Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Toidi

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I should have some info to post by the end of this week.

That is excellent news Joel. Thanks...

And good luck with the fix!

T.

P.S. I would humble suggest to think about rail transport of German divisions through neutral Romania on turn 1... That may need to be addressed too... As well as the conditions under which the Romania & southern Soviet units wake up. I do not think that the blitz in the south (being recent favourite Axis opening) is justified, Lvov extended pocket opening is honestly bad enough...

T.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Yes I agree, rail thru Rumania before they activate should be nerfed.

ORIGINAL: mktours

the shortcoming of heavily reinforce AGS with 2PzG is that if the SHC react correctly, it could steady the situation and would benefit from it in the long run.
my suggestion for the SHC against this is to guard the Dnepr as the first line, no matter what the situation is in the west of the river, move as much troops as one can to the east bank of the river in T1, try to hold the Dnepr line as much as possible.
there is no need to nerf this opening, it is a double edge sword for the GHC.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: mktours

the shortcoming of heavily reinforce AGS with 2PzG is that if the SHC react correctly, it could steady the situation and would benefit from it in the long run.
my suggestion for the SHC against this is to guard the Dnepr as the first line, no matter what the situation is in the west of the river, move as much troops as one can to the east bank of the river in T1, try to hold the Dnepr line as much as possible.
there is no need to nerf this opening, it is a double edge sword for the GHC.

The entire first turn is deeply silly as is, and this makes it even sillier.

It's utterly indefensible. If you have a shred of historical integrity, you'd want to see it go. The south ought to see, and never does, a series of encounter battles and a grinding forward progress by AGS. This simply does not happen and Axis players have gotten so used to this preposterous state of affairs that the original Lvov opener is seen as being quite tame and they are now trying to leverage the badly designed surprise attack to bag two entire Fronts before they even activate.

It's dumb and gamey and has nothing to do with a historical wargame. Gamers and min maxers are killing the integrity of this design. It's very sad.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

My point is not that there are responses to it or that it can be managed.

My point is that the whole thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. So is the first turn in general. It floors me that more people aren't disturbed by this, but there it is. I don't insist on perfect historicity, but this isn't even a close call.

Balance is not and never has been my primary concern with this game. It's not an mmo. It's not even a freewheeling strategy game a la Civ 5. It is, or purports to be, a historical wargame, one of very deep complexity and detail, and I have certain expectations for a game of this sort. This kind of game should at least plausibly and reasonably approach the actual war it seeks to portray. What's going on here is so far off that and so clearly an artifact of game design gone awry combined with players who are more concerned with "winning" than anything else, that it cannot possibly be defended.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

My point is not that there are responses to it or that it can be managed.

My point is that the whole thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. So is the first turn in general. It floors me that more people aren't disturbed by this, but there it is. I don't insist on perfect historicity, but this isn't even a close call.

Balance is not and never has been my primary concern with this game. It's not an mmo. It's not even a freewheeling strategy game a la Civ 5. It is, or purports to be, a historical wargame, one of very deep complexity and detail, and I have certain expectations for a game of this sort. This kind of game should at least plausibly and reasonably approach the actual war it seeks to portray. What's going on here is so far off that and so clearly an artifact of game design gone awry combined with players who are more concerned with "winning" than anything else, that it cannot possibly be defended.

The point is to re-create the situation that existed and to enjoy the challenge of experiencing (at second hand) the difficulties experienced managing the combat not to find gamey ways to "win" in my view.

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

The point is to re-create the situation that existed and to enjoy the challenge of experiencing (at second hand) the difficulties experienced managing the combat not to find gamey ways to "win" in my view.

This is one way of playing the game. But I don't understand why so many people are trashing Axis players who try to think out of the box. Playing the game your way is fine but in my opinion it gets boring very quickly. Why not adept to the Axis strategy and come up with a counter? Isn't that what the game is all about.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
My point is that the whole thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. So is the first turn in general. It floors me that more people aren't disturbed by this, but there it is. I don't insist on perfect historicity, but this isn't even a close call.

Balance is not and never has been my primary concern with this game. It's not an mmo. It's not even a freewheeling strategy game a la Civ 5. It is, or purports to be, a historical wargame, one of very deep complexity and detail, and I have certain expectations for a game of this sort. This kind of game should at least plausibly and reasonably approach the actual war it seeks to portray. What's going on here is so far off that and so clearly an artifact of game design gone awry combined with players who are more concerned with "winning" than anything else, that it cannot possibly be defended.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

But at this point we've moved on to a fantasy game, not a historical wargame,

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
My point is that the whole thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. So is the first turn in general. It floors me that more people aren't disturbed by this, but there it is. I don't insist on perfect historicity, but this isn't even a close call.

Balance is not and never has been my primary concern with this game. It's not an mmo. It's not even a freewheeling strategy game a la Civ 5. It is, or purports to be, a historical wargame, one of very deep complexity and detail, and I have certain expectations for a game of this sort. This kind of game should at least plausibly and reasonably approach the actual war it seeks to portray. What's going on here is so far off that and so clearly an artifact of game design gone awry combined with players who are more concerned with "winning" than anything else, that it cannot possibly be defended.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

But at this point we've moved on to a fantasy game, not a historical wargame,

This is the way I feel about it. And also the reason way I don't really play it anymore.

ORIGINAL: Schmart

I agree with Flavius that there can be a bit too predictable and too much gaming the system in WITE. I think that the biggest factors that need to be nerfed for 2.0 are the Lvov opening and the horribly unrealistic 1941 panzer drives by some players, and the Russian carpet defence along with the ability to maximize a fantasy Russian Army.

Players should absolutely have options and not be forced into little historical boxes. However, real life events/decisions have pros and cons, and some of the standard strategies now have little negative effect. In reality, a Lvov pocket may have been plausible, at the expense of severely limiting AGC supply for months. One Panzer Army might be able to get east of Moscow in Aug 1941, but only by stripping all transport from the other 3 Panzer Armies. The Russians might have been able to put together a smart co-ordinated defence in depth in 1941, had there been no political interference. The Russian Army OOB might have looked different if Zhukov had sat in an office the whole war instead of in the field saving Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. There just doesn't seem to be that "gee, if I do this I will suffer that" strategic option feel to WITE.

Part of the problem with as complex a game as WITE is that there can be a lot of gamey loopholes to close...