Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

If I want historical to that extreme, I will read a book. If you want Hitler etc meddling, then you might as well take 6th Army and allow it to be destroyed in 42. I have no desire to "repeat" history, it has already been done, I got the books and movies for that. I want to see if avoiding those mistakes would have made a difference in the outcome.

I prefer what if's more than anything. What if the last push for Moscow had not happened and the German army dug in, brought forward replacements, the 50 divisions worth of winter gear that was sitting in Poland but got shoved to the way side for fuel and ammo? Would it have made a difference? Since I avoided the massive losses of 41-42 blizzard, inflicted heavy losses to the Russians during the winter offensive because I took the time to winterize my units for added protection, they heavily dug in, made good a lot of losses from the summer campaign, made sure my Panzer Div actually got the tanks I want in the field, would that have made a difference?

If I avoid all the above, suffer no where near the losses the real German Army suffered, then why do my units keep getting smaller and smaller across the board, why cant I select some units to stay "heavy", why must my morale steadily shrink when I am kicking butt and taking names? Because a new year starts? I prefer what little control I have now over another "outside" influence.

The Russian can run all he wants, as fast as he wants, I will do the same thing come winter when I know what is about to happen. Sorry, but every time us German players come up with a strategy that actually preserves our Army, and allows us to also have a heavy fist to hit back with, someone comes along and tries to take it away. Enough is enough.

I agree the Lvov Gambit would likely not be feasible with daily turns, I used it when the game was released, but have also made just as good an advance without using it and still bagged most of those units anyway.

Excellent post - I couldn't agree more, and bears repeating again.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I've personally stated, since release, that WitE is a rough gem. It has become more polished since then, but it still has its rough edges.

You're right that a build from scratch approach is needed if you want the things you mention in the game, as the current engine won't include them.

I agree with these two points and it's good to have them out in the open.

I gave up on WitE a while back and will be extremely wary about buying WitW.

The question for Matrix is how many other customers (that is, guys who spend their hard earned money on Matrix products) feel the same way, even if they have by now been discouraged from voicing their opinions here?

Fact is the game has a lot of flexibility and potential but core parts of the model have big problems, problems recognized from the get go, yet nobody seems to have been working on even possible fixes, and this after more than a year. What we have had is numerous (appreciated) bug fixes and a lot of tinkering at the margins. The problem with tinkering at the margins is that they can only fix so much and the time spent on them is wasted as long as the core isn't fixed. The fact that so much time and effort has been spent on tinkering tells me that the core is inviolate for the foreseeable future and that is frankly a waste of potential and a disappointment.

Well, directly post-release the focus was on bug fixes and gathering information to make the first major changes. The approach has its merits and its flaws. The good part is that there are far fewer bugs, the bad part is that there are also fewer major changes, changes that could after that only be made over time.

While it is true that a game of this scope can't be tested fully prior to release, the various underlying mechanics can be tested in smaller scenarios. Why there's f.e. no Blizzard scenario Army Group Center to validate the Blizzard rules makes little sense and goes a long way to explaining why even glaring problems weren't spotted until well after release.

Who said the potential problems of something like the first winter penalties were not spotted pre-release? There's a big difference between not spotting a problem and not fixing it in a way that works due to a lack of data/no decision on what kind of damage the first winter should do. As to testing smaller scenarios: we did a lot of that.

However, in the end, it comes down to rather simple things, maybe even math: a new version every week or two, or even every week, with new things that needed to be tested, with a handful of testers, and a part-time programmer+Gary. Post-release, the same situation applied. The bottleneck was initially the amount of things that needed to be tested, post-release the bottleneck was probably only having a part-time programmer who spent most of his time on bug fixes, with Gary doing a thing or two as well. You can only keep making significant changes with a full team backing the effort. Whilst the testing team was still there, in this genre the "programming team" usually consists of just 1 or 2 people (and in WitE's case that person, Pavel, was mostly busy with bug fixes) so even if something can be tested and even if everybody is aware something might not be working properly, it takes time to program, test and deliver.

Trust me, all of us would've liked to improve the game more, both pre-release and post-release, but with the means available to the developers and the testers, it just wasn't possible. That doesn't mean you've been playing a beta for a year, it means that with a small team developing a monster game, there are some serious limitations to what can realistically be done.

