An Open Letter To Joel

[Zovs]

Jim is correct there is so much going on and sometimes it can take a long time to do a turn (even against the AI but alot against PBEM) that it's very easy to overlook something or you mental note that your going to add the xyz support units for xyz task/mission and after going through a few hundred units you forgot all about xyz. No one is perfect and even those that have been play-testing a long time make mistakes, without having idiocy rules in place.

[PyleDriver]

Capt sounds like you won't need Stailins help to loose thousands of pieces of equipment. You mix apples with oranges, and can't see the difference in color...You made your point, which is non debatable at this point. So runaway and play in someone elses sandbox...Please, your like a bad record...

[karonagames]

Capt. Cliff, it is difficult to know if you are being deliberately argumentative in your posts. We have tried to explain what the game does and does not do as reasonably as we can. I would really appreciate you doing as Karri suggested, quite reasonably, and give us an example of what you consider to be the perfect historical simulation, so we can give you some idea of how WITE compares to your "perfect" game, and to highlight the things that WITE does that your perfect game may not do.

I don't think any of the volunteer play testers feels they have to act like "yes men" on behalf of 2by3 or Matrix. We are simply a group of gamers who have been exposed to a breakthrough in game design, and we sometimes find it hard to control our enthusiasm.

The biggest mistake Hitler made was to invade the Soviet Union in the first place, and Stalin's biggest mistake was relying on the non-aggression pact and having his frontier forces totally unprepared and unable to respond to the attack. WITE more than adequately simulates Hitler and Stalin's subordinate generals' efforts to sort out the mess caused by their leader's biggest mistakes. If this is not enough for you then you are going to miss out on a unique gaming experience. Ooops more enthusiasm spilling out -I'll shut up now.

[bush]

There was an old SPI game called The Road to Stalingrad (I think). That game had some type of "Hitler Directives" built into it. Too long ago for me to now recollect how they functioned, but I do remember them being a real pain in the ass.

[Zovs]

It was Drive on Stalingrad and it was also released when TSR took over in the mid-eighties.

[Berkut]

Oh man, apparently I am a Matrix Games "yes man".

That is pretty funny.

[ComradeP]

Sophistry jaw, pure sophistry. The command structure is truncated, period. No head to the dragon. Why not eliminate the T-34, say it was never built. Like your saying Stalin never meddled in command decisions that cost the Soviets thousands of mens lives and countless loses of equipment. You have left out a mitigating factor in the equation for the conflict between Germany and the USSR.

So are you just going to troll a point that has already been proven to be false (namely that wargames tend to be "historical" as in: can only have the historical outcome) or are you going to contribute something to the discussion?

First you're calling people who disagree with you "Matrix yes men", even though they do something you don't: they post factually correct arguments. And now you just repeat the same point over and over, seemingly hoping that at one point that will vindicate your position. It won't.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: jaw
I also find it the height of arrogance that people assume that without programmed in "crazy orders" from the supreme leadership they would play an unhistorical "perfect game". I have been testing this game for three years now and doubt I've ever played a perfert turn let alone a perfect game. Anyone who has not played this game simply can't comprehend the size and depth of the game. You WILL make mistakes, you don't need Hitler to make them for you!

I do not think it is an oversight that on the Suggestions topic on the WitE game development forum which is seven pages long there is not one suggestion for a "Hitler rule". No one has suggested it because it is simply not necessary. You, the player, are Hitler or Stalin and you will make enough of your own mistakes to more than compensate for the lack of any programmed in stupidity. You may not believe me now but four or five turns into the Barbarossa scenario you will.

I think "crazy orders" was not what was meant with the initial topic. Within "events" you could consider anything from a formal announcement of say the occupation of southern france, the start or loss of the campaign in sicily etc. Say you go a nice newreel clip or newspaper announcement on screen, mentioning such an "event", and then explaining that this and that unit (or ideally "x infantry divisions with CV value of XXX", if you'd ever patch the withdrawal concept) needs to be withdrawn to Smolensk for loading on trains.

