Any news from 1.07.14.?

[Michael T]

With the utmost respect John. I think you are missing a very important point. The game was reasonably balanced a few iterations back. Due to lobbying by players mostly. The game was approaching a good place. No one knew that all this balancing was going to be thrown out because of unknown bugs getting squashed. That is the key point. And should not be glossed over.

[RedLancer]

I agree and no gloss intended.  Hindsight is wonderful thing but there has always been a continual clamour for change. Exactly how far back one considers things balanced is a point of discussion in itself.  It could be argued that v11 with the new blizzard rules is where this latest Pandora's Box was opened.  Unfortunately all too often the debate descends into issues of Soviet or Axis bias and the blizzard has always been a central pillar in many people's arguments about what balance really means. 
 
I simply sought to air the view that a catalyst of current situation are those who seek the next best thing.  Do we really think that more optional rules will solve the problem?  We need to be patient and let morvael complete the next patch.

[Tarhunnas]

It is still a very enjoyable game. I Think the reason people are sometimes somewhat agitated and frustrated in the forum is eaxctly because the game is soo good and so enjoyable, and then the fact that it is not perfect is all the more frustrating.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
I Think the reason people are sometimes somewhat agitated and frustrated in the forum is eaxctly because the game is soo good and so enjoyable, and then the fact that it is not perfect is all the more frustrating.

This is a very good point. The reason I snipe at the game sometimes is because I love it and want it to be even better.
It's the same with women. All the while they're moaning at you, you can be sure they still love you.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
I Think the reason people are sometimes somewhat agitated and frustrated in the forum is eaxctly because the game is soo good and so enjoyable, and then the fact that it is not perfect is all the more frustrating.

This is a very good point. The reason I snipe at the game sometimes is because I love it and want it to be even better.
It's the same with women. All the while they're moaning at you, you can be sure they still love you.

I do hope you are married and your wife can read

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

It is still a very enjoyable game. I Think the reason people are sometimes somewhat agitated and frustrated in the forum is eaxctly because the game is soo good and so enjoyable, and then the fact that it is not perfect is all the more frustrating.

There simply is no agitation to be honest Tarhunnas the game is simply crap right now.

When one side can win 100% of the time, that is simply screwed up.

There is no more guess work.

I have the data posted in a thread.

It is what it is.

If the Russian player can read, he should be able to easly retreat for 7ish turns then begin attacking 5-15 times per turn and by the end of summer 15-20 per turn winning almost 100% of the time.

I am guessing most of the people that play the game can read, it is not a big secret any more.

The mild blizzard is therefor never mild.

As MT has stated the game after .14 will be finally fixed, BUT we will have to start the long process of balancing the game again.

This is simply the fact of the matter an no name calling or tring to ignore the facts will change the truth.

I am guessing but I do not think 2by3 has the time or resources to put into this game in its current unbalanced state.

Sure WitE is "fixable", but who really wants to waste there time when we all know WitE 2.0 will be out in the future?

Speak about the data and not your personal feelings about people, its much more helpful and blows less smoke up peoples ******* .

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

It is still a very enjoyable game. I Think the reason people are sometimes somewhat agitated and frustrated in the forum is eaxctly because the game is soo good and so enjoyable, and then the fact that it is not perfect is all the more frustrating.

ORIGINAL: smokindave34

I notified Callistrid that I am going to resign from our game. This is the third game in a row (Sapper, M60, Callistrid) where I have been handled decisively in '41 by solid Soviet opponents and I see no reason to go forward. I decided to stand and fight and have 7 divisions surrounded two turns into the blizzard. I used to be able to handle the axis well enough to produce a competitive game even against very good players (The Pro's) but no longer. This game is extremely challenging to play as axis right now against solid opponents (as other axis players better than I have noted) and I no longer seem to be able to make it into '43 with any real chance of standing up to the Soviets. Excellent game by you Callistrid - sorry to end it on you so quickly! I'll have to hang up my Field Marshall's baton for a while.....

This is the problem and BOTH sides see it not just one.

ORIGINAL: Callistrid

This game is over, and Dave was a very good opponent. Fighting on the Germans side is tough. It's enough to make a little mistake, and the war is lost. Let's see what I learn with the Soviet

1. Playing with the Soviet is easy. The sapper an construction brigades build fortification easily, and if you retreat on the first six turns, the saved troops with the reinforcements can hardly hit the advancing German troops. With the new rule the German can't pocket troops, because the encirclement can be broke easily.

2. Mild winter. Strong Soviet defeat the German, weak not. So the successful winter operation depend on how powerful is the Soviet army, not what my opponent did. On my game against Dave there infantry stack in level 2 fortification was easy to beat.

3. Paratroops. I never drop them, but using them could DE devastating. Easy method to break the supply line, or to isolate troops.

ORIGINAL: Callistrid

4. The Soviet have more rail yard then it should to have. With 100k+ it's easy to transport full fronts to threatened sectors. Using your short transport lines, the German will always face with strong troops in the critical sectors. And the factory evacuation is too fast. In the first seven turn, all what is unorganised sent to the urals.

