An Open Letter To Joel

[Berkut]

I love the hysteria.

If you don't have Hitler meddling, we might as well be playing Fallout! With giant radioactive Ants!

[Cavalry Corp]

For certain one wuld assume that the Russians would have knowledge of these dates not the Axis ?
I suppose that musty have helped them a bit

Cav

[ComradeP]

There's no such thing as true "historical wargame", at least I haven't encountered one. All wargames I've played allowed me to do things at different times or with different units than they were historically done, which meant that they were "historical" in the units they contained but not 100% historical in their outcome, which is basically the essence of any wargame.

[Lützow]

For grand strategy there is HoI3, where I can build the Axis of my choice and include all kind of events.

WitE plays on a strategic/operational level and should stick to history. I wouldn't like to see an early victory by taking Moscow in '41 or a what-if scenario, considering the assassination of 20th july 1944 succeeds.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

There's no such thing as true "historical wargame", at least I haven't encountered one. All wargames I've played allowed me to do things at different times or with different units than they were historically done, which meant that they were "historical" in the units they contained but not 100% historical in their outcome, which is basically the essence of any wargame.

I agree, this basically is the position I take on wargamming (give me the units and I'll send them someplace or not!).

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

There's no such thing as true "historical wargame", at least I haven't encountered one. All wargames I've played allowed me to do things at different times or with different units than they were historically done, which meant that they were "historical" in the units they contained but not 100% historical in their outcome, which is basically the essence of any wargame.

I don't think the argument should be about whether or not there is a "true historical" wargame - those kinds of binary arguments are a bit silly, since you end up with no ability to draw distinctions between more or less historical.

The better argument is that one should not get so hung up on picking out some particular historical aspect (like Hitlers meddling), state unequivocally that it is the most important thing to capture, and if you don't, then the game sucks or whatever. There are a hundred different OTHER things one can argue are the "critical" factors, absent which the simulation is not longer "historical". What? The Germans don't have more horses than trucks? ZOMG NOT HISTORICAL!

Russians aren't modeled with radioless AFVs? OH NOES TEH GAME IS TEH FALLOUT!

I mean, you can go on and on.

Making a wargame is not about trying to get every single last variable you can think of and jamming it into the game. It is about figuring out what the designer thinks is important, and what the designer wants the player to base his decisions around, and then modelling those factors so that they impact the outcome in a way that makes sense and is engaging.

And there is no one answer - every designer can do something a little different, put their own spin, their own emphasis on what they think was critical. For some, that might be the logistical problems of waging war in Russia. For others, the difficulty in effective formation organizations, for yet another the political realities behind the men driving the wars to begin with. These are all perfectly valid viewpoints for how to present the exact same basic scenario, the relative weight the designer chooses to place on these things will result in very different games.

So yeah - maybe WitE won't have much in there about random events, or meddling heads of state. So what? If that bothers you, just assume it is abstracted into the capabilities of the units or something. But don't kid yourself into thinking that the game is any more or less historical for its inclusion of some pet factor that you find interesting.

Better to go out and make your own game that highlights that factor, it might make for something pretty interesting.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

I don't think the argument should be about whether or not there is a "true historical" wargame - those kinds of binary arguments are a bit silly, since you end up with no ability to draw distinctions between more or less historical.

The better argument is that one should not get so hung up on picking out some particular historical aspect (like Hitlers meddling), state unequivocally that it is the most important thing to capture, and if you don't, then the game sucks or whatever. There are a hundred different OTHER things one can argue are the "critical" factors, absent which the simulation is not longer "historical". What? The Germans don't have more horses than trucks? ZOMG NOT HISTORICAL!

Russians aren't modeled with radioless AFVs? OH NOES TEH GAME IS TEH FALLOUT!

I mean, you can go on and on.

Making a wargame is not about trying to get every single last variable you can think of and jamming it into the game. It is about figuring out what the designer thinks is important, and what the designer wants the player to base his decisions around, and then modelling those factors so that they impact the outcome in a way that makes sense and is engaging.