Anything that would mess up the game your are playing in a fashion disconnected from I (game) reality, be it a random "Hitler had a brainfart and needs Leibstandardte to conquer a Berlin beer bar!" or the withdrawal of a crucial division at the height of the battle of Moscow, just would cost immersion and dump you back on your chair knowing that you are after all just playing "another" of those games...

[Capt Cliff]

Well the individual that started this thread was immediately shouted down by the Gary G.'s "Yes Man" Brigade. So "into the valley of death" rode I. Perhaps "yesman" is a bit much although I considered other adjectives to use. The command structure for this game is incomplete, period. Your playing baseball without home plate. If we are playing Hitler then we need production and if we are underneath Adolph then he needs to be represented in the game. Because he was such a putz to interfere with his generals. Perhaps it's not doable, programming wise. That then is understandable. But the negative responce from you "Band of Brothers" is too much. LOL!! Grow up and discuss contrary idea's like adults. There's a chain of command in any organization and the Uber chief for both sides is missing. Ask Gen. McCrystal!

[Zovs]

If I am not mistaken in this game as well as SPI's War in the East, GDW Fire in the East/Scorched Earth and even SPI's War in Europe you the player are the uber cheif, there is no Hitler and I believe that James Astell (designer for Fire in the East) wrote that why on earth would someone want to be stuck with the historical blunders that Hitler and the OKH achieved when you can make your own.

Again, we the player are not playing 'Hitler' nor would I want to, that is a Political game, not a war game. I look at more like you are the Cheif of Staff you can't politically decide to invade Turkey but you can military decide to conduct or not conduct the Kursk offensive.

If your advocating 'Straitjacketing' either player with god rules then no war game since 1958 has successfully ever done that and yet the thousands of war games that have been produced and played have been quite successful.

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

Well the individual that started this thread was immediately shouted down by the Gary G.'s "Yes Man" Brigade. So "into the valley of death" rode I. Perhaps "yesman" is a bit much although I considered other adjectives to use. The command structure for this game is incomplete, period. Your playing baseball without home plate. If we are playing Hitler then we need production and if we are underneath Adolph then he needs to be represented in the game. Because he was such a putz to interfere with his generals. Perhaps it's not doable, programming wise. That then is understandable. But the negative responce from you "Band of Brothers" is too much. LOL!! Grow up and discuss contrary idea's like adults. There's a chain of command in any organization and the Uber chief for both sides is missing. Ask Gen. McCrystal!

You still haven't given me an example of a game that has this. Furthermore, if there is a chain of command, and Hitler is at the top, where the hell is the player?

[Neal_MLC]

I don't know why everyone is trying to reason with this guy, just ignore him and he will go away.

[wodin]

I want to see how the war could have been fought using the weapons\equipment that the sides had...man for man...nothing todo with personalities....todo with soldiers and hardware...simple as that...I'm playing WW2 as all the forces involved are the ones in the conflict....my pixeltruppen can get to grips with the enemy fairly...without a meglomaniac getting involved (well except me of course)....It's my input and decisions that will either doom my pixeltruppen or make them pixel heroes....

[Manstein63]

Hi I have been watching this forum with great intrest & have decided to chime in with my thoughts. The only thing that should matter is that the game is enjoyable to play & that it is bug free. Nothing could be worse in my mind then being just about to capture Moscow ( as the German player) or being just about about to open the 1st Russian winter offensive when the game crashes on you (not that I think for a moment that it will). If you want to include Hitler's & Stalin's then do so in the game (don't allow units to withdraw from the threat of encirclement & issue standfast orders to your Korp & Front Commanders) so that if units are forced to retreat by the combat resolutions then you replace the offending commander(s). I believe that this is possible within the existing game mechanics. There is enough Historical referance material avaliable that should allow anyone who wishes, to be able to play as though they were Hitler or Stalin. This game is not WIR it is what I have been waiting for for many years a divisonal east front simmulation that doesn't require a spare room with the threat of divorce or worse for any non gamer that dares to cross the hallowed threshold (even if they were only going to tidy up a little). So this way I get to play a great game if the AAR's are a valid reflection of the game (with a thank you to PyleDriver & Elmo3 for taking the time to post them) & keep my marriage.
Sorry for sounding so pompous (its my writing style) & thanks for taking the time to read this

manstein63

[elmo3]

Welcome to the forums Manstein63.