5. Retreat, retreat, retreat. There is no reason to stand and fight on the first seven turn. Only around Leningrad, but that could be managed. The German could move close to Moscow, but never capture.

6. nonrandom weather. The nonrandom weather is not just a German favors. Because always the Soviet moves second, it's easy to be brave without consequences. You know when will be mud, and when could rest the troops, move forward to refit, or launch attack, when normally never do, because you don't know what will be the next weather.


And the most important. The 2/1 rule. It wag ugly when I start beating the German army around turn 14. The clear terrain gains no bonus defenses, and 6~9 cv into can be hit, without fear. And what is real worse, when you start attacking the front, launch 10+ successful attack.

The player base sees it-everyone.

I generally bring sht up months before everyone else see it and you can bwhine about me all you want, but the player base see the problem now

[Ketza]

To me the game was a fun ride up until recently. Pelton is right the Soviets hold all the cards at this point unless you want to just play a simulation with no concern over winning as the Axis there is no point to playing.

My favorite game of WITE was my first AAR against 76mm back before everyone figured out how to game the game.

[morvael]

The new replacement system will help the side that has lacks of some resource (men, arms) more and this means it will mostly help Axis. Soviet side usually has abundance of everything (and simple upgrade paths) and for them the current one is mostly working. The new system will also prevent arms shortages during rifle/cav/mech squad upgrades. It will also allow to direct scarce resources better (due to separation of refit phase into two subphases, with first dedicated to on-map units on refit and the second to units on auto-refit over which player has no control, like HQs and support units). There will also be an option to turn 1:1->2:1 off. If at this point the Soviets will be still too strong in 1941 it will be a simple matter of reducing their national morale and tweaking retreat results. I think the game still has future, unfortunately it all depends on my free time availability. Provide me with $1M so I could resign from my day job, and you will have WitE 2.0 and 3.0 before summer

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Ketza
My favorite game of WITE was my first AAR against 76mm back before everyone figured out how to game the game.

This is a very important comment, IMHO. There are some players who are out simply to 'game the game'. The more complex the game, the more opportunities to game the game and exploit loopholes, whether they are bugs or simply gaps in the system. The early games in complex systems like that are usually better because people haven't found all the loopholes yet, and there's still a mystery about it all. Kind of like in real life where things are unpredictable (Why people play with non-random/predictable weather settings is beyond me...I don't know any war in which the weather was predictable...). Once you've played dozens of games or practiced your opening moves a hundred times, there's far less fun involved. It's essentially now become a heartless, fine-tuned business and less of a fun game with a buddy over a couple beers.

Every war in history is essentially like playing WITE for the first time, because no one every really knows exactly what's going on! That's part of the problem with turning history into a game: you can learn, repeat, practice, stream-line, have hindsight, etc. von Manstein or Zhukov never had the same ability to practice their opening moves a hundred times to get it just right because in real life there's just too much uncertainty and too many variables. That is an inherent flaw in every wargame.

The simpler the game (more 'Arcade-ish', if you like), the harder it is to game the system. This is the problem with every wargame. Games like Axis and Allies, and Avalon Hill's Russian Campaign are pretty hard to game the system, because they're so simple and basic.

A game like WITE has so many layers of complexity and in some ways that is it's weakness. It will continue to take a great deal of time and effort to make such a game exploit-proof. Further, finding an opponent that plays the same way you do and has a similar fun vs gaming philosophy has always been very difficult. To build a game that will take into account every possible human vs human scenario, is impossible. IMO, it's largely up to players to find the right opponents for them to have an enjoyable or equal game. Which is why I much prefer playing these complex games (TOAW, WITE, etc) vs AI because I can play more historical strategies, tweak settings for my skill or desire, etc.

The game being horrendously broken is one opinion. For what I play and use the game for, it works for me, or I make it work for me. I quite enjoy the game actually, but the way I play and approach these wargames might be different than some.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
The game was reasonably balanced a few iterations back. Due to lobbying by players mostly. The game was approaching a good place.

Did any one say so? If that's truly the case, then shouldn't we lobby the developers to un-roll some of the recent changes to go back to this happy place? Further, can't players simply use whatever patch version they feel is the best for them? If a couple patches back was your pretty-darn-close-to-balanced-and-enjoyable-game version, then you should stick with that patch version, no? I personally don't recall many people lobbying the developers to STOP making changes...

No one knew that all this balancing was going to be thrown out because of unknown bugs getting squashed. That is the key point. And should not be glossed over.

Unintended consequences of the player lobbying from your above comment? There is a certain 'the sky is falling' vs 'let's wait and see what these changes show' antagonism in the forums.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: morvael
Provide me with $1M so I could resign from my day job, and you will have WitE 2.0 and 3.0 before summer

Where do we go to contribute to this crowd-sourcing project? [;)]

[Michael T]

Schmart. If you had been following events recently you would know that there have been many bugs squashed. These bug fixes have been in the same patches as the 'good stuff' that players lobbied for. For example the mild winter option is rolled in with a host of bug fixes. So there is no single point where you can get it all, balance and bug free, as the bug fixes have affected balance. I said the game was approaching a good place. Not that it was there.

