What should an average player expect their WITE2 H2H/PBEM experience to be?

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: karonagames

I was really hoping that the thread would see more discussion of my suggestion for shorter full map campaign games that allow players to practice and try out different strategies knowing they are allocating a specific amount of time and effort.

I wouldn't want to play a Barbarossa scenario - not necessarily because I think it is a bad idea, just that I think a better solution would be to just find an opponent who is happy to commit to play the full campaign for the first 26 turns (for example) with the option to continue if at the end of that period the set up is looking interesting.

In time I'd be interested in playing campaigns with April 42/May 43 start dates, the former in particular.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: karonagames

I was really hoping that the thread would see more discussion of my suggestion for shorter full map campaign games that allow players to practice and try out different strategies knowing they are allocating a specific amount of time and effort.

Bob, I think this is the reality that people that play H2H, and most that play vs the AI want to have the option of playing the campaign through. The last thing most would want to do is play through 41 and have a great situation end when they might want to continue into 42 and beyond. I think Sam's idea is the right one. Find players willing to commit to playing through to 41, with the idea that at that time they can discuss whether to go further. Maybe not sufficient for those that want a clear winner and loser declared at the end of 41, but I don't think most players consider knowing the winner the most important part of a game. I like Sam's idea of starting a thread with game results. I'll probably try to come up with something in the near future with the info that we'd like to see players present in the thread. All in all, I'd venture to say that only 5-10% of active games are being played H2H, but then it is the H2H community that is the most vocal and most active in letting us know how the game is playing out.

[governato]

This is a simulation GAME right? 'd be fun to give something for the Axis player to hope for if Berlin is not taken by May 1945. Otherwise very few 'd like to play 100+turns on the defensive (both vs AI or H), with no hope for ..anything. Which is my main criticism of the standard campaign game at this scale.

Maybe an `unhistorical option' where the Western Allies sign an armistice (FDR stands down? the Ardennes offensive succeeded? It does not matter)
Then the Axis get reinforcements, supplies and air cover and sure Maus tanks..and the Red Army runs out of resources. One could play until August when the US gets nukes anyway. Not sure if that is the WITE style, but maybe in an expansion I'd get it in a heartbeat.

Of course other jumping points 'd be great, it'd be fun to have some non standard ones tho, say September 42 and February 43 ..

[AlbertN]

I agree with the philosophy that 'Punching bag for 100+ turns' is not something most players want to go through.

It suffices though to have the Germans have operational capabilities of localized counteroffensive and the like even late war (as they did, and at times with success); or that in '43 a 'Zitadelle' can have success and is not a guaranteed failure because far too many Soviets.

But in general with only the Soviets capable of tailoring their Army, with the GErmans having to eat enforced disbands and removals, they cannot even play conservative or so.

That is besides present factors that see the Soviets as gods of warfare prematurely.