And there is no one answer - every designer can do something a little different, put their own spin, their own emphasis on what they think was critical. For some, that might be the logistical problems of waging war in Russia. For others, the difficulty in effective formation organizations, for yet another the political realities behind the men driving the wars to begin with. These are all perfectly valid viewpoints for how to present the exact same basic scenario, the relative weight the designer chooses to place on these things will result in very different games.

So yeah - maybe WitE won't have much in there about random events, or meddling heads of state. So what? If that bothers you, just assume it is abstracted into the capabilities of the units or something. But don't kid yourself into thinking that the game is any more or less historical for its inclusion of some pet factor that you find interesting.

Better to go out and make your own game that highlights that factor, it might make for something pretty interesting.

You are quite right, at least with a few points. The designers have made quite a few good choices here, and the final decision is up to them as always. But much more important will probably be the reaction of the customer to the designers choices, right? And this game already doesn't target a wide audience, but a highly specialized one. A small niche. To make sure you don't end up with a few 100 or 1000 sales to a few die-hard customers, but get at least into the 10.000 range to make to for the development cost, the designers probably should consider more what the less hardcore gamers would be looking for. The ones that liked WiR, and will necessarily compare to that. There is plenty of potential there as the discussion of the withdrawals, events, production, western/italy front, research&development etc. show.

Addendum: I would be happy with any of that being optional, chosen at scenario start. And even if it was implemented in such a basic version as in WiR, it would be very cool. Of course if it was announced to be postponed until patching, that would be fine too. Of course best would be a very moddable, open game, that would allow players to script such additions themselves. Or the announcement of an addition that treats simultaneously to the eastern front the "battles in France and Italy". Heck, this game would be worth $200 to me if it treated the whole war and economy the same was as WiTP/AE.

[ComradeP]

The ability to influence the results of the Allied bombing campaign and the Allied ground offensives would be nice, but in that case new variables would have to be added, as in some cases an extra division on the Western front might turn the tide, whilst in other cases it would not.

If every unit you can send would have a fixed value on the abstracted Western or Southern fronts, you'd get a sort of min/max situation like the Manchukuo Army in WitP:AE, where as long as you meet a certain amount of AV, nothing happens with Soviet activation regardless of the quality of the Japanese units in the area that, combined, meet the required AV level.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
The ability to influence the results of the Allied bombing campaign and the Allied ground offensives would be nice, but in that case new variables would have to be added, as in some cases an extra division on the Western front might turn the tide, whilst in other cases it would not.

If every unit you can send would have a fixed value on the abstracted Western or Southern fronts, you'd get a sort of min/max situation like the Manchukuo Army in WitP:AE, where as long as you meet a certain amount of AV, nothing happens with Soviet activation regardless of the quality of the Japanese units in the area that, combined, meet the required AV level.

Exactly, that sort of was it in WiR too, and the AV value there depended on weather. A very crude approximation, but it worked and created extra options (or trouble) for the German player. Along the lines of representing supply through a pool of trucks and carts, btw, but that doesn't make it a bad design decision. Exactly the opposite -- get rid of micromanagement, but do not sacrifice too much effect on realism.
Without the western fronts and the production in WiR, there would be zero hope to continue any campaign beyond August 1943, at least not with any hope of at least a standstill. After all, this is still a game, and will likely only be fun for both sides if they have a shot at winning the war, or at least not loosing it by "a numbers game". Anyway, if the designers are so sure their target customers won't value such features, then we probably won't get them back. It would be nice to have a bigger poll and see how many potential customers would wish any or which of those discussed features... Maybe they'd consider revising some of their design decisions if they'd know they appeal to more customers?

[FM WarB]

If you are talking controlling production, influencing the air campaign in the west and the land battles there you are talking War in Europe on Corps or army level. You are not talking an East Front division level operational game.

