Matrix Games Forums

Every game has warts; the ability to move quicker on the PC and to find a large stable of online opponents, and then post and share impressions in public may give a false impression about how "broken" a game like WITE is. In fact, every board game I have ever played has quirks and often much worse. WITE is awesome; even the most vocal and insulting whiners keep at it which is testimony as to how good it really is.

Happy Birthday, WITE.

Marquo [:)]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Part of me really misses the old days of FITE spread out with all those counters and 2 teams of 6 guys playing marathon 12-16 hour days over a weekend just to play 5 or 6 turns.

Stale donuts and bad coffee plus little sleep led to some very tense times and bad moves!

Ah, what life was like before marriage!

Part of me really misses the old days of FITE spread out with all those counters and 2 teams of 6 guys playing marathon 12-16 hour days over a weekend just to play 5 or 6 turns.

I still have that game. Dave and myself use to travel to Columbus, Ohio for a gaming convention just to play the game against other opponents. For a long time I thought Dave and myself where the only wackos to play that game. Boy! Was I surprised when I saw how many people enjoyed playing that game. I do miss the conventions and the comrades I made. I wonder how the guru (Rich Valey) is doing.

As Marquo said, with warts and all, this is THE best ever done on the Eastern Front at this scale. The greatest injustice - from my personal standpoint - is that I really think WITE shines brighter in the scenarios than in the GC, and scenarios aren't half as popular as they could or should be (and this observation is based on counting the number of AAR's covering scenarios vs. Grand Campaigns).

In any case, I'll be having an IPA for 2by3.

Interesting stat - The breakdown of games started on the server in the past month is as follows:

59% 1941-45 Alternate Campaign
22% 1941-45 Standard Camapign
16% Scenario
3% Other Campaign

Although I appreciate why the interest will always be greater in the long campaign, I think that some of the medium sized scenarios like Drama on the Danube and Decision in the Ukraine can be more exciting (certainly faster to play).

I recall all the negativity from some when a few of us suggested the alt campaign. Nice to see it has been vindicated. Thanks again to Joel and crew for the moded scenario. Could we get some Auto VP for early Russian wins sometime [:D]

What is the difference between the alternate and the standard game?

The game ends in July 45 rather than October 45 and the German Auto Win VP requirement was reduced from 290 to 260.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I recall all the negativity from some when a few of us suggested the alt campaign. Nice to see it has been vindicated. Thanks again to Joel and crew for the moded scenario. Could we get some Auto VP for early Russian wins sometime [:D]

It's obviously popular, but also wrongheaded. Those of us who do not believe a Soviet surrender would happen in these conditions haven't changed our minds. I continue to believe the alternate victory conditions have a built in asymmetry since the Soviet has no sudden death victory conditions except the old fashioned way of marching all the way to Berlin (which is correct) while the Axis gets a shortcut (which is not.)

As a practical matter very few games have changed in terms of their outcome due to the alt scenario VPs. The main effect of the alternate scenario has been to urge maybe a few Soviet players to resign games that would have gone on to a German victory anyways under the standard rule set. Axis player incentives remain the same in either case.

The one positive change of the alt scenario was to cut short the campaign to July of 45. It shouldn't ever have gone on so far as September as it becomes a pure fantasy game by that point.

I am not so sure that a sudden death VP for the Soviets is a good idea, either, btw. Rather, what I would do is to require the same existing conditions to apply for game end on the Soviet, but adjust the final outcome victory level in favor of the Soviet if the Axis decides to turtle early. That way, they need to do more than hold Berlin to even get a draw by July of 45. That would instead be a minor Soviet win.

Generally, I prefer these kinds of adjustments to the final tally over a premature ending in a campaign scenario setting.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I recall all the negativity from some when a few of us suggested the alt campaign. Nice to see it has been vindicated. Thanks again to Joel and crew for the moded scenario. Could we get some Auto VP for early Russian wins sometime [:D]

It's obviously popular, but also wrongheaded. Those of us who do not believe a Soviet surrender would happen in these conditions haven't changed our minds. I continue to believe the alternate victory conditions have a built in asymmetry since the Soviet has no sudden death victory conditions except the old fashioned way of marching all the way to Berlin (which is correct) while the Axis gets a shortcut (which is not.)

I used to share your position on this matter Flavio, but now I've come to grips with it. Rather than considering it to portray the surrender of the Soviet Union, I consider it to portray the event of the whole of the STAVKA given a one-way ride to Lubyanka [:D]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
As a practical matter very few games have changed in terms of their outcome due to the alt scenario VPs. The main effect of the alternate scenario has been to urge maybe a few Soviet players to resign games that would have gone on to a German victory anyways under the standard rule set. Axis player incentives remain the same in either case.

The one positive change of the alt scenario was to cut short the campaign to July of 45. It shouldn't ever have gone on so far as September as it becomes a pure fantasy game by that point.

Yet I have to agree with you on the particular point I highlighted, but I'll add something more: there's is no change in the incentives for either side. I think WitE scenarios are much more interesting mostly because of the much richer Victory Condition system in place for scenarios, which do really create reasons for players to feel compelled to do things in certain ways, which I deem - subjectively, of course - more historical and interesting.

Think VPs are OK and useful for scorekeeping; different win conditions in the alt41 campaign are just another issue that can be dealt with, so...

Are the VPs for a city wired into the combat resolution algorithms? If either side fights "harder" for high VP sites, then the VPs mean a lot more than "score keeping." I think VPs have no affect on combat. Of course, player invests forts, garrisons, and line-of-supply protections where wanted; this is real.