[Skanvak]

Thank jaw to give reference for my point of view. Hitler's mistakes are the same than any wargamer can do. He is describe as a moron only by Manstein (the real one). It is only after the defeat of Stalingrad that it lose rational strategic thinking, like most bad player do (so be a sore loser and yoouwill mimic hitler decision).

Again, this is the command structure that is lacking (multi for one side) qs history shown more than once than german general either just disobey Hitler's order or simply make him change his mind. Guderian and Manstein are good example (Guderian imposed his operational choice at least three times, and Mqnstein at least one and directly in oposition to Hitler). But except Hoth, I don't remind a general that strictly follow orders. All the strange german decision are due to the whole command structure not Hitler's feat alone. General went for their own glory and deplete units that Hitler's order to reinfrice another offensive. Hitler's does get mad to Manstein refusing to obey and finally accept Manstein plan but deprive him of reinforcement out of anger (after stalingrad).

I don't see any system, except multi player, that can model that. I think that the original post lackhistorical background actually and miss its point. What is lacking is not Hitler meddling but Manstein or Guderian meddling
The problem is that Hitler meddling was base on fact and his strategic thinking (hold the west so they negociate to let germany fight the communist) and that is sufficiently model in the game in my point of view.

I can support a more rational withdrawal rules though, or vqriqble west front event. But again without a real command structure involving several player, the game is like any other wargame : I do what I want with the forces I have to explore how it might have been. I can live with it too.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak
I don't see any system, except multi player, that can model that. I think that the original post lackhistorical background actually and miss its point. What is lacking is not Hitler meddling but Manstein or Guderian meddling The problem is that Hitler meddling was base on fact and his strategic thinking (hold the west so they negociate to let germany fight the communist) and that is sufficiently model in the game in my point of view.
I can support a more rational withdrawal rules though, or vqriqble west front event. But again without a real command structure involving several player, the game is like any other wargame : I do what I want with the forces I have to explore how it might have been. I can live with it too.

Well, I am sure given sufficient development funds you could devise an AI system in which each general has its own characteristics and put an artificial Hitler and a Stalin ontop of both CoC, and see them meddling around and leader following his (and your) orders, or leaders disobeying both and following their nose. Norbsoft has done this kind of thing twice now successfully in its Civil War Games. But honestly, I would again not want that, at least not if it couldn't be switched off as optional.

Anyway, Capt Cliff was right with one thing: You guys are not really sales persons, nor do you seem to care much about advertising this game or its design decisions (at a time where many customers spent loads of time checking the internet and forums for infos and performance of a game before buying...). I think you could convey your logic behind those much better, and at least pretend to be driven by customer wishes and consider looking into upgrading the things proposed here in patches or addons if enough people care. Or give the game modding capabilities and a powerful scripting language that allows to mod such things later.

[karonagames]

I assume by "you guys", you mean the group of alpha game testers, who have been given permission to break the terms of the NDA's they have signed, to try to provide the users of this forum with the information they require. Some users want to know if the game works; others want to know how the game works, and a small minority want to have their own vision of how the game should work, debated; often using the veiled threat that "I won't buy this game unless it conforms to my vision".