You are talking Avalon Hill's Third Reich, not DNO/Unentscheiden. Would I like to see a good Third Reich for the computer? YES. But I dont confuse it with DNO or SPI's Eastfront monster.

[Capt Cliff]

I see all the Matrix "yes" men have chimed in ... [8|] ... but still the "Emporer has no clothes!" With no Adolph or Joe this is not a historical simulation it's a "what if" military simulation. Like the wargame the Germans played before the Normandy invasion. I bet they allowed release of the panzer reserves ... but Her Hitler didn't!! Can we have a Napoleonic game witout a Napoleon counter? The chain of command is truncated in WitE. No doubt McArthur would have preferred not to report to Harry Truman, but he did ... that's the way it was. So no bucks without Buck Rogers, aka Adolph and Joe!!

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

I see all the Matrix "yes" men have chimed in ... [8|] ... but still the "Emporer has no clothes!" With no Adolph or Joe this is not a historical simulation it's a "what if" military simulation. Like the wargame the Germans played before the Normandy invasion. I bet they allowed release of the panzer reserves ... but Her Hitler didn't!! Can we have a Napoleonic game witout a Napoleon counter? The chain of command is truncated in WitE. No doubt McArthur would have preferred not to report to Harry Truman, but he did ... that's the way it was. So no bucks without Buck Rogers, aka Adolph and Joe!!

Tell me, with your standards are there any historical simulations? Can you name a single one?

[karonagames]

In the early 80's, one of my favourite games was "France 1940", by Avalon Hill. It contained a leaflet something along the lines of "how to re-create history" and had a map showing where you had to move your units as the Allied player so that you were guaranteed to lose the game.

Did I ever use it? Ummm... no, it was the most pointless item ever included in a boardgame. The game was great precisely because you didn't have to do what the Allies did historically.

Are you really saying you want WITE to be the computer equivalent of this leaflet?

[Neal_MLC]

I am thinking that WitE is already one big massive "what-if" game because it assumes that the generals are allowed to fight the war they way they see fit with the resources historically available to them. If I wanted complete accuracy I would just read a book. If anything have the "France 40" leaflet as a paid for add-on.

[ComradeP]

I see all the Matrix "yes" men have chimed in ... ..

So I am a "yes man" due to removing the illusion that there's a minimal chance you've ever played a "historical" (the exact historical moves, throughout the game) wargame?

As Karri said: name me a historical wargame, and not one were the outcome is variable, but where the outcome is automatically the historical outcome, which is the only way to define a true "historical" wargame.

[Zovs]

Since at least 1958 when Tactics II (originally Tactics I came out in 1953) designed by Charles S. Roberts and Avalon Hill Game Company (originally Monarch Printing) all war games as soon as they hit the table (now-a-days the video screen) are a-historic. That being said some of the finest and best game designers have been design quality, playable and historical war games ever since. War in the East is no exception.

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

I see all the Matrix "yes" men have chimed in ... [8|] ... but still the "Emporer has no clothes!" With no Adolph or Joe this is not a historical simulation it's a "what if" military simulation. Like the wargame the Germans played before the Normandy invasion. I bet they allowed release of the panzer reserves ... but Her Hitler didn't!! Can we have a Napoleonic game witout a Napoleon counter? The chain of command is truncated in WitE. No doubt McArthur would have preferred not to report to Harry Truman, but he did ... that's the way it was. So no bucks without Buck Rogers, aka Adolph and Joe!!

