

I played dozens of email games with Combat Mission in the past. (CM2 doesn't float my boat). I attempted a couple of PBEMs with another Grigsby game and had a negative experience: 4 reloads by my opponent. He provided convincing reasons- 2 crashes- but eventually the weight of probability began weighing on my mind. So I quit- no more non-WEGO PBEMs.

We are still on Alpha and we dont think about cheaters right now. Like the old wir if you feel your opponent are cheating just dont play with him. The time put the players on the right point[;)]

In the other part looking for a solution would be fine of course. Maybe something similar as SSG did in his Decisive Battles series but improved? So early to say you know...

[hank]

I'm not asking why not Wego.  This seemed like a good thread to ask this question:
 
A question about WitE IGOUGO.  Will the game play include features that blur the IGOUGO structure?  What I'll try and do is to use two examples of different IGOUGO game play.
 
In TOAW, they use combat rounds where you move, plot attacks, plot artillery and air strikes, then execute that phase of your turn. You get results for those attacks with losses listed for the attacker and defender. Then if you don't use up too many MP's you get another round; then another; and another as long as you have not used up MP's or other factors (some people can get 5 or 6 rounds out of a turn).
 
In HPS PzCampaign games you have opportunity defensive fire that occurs when you fire on a defender.  You also have counterbattery fire and air defenses that counter you attacks.  With PzC's its more of a continuous move, fire, assault, expoit system with MP's controlling what you can do each turn.  The games AI determines when and how often defensive fire occurs within limitations.
 
Both these systems break up a Turn in different ways.  The purely IGOUGO system (which most games today are not) would force a player to make his move and attacks without any intervention from the other players forces; send the turn; the opponent would watch what you did to his forces; then he would plot his moves and send you the turn ... visa versa visa versa.
 
IMHO, both the techniques TOAW and PzC's blur the IGOUGO system to make it more fluid (for lack of a better word).  ... and fun
 
As I understand it at the grand scale of WitE the turns are one week long.  That time scale would provide opportunities for counterattacks during that week of combat.  Would that be modelled in a similar way opportunity defensive fire is simulated in the HPS games?
 
I'm just trying to get a feel for how turns flow with WitE since I've never played WiR or WitP.  The only WEGO game I've played is Flashpoint Germany.  The only real time game I have is Panther Games Highway to the Reich and Steelbeasts (which is a tank sim but you can play from the map views if desired).
 
I'm very interested in this game ... thus my inquiry ... and probable future questions.
 
(be gentle, I not trying to compare these games, I know WitE will be greatest thing since sliced bread when it hits the streets)

[Joel Billings]

There is the ability to place units in Reserve status, and under certain conditions they may activate and participate in a combat on the defending side. Air units automatically fly ground support and interdiction missions, so they fly during the other player's turn. That's about all I can think of at the moment.