I gave up on WitE a while back and will be extremely wary about buying WitW.

The question for Matrix is how many other customers (that is, guys who spend their hard earned money on Matrix products) feel the same way, even if they have by now been discouraged from voicing their opinions here?

One question that every customer will probably ask himself is: does this game deliver what I thought it would deliver after reading about what it should deliver according to the developers? In WitE's case, my answer to that question is still: mostly, yes.

There might be many unhappy customers, although I don't know how many, and I can see why a number of people might be frustrated about some game mechanics not working.

Heck, I've had prolonged periods where I had enough of flaw X or Y myself, but it's still a playable game, even with its flaws.

WitW will probably share less with WitE than you might think, and I can assure you that the tester team will try to keep as many of the flaws of WitE out of WitW by reporting it if something is wrong. At least with WitW, there is still room for changes.

In the end, a lot of it comes down to what Gary wants the game to look like. It's essentially his game, so in the end his design decisions decide what the game will look like. We now know that something like the 1:1>2:1 rule was probably a mistake, but at some point in the development process, it seemed to be a good idea. One thing to keep in mind is that WitE was in development for years. WitW will presumably take a shorter time to develop, which means there's less room for things that were a good idea once but are no longer a good idea to sneak into the final product.

I have mentally toyed with the idea that a 'hold-fast' movement mechanic could be implimented based on :

1. Overall Ground given ( i think 'hold-fast' directives came as a result of widespread retreats taking place. Seems reasonable that the more ground lost, the more likely a 'hold-fast' order to be employed. )
2. Randomness ( checked when a unit attempts to move in a retreat-direction, pop-up may display - "Higher Command Hold-Fast Directive Enforced", movement points for the attempted move expended with no move taking place )
3. Influenced by Unit Leader Rating ( Politics ? )
4. Influenced by Unit Type ( I think more pursuasive arguments were presented regarding Armor/Mobile units being given more latitude for tactical reserves or as the 'retreat' is only in preparation for emininent counter-offensive. i.e. Mainstein's backhand? )
5. Leader 'Override' of 'hold-fast' ( Combat unit may attempt to ignore or disobey a 'hold-fast' directive, resulting in a check to 'permanently reduce Political Rating' or 'fire' / 'dismiss' appropriate leader when the 'Political Rating' is too low. Hitler did tolerate (rather randomly) a level of non-adherence to the 'hold-fast' directive, but seemed to quickly lose patience the more a particuliar leader retreated (with or without leave), resulting in a leader getting (potentially permanently) fired. )

Implementing something like (1) above would kind of discourage wide-spread strategic retreats in lieu of thoughtful tactical retreats - hoping to preserve future 'retreat-potential' and command flexibility to be used later as when really needed. Historically, by the time Mainstein had assumed command in AGS, most of the 'political capital' affording over-riding a 'hold-fast' directive had been pretty much expended, ultimately resulting in him completely expended whatever influence he had accumulated and his permanent dismissal.

Implementing something like (5) above may provide a use for leaders who have mediocre combat ratings, but high political ratings - affording them more local command & control (as long as their Political Rating holds out.)

Von Manstein continued to argue with Hitler about overall strategy on the Eastern Front. Von Manstein advocated an elastic, mobile defence. He was prepared to cede territory, attempting to make the Soviet forces either stretch out too thinly or to make them advance so fast so that their armoured spearheads could be counter-attacked on the flanks with the goal of encircling and destroying them. Hitler ignored von Manstein's advice and continued to insist on static warfare; all positions held by the Germans were to be defended to the last man. Because of these frequent disagreements, von Manstein publicly advocated that Hitler relinquish control over the army and leave the management of the war to professionals, starting with the establishment of the position of commander-in-chief in the East (Oberbefehlshaber Ost). Hitler, however, rejected this idea numerous times, fearing that it would weaken his hold on power in Germany.

This argument also alarmed some of Hitler's closest associates, such as Hermann Göring, Joseph Goebbels and the SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who were not prepared to give up any of their powers. Himmler started to openly question von Manstein's loyalty and he insinuated to Hitler that von Manstein was an idealist and a defeatist unsuitable to command troops. Von Manstein's frequent arguing, combined with these allegations, resulted in Hitler relieving von Manstein of his command on 31 March 1944. On 2 April 1944, Hitler appointed Walther Model, a firm supporter, as commander of Army Group South as von Manstein's replacement.