I guess you could say i'm a matrix yes man. The reason being matrix and more to the point, Gary and Joel have earned my respect over many years. They are in my opinion the best at delivering Historically Based wargames. I will continue to agree with them until i find a reason not to. If that's okay with you.
It has been mentioned many times that once you start playing a wargame it becomes ahistorical. You have yet to respond to this logic and just continue to demand things or you won't play the game. It seems to me you are having a bit of a tantrum.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

I see all the Matrix "yes" men have chimed in ... [8|] ... but still the "Emporer has no clothes!" With no Adolph or Joe this is not a historical simulation it's a "what if" military simulation. Like the wargame the Germans played before the Normandy invasion. I bet they allowed release of the panzer reserves ... but Her Hitler didn't!! Can we have a Napoleonic game witout a Napoleon counter? The chain of command is truncated in WitE. No doubt McArthur would have preferred not to report to Harry Truman, but he did ... that's the way it was. So no bucks without Buck Rogers, aka Adolph and Joe!!

I've heard this complaint raised before but no one who raises it ever cites a concrete example of "meddling" by Hitler or Stalin. I've read Erickson, Glantz, Clarke, Fugate, Ziemke to name but a few and in none of these histories do the supreme leaders come off as the erratic interlopers your "Fuehrer orders" rules would imply. Quite the contrary, the "professional" military leadership is often as egotistical and incompetent as Hitler or Stalin on their worst day.

I also find it the height of arrogance that people assume that without programmed in "crazy orders" from the supreme leadership they would play an unhistorical "perfect game". I have been testing this game for three years now and doubt I've ever played a perfert turn let alone a perfect game. Anyone who has not played this game simply can't comprehend the size and depth of the game. You WILL make mistakes, you don't need Hitler to make them for you!

I do not think it is an oversight that on the Suggestions topic on the WitE game development forum which is seven pages long there is not one suggestion for a "Hitler rule". No one has suggested it because it is simply not necessary. You, the player, are Hitler or Stalin and you will make enough of your own mistakes to more than compensate for the lack of any programmed in stupidity. You may not believe me now but four or five turns into the Barbarossa scenario you will.

[kfmiller41]

Well said Jaw, I am sure every player will do things they think make sense that later on will seem like complete idiocy[:D] I am sure i will and will not need any extra rules to help me do that.

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

I see all the Matrix "yes" men have chimed in ... [8|] ... but still the "Emporer has no clothes!" With no Adolph or Joe this is not a historical simulation it's a "what if" military simulation. Like the wargame the Germans played before the Normandy invasion. I bet they allowed release of the panzer reserves ... but Her Hitler didn't!! Can we have a Napoleonic game witout a Napoleon counter? The chain of command is truncated in WitE. No doubt McArthur would have preferred not to report to Harry Truman, but he did ... that's the way it was. So no bucks without Buck Rogers, aka Adolph and Joe!!

I've heard this complaint raised before but no one who raises it ever cites a concrete example of "meddling" by Hitler or Stalin. I've read Erickson, Glantz, Clarke, Fugate, Ziemke to name but a few and in none of these histories do the supreme leaders come off as the erratic interlopers your "Fuehrer orders" rules would imply. Quite the contrary, the "professional" military leadership is often as egotistical and incompetent as Hitler or Stalin on their worst day.

I also find it the height of arrogance that people assume that without programmed in "crazy orders" from the supreme leadership they would play an unhistorical "perfect game". I have been testing this game for three years now and doubt I've ever played a perfert turn let alone a perfect game. Anyone who has not played this game simply can't comprehend the size and depth of the game. You WILL make mistakes, you don't need Hitler to make them for you!

I do not think it is an oversight that on the Suggestions topic on the WitE game development forum which is seven pages long there is not one suggestion for a "Hitler rule". No one has suggested it because it is simply not necessary. You, the player, are Hitler or Stalin and you will make enough of your own mistakes to more than compensate for the lack of any programmed in stupidity. You may not believe me now but four or five turns into the Barbarossa scenario you will.

Sophistry jaw, pure sophistry. The command structure is truncated, period. No head to the dragon. Why not eliminate the T-34, say it was never built. Like your saying Stalin never meddled in command decisions that cost the Soviets thousands of mens lives and countless loses of equipment. You have left out a mitigating factor in the equation for the conflict between Germany and the USSR.