You seem happy with the game as is. Well that's great for you. Whats your problem?

Others like myself feel the game is in a bad place ATM. And its not just one or two. Even the devs recognize there is a problem. Thankfully morvael is going to keep working on the game as time permits.

I won't be starting any new games of WITE until it gets back to a point where I think its ok again. Others can do as they please.

[Tarhunnas]

I think this discussion on balance issues is skewed and related not really to the historical campaign, but to past iterations of the game. Balance issues in this forum tend to be a codeword for: The Germans can't romp all over the map at will. But really, seen as compared to the historical campaign in 1941, the Germans actually still overperform. The problem is rather Soviet freedom of action.

Consider this: With anything like historical Soviet play, that is defending forward, the following is still true:

* Leningrad can easily be taken by the Germans. Historically as we all know, it was never taken.
* Moscow will be in grave danger or will be captured. Historically, it was never really in danger of being taken.
* Voronezh will be on the frontline or captured in 1941. Historically, the front never came close in 1941.
* The Germans can do vastly larger encirclements on the southern front on turn one than possible historically. (The Lvov pocket).

It is only with an unhistorical and pretty unlikely Soviet strategy of railing substantial forces from the Ukraine to the approaches to Leningrad on turn one and a precipitate retreat on the rest of the front that the Germans have any kind of trouble reaching their historical frontline at the end of 1941.

So, my conclusions:
* The Germans still overperform offensively in 1941 compared to historical.
* Soviet player has too much freedom of action in 1941.
* Soviet staying power is too great. There should be a chance for the German player to win by taking Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov or similar in 1941. Even if it can be considered debatable if it would have been a war win, it should be a game win to keep up playability and suspense.

[Michael T]

The Germans can't romp all over the map at will

This is not the case for me at least. For me balance means for two evenly matched players the Germans can reach historical lines in 1941, are driven some way back in the winter and recover for a major assault in summer 42. But ATM, honestly between two evenly matched players the Germans get nowhere in 41 and essentially the game is over. That is the fact of the matter.

I would also like to think that if a player holds a significant skill advantage over his opponent then he will prevail in the end. This is also not the case for the Axis. For example an average Soviet will hold out against even the best German. This was not always the case. Personally I think an expert German should wipe the floor against an average Soviet. But some Soviet players want a game where no matter how good the German is he should not be able to win outright in 1941/42. I don’t subscribe to that view at all. The game should reward skill.

Having said that. I think a game with the following conditions would be very fun and challenging.

Sudden Death.
1:1 option gone.
Mild winter.
Reduction in Soviet rail, say 80%.
Swap out bugs finally fixed.
A reduction in Soviet 1941 morale, say 95%. (problem is you can’t turn it back to 100% for 42-45)
Para HR
Fort spamming HR
Bombing HR

I would be happy to play either side with these conditions

[Tarhunnas]

Did you read my entire post? I more or less agree with you, assuming you sudden death has the effect of forcing both Soviet and German to fight for objectives and be wary of giving ground. I am not sure a Soviet morale reduction is needed if they are forced to fight more forward though, as losses will rise in that case. Same for rail capacity. Soviet actions make a big difference at present, run for 6 turns and you have an unassailable line, fight forwards and the Soviets will be in dire straits.

One really important change I would like to see but which I probably never will is a limitation in how many armies can attack at the same time, and a function that makes it necessary to rest and resupply armies at regular intervals. The 1941 campaign was not one mad race across the western Soviet Union as it tends to be in the game, but much more stop and go in reality. This would also serve to limit later Soviet offensives and create a historical tempo of offensives - rest periods instead of the constant grind that tends to be the norm from 1942 onwards.

[Michael T]

One really important change I would like to see but which I probably never will is a limitation in how many armies can attack at the same time

This is what I really like about Schwerpunkts advanced supply system. You can only put so many units in to attack supply. It limits the offensive capability for both sides. I works really well.

As for Sudden death it does not solve the problems of a Soviet run away in early 41. It needs a check in August/Sept to do that. I asked for it but it did not happen. The SD rules work to prevent a German run in winter 41 and for both sides from that point on. So other means are neccesary to prevent the Soviets running in summer 41. Hence the rail limit. That reduces the factory evac thus forcing the Soviets to fight further forward. Otherwise you could put a HR SD rule in for the Soviets in 41 and leave the rail alone.

[Tarhunnas]

What SD rules do you refer to?

[Michael T]

There is a Sudden Death GC scenario included in the Lost Battles Expansion. I had a role in getting that scenario included. It has SD VC for April42, April43 and April44. IMO it needs a SD check in Aug or Sept 41.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is a Sudden Death GC scenario included in the Lost Battles Expansion. I had a role in getting that scenario included. It has SD VC for April42, April43 and April44. IMO it needs a SD check in Aug or Sept 41.

I strongly agree with this and it would be a nice change that wouldn't require much of an overhaul or major rebalancing. With logistics nerfed (as they should have been), the Soviet must fight forward to a greater degree. Something like if Smolensk, Kiev and Pskov fall by T7 (that's just off the cuff but seems in the realm of reasonability).