Anyways, this would treat 'Ground-Given', more as a resource that has future command & control flexibility implications. Rather than making this arbitrary and predictable, I would have it based on stategic decisions (as a summation of unit/leader relevant actions) made up to that point.

The need to employ 'hold-fast' directives evolved during the course of the war as a direct result of the "erroneous" perceptions that ground is freely being relinquished by local commanders. If no unit ever retreated (voluntarily or otherwise), I have reason to believe it would not have even been preceived to be necessary.

I never said WitE wasn't playable - I played it for a long time and enjoyed much of it, as you know. Then I stopped playing when I realised that getting a game to play through to 1945 seemed almost impossible, whatever the reasons.

Did it deliver everything the marketing blurb said it would? Maybe, technically. Did it live up to customer expectations? No, at least not for anyone with a reasonable knowledge of history. Does that damage the brand? Absolutely - the Grigsby brand is based on historical plausibility and detail. Take a look around some of the other online forums and you'll come across a number of references to WitE that mark it as a game with major flaws that was tested on an unsuspecting customer base.

I am concerned about the shortened development cycle for WitW. One thing I think I have detected in Gary's games over recent years is an increased emphasis on time to market, at the cost of getting things just right. The AI in WitP, the combat and air models in WitE, the map and screen resolution limits in EDBTR are good examples, but there are many others. All of these must have been clear to the devs prior to launch and they are all guaranteed to put customers off.

Gary's next major release needs to be pretty much perfect at 1.0 on the day of release if he is going to avoid being permanently damaged by yet another flawed launch.

Take a look around some of the other online forums and you'll come across a number of references to WitE that mark it as a game with major flaws that was tested on an unsuspecting customer base.

This is a hollow phrase without evidence, so examples please.

I am concerned about the shortened development cycle for WitW.

Not having to build a game completely from scratch means it will take less time to create it, I'm not sure why that's a reason to be "concerned."

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Take a look around some of the other online forums and you'll come across a number of references to WitE that mark it as a game with major flaws that was tested on an unsuspecting customer base.

This is a hollow phrase without evidence, so examples please.

I am concerned about the shortened development cycle for WitW.

Not having to build a game completely from scratch means it will take less time to create it, I'm not sure why that's a reason to be "concerned."

1. I don't log these things and I'm not about to go and repeat 12 months of browsing now (as I don't work for Matrix and I do work for myself) so if you are comfortable in believing that there's no bad press out there, that's fine by me.

2. I'm concerned because so many things went wrong with WitE. WitW should be much a more complex game, if it's actually going to deliver the war in the west.
- multiple fronts, each interacting. How will the AI respond to an invasion of Sardinia instead of Sicily, for example?
- the air war (BoB and the strategic bombing campaign) - what impact do they have on ground operations and production?
- the U boat/convoy war being so critical. Or is this just abstracted, as I have been recommending?
- effective amphib landings by the AI that still surprise the player, assuming the war doesn't start on 06 June, or that game doesn't have a grand campaign.

When I raised some of this with Joel his reply was that WitW is being developed using the same engine as WitE. If that's correct, why wouldn't I be worried?

1. I don't log these things and I'm not about to go and repeat 12 months of browsing now (as I don't work for Matrix and I do work for myself) so if you are comfortable in believing that there's no bad press out there, that's fine by me.

I believe there is bad press out there, that's not why I asked you for evidence. I asked you for evidence because of the specific claim you made that the game "was tested on an unsuspecting customer base" according to what you've read. This is not the only forum I visit, and in none of the other forums have I come across a majority of players thinking WitE "was tested on an unsuspecting customer base."

When I raised some of this with Joel his reply was that WitW is being developed using the same engine as WitE. If that's correct, why wouldn't I be worried?

Parts of the engine being the same won't make WitW the same game as WitE, it just means parts of the engine will be the same.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

1. I don't log these things and I'm not about to go and repeat 12 months of browsing now (as I don't work for Matrix and I do work for myself) so if you are comfortable in believing that there's no bad press out there, that's fine by me.