"Us Guys" do our best to provide information to show that the game does work, and to provide as much as we know as to how the game works, but it it is very hard for us persuade someone who has not played the game as to whether it will ever get close to matching that individual's vision of what the game should be. When we try to express a point of view at odds with somebody who has not played the game's vision of what the game should be, we get accused of being "Yes Men". Well, that may be the price we have to pay for trying to provide the majority of the users of this forum with the information they require. I can assure you that none of us feel like "Yes Men", as we are all involved in very healthy debate with the designers in the private development forums.

The men that matter (the designers), and the ones who can make "customer wishes" come true, do read the forums, and at times have chosen to participate, usually to correct or clarify erroneous information that "Us Guys" have given. If they decide to change the game then "Us Guys" will find out when we are given new games systems and rules to test. All I can say is that in the 4 months I have been testing ,there have been changes to mechanics and rules for things that have been discussed on these forums.

[Hard Sarge]

that is kind of interesting, I think it is also pretty insulting, from what I have seen over the years, a Alpha/Beta tester, is very much not a Yes Man for Gary (or Matrix, or WC, or who ever) (and for what it is worth, we should be seen as Yes men for Joel, not Gary, if we were Yes Men)

most times, we are more a pain in the butt then the players who will later be playing the game, we rant and rave and argue much more then any post here on the public forum, that is part of the job, any tester who agrees with any and everything done to a game would be pretty worthless to my point of view

but, to each there own I guess

I will say, I have spoken with Gary over the phone, I have Argued with Gary over the phone, I have argued with Gary in emails (more so, though Joel, but still have had a chance to make my point/view made)

I would like to think after all of this time, that I can think of Gary and Joel as some of my friends, and would be honored to think that at the end of the day, they even know who I am, outside of some one who complains about every little change they make in a game

oh well, got to go and argue another point

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: Richard III

Rambling Eastern Front Thoughts and A Recommendation.

The Background.

I`ve played board & computer war games for almost 30 years and I`ve always been amazed by how Strategic and Operational level Eastern Front games have avoided including the fact that the Theatre, Army , Corps and even Divisional commanders were often forced to act on the orders of a lunatic in Berlin who controlled the armed forces of the nation.

The disasterous consequences, on both the strategic and operational levels of the ex corporals meddling in day to day operations are widely documented, yet AFAIK no war-game has incorporated that in the Game design....this is so devoid of reality it boggles the mind, and a sad relection of what`s gone before.

On the other side of the hill we have the Soviet state ruled by a peasant, who is also a homicidal manic who purged almost 10,000 regular officers on the eve of war, was the final arbiter on all operational plans and placed political officers ( commissars ), with no military experience, down to the Rgt. level in the whole of the Red Army. These political officers often enforced military decisions on the local level that had no basis in reality, with dreadful losses. This also has yet to be reflected in any game design.

If you can step from the average gamers fixation with OOB`s and hardware and leaders abilities and Panzer Spearheads and what if`s, you can see the Eastern Front as some kind of a hideous Theatre of the Grotesque, with no relationship to the Western Front, the Middle East or the Pacific other then people trying to kill each other in vast numbers.

No wonder the business dragged on for years due to the constant meddling by the madmen who ruled each side. The gods must have truly enjoyed this one.

The Recommendation.

Please, introduce some _forced random events_ into the Game that reflect the above.

You and I understand that we gamers are obsessed with complete, unobstructed control of our Armies, but not only is that a-historical, but fairly quickly will be boring and reduce re-playability as gamers dope out the optimal winning process.

Introducing Random Events, beyond the historical transfers of German units to the West, creates " decision points" for the player, and that adds interest. It cannot be that hard from a programming viewpoint, although I`ll grant it will increase play testing time.

Thanks for your consideration.

RL

This is the orginal thread boy's let's not stray from rebutting this gentleman's questions or hypothesis. The gentleman never posted again due to the fact people were ridiculing his idea, especial the "elite guard" of apha/beta play testers who rushed in to stomp this guy's opinion in the dirt. I assume we all work ... in industry or where ever? You have a boss? An they never screwed up anything you were ever working on?