I believe there is bad press out there, that's not why I asked you for evidence. I asked you for evidence because of the specific claim you made that the game "was tested on an unsuspecting customer base" according to what you've read. This is not the only forum I visit, and in none of the other forums have I come across a majority of players thinking WitE "was tested on an unsuspecting customer base."

When I raised some of this with Joel his reply was that WitW is being developed using the same engine as WitE. If that's correct, why wouldn't I be worried?

Parts of the engine being the same won't make WitW the same game as WitE, it just means parts of the engine will be the same.

OK, truce.

I actually went searching for that comment because I read it quite recently. I think it was on one of the IL2 sites like Mission4Today, but I can't find it. However, it stuck with me although I admit it's the only example of that precise criticism I have, other than my own vast list of such comments. I do feel that it's true though, and I have been angry about this ever since day one after release, as you may recall. I don't think there's a shortage of people who kind of agree with the comment, it's just that not all of them are as pissed off as I am.

We'll see how WitW pans out then. Strangely, I will be buying it because I really want a satisfying game and I live in hope

With computing power increasing every few years products such as WitE become possible, compared to their impractical possibility 15 years earlier. This can result in a more complex product, requiring more work with all the extra details, yet we ( the public ) expect these products to be released at the same rate as their predecessors.

Some people are already pining for WitW while others want major changes to WitE; Gary can't work on both of them at one time, unless someone cloned him. It's like a demand of the impossible.

ORIGINAL: randallw

With computing power increasing every few years products such as WitE become possible, compared to their impractical possibility 15 years earlier. This can result in a more complex product, requiring more work with all the extra details, yet we ( the public ) expect these products to be released at the same rate as their predecessors.

Some people are already pining for WitW while others want major changes to WitE; Gary can't work on both of them at one time, unless someone cloned him. It's like a demand of the impossible.

Exactly why I am worried. I'd like to have seen Game 1 fixed before all the effort went off into Game 2.

As you say, these games are very complex (too complex?) and require a lot more effort to get them truly completed:

- Abstract those things that are not core. If a game focuses on the ground war, then abstract the air war. As with EDttBtR (or whatever) when the focus is the air war, abstract the ground war, something that was done intelligently in that game.
- Get Game 1 right before launching off on other projects.
- Don't tell us that WitW will be developed 'more quickly than WitE' when WitE doesn't yet work correctly.

Have you given a list of worries about WitE directly to Pavel, or posted a message in the tech section?

ORIGINAL: randallw

Have you given a list of worries about WitE directly to Pavel, or posted a message in the tech section?

Oh yes. Pavel is tired of me by now...

Maybe you can bother Joel, then? ( kidding )

Done that one time too many. Not kidding

Oh yes. Pavel is tired of me by now...

Ehh?!? [X(] [;)]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Oh yes. Pavel is tired of me by now...

Ehh?!? [X(] [;)]

All my complaining

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

...As you say, these games are very complex (too complex?) and require a lot more effort to get them truly completed:

- Abstract those things that are not core. If a game focuses on the ground war, then abstract the air war. As with EDttBtR (or whatever) when the focus is the air war, abstract the ground war, something that was done intelligently in that game.
- Get Game 1 right before launching off on other projects.
- Don't tell us that WitW will be developed 'more quickly than WitE' when WitE doesn't yet work correctly.

1. The air war is already very abstract in WitE as is the naval part. The air war in WitW is planned to be much more detailed, with more detailed naval rules coming in one of the games after WitW.

2. No game is ever perfect for everyone. Getting it "right" means different things for different people. There will continue to be bug fixes when things are not found to be right.

3. The game works correctly now. There are no game breaking bugs and very few minor bugs, and the latter will get squashed when found. You may not agree with the design decisions, and WitE may not match your views of history with every game played but to say it is not working correctly is simply ... not correct.

It's amazing how many people become "Experts" on game design and historical facts!!!

ORIGINAL: Treale

It's amazing how many people become "Experts" on game design and historical facts!!!

One key outcome of WW2 (historical fact) is that I retained the freedom to express my opinion. Unless you feel that I have offended you or been rude to somebody here, you should not feel that you have any right to criticize me for stating my views.