Paying Player's Poll (no testers please)

[solops]

#1 and No PBEM

[Lannes]

#1 and #3 for me

[Redmarkus5]

Thanks everyone for the interesting and positive contributions so far. We do need to remember that English is not everyone's first language here and what may seem to be misdirected is generally well intentioned.

To clarify my thinking, I do understand that once the first move is made, the campaign is no longer historical - only the initial conditions can ever be historical. However, a good set of initial conditions and other limiting factors can be devised to constrain the options for both the AI and the human player. This has been done to a great extent, but there are some important gaps.

For example, when I played the GC vs. the Soviet AI, my AG South couldn't even keep up with the retreating Soviets who ran all the way back to Kiev on Turn 5. I hadn't yet broken their line when this happened.

This is a design and coding issue - not a problem that's beyond the capacity of 2by3 surely?

Finally, let me say that WiTE represents a fantastic effort in design and delivery. I have my FiTE boxes on my shelf and the thought of trying to turn that into a PC game is scary. I think that this game will deliver excellent PBEM value for players who are willing to live with a few simple House Rules. The AI will hopefully get there one day.

Please do buy the game. It is worth having now and the more players there are, the better the game will become. Remember, this is a niche market...

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Ok, I'm breaking this cone of silence. What in the heck are you talking about pompack?

Just disagreeing with redmarkus4 on principle dealing with the philosophical difficulties of creating a simulation that will always produce an exact replica of history. Actually another poster in another similar thread said it better: "if you want a simulation that exactly duplicates history read a book" [:D]

As to the philosophy, Brother Herwin in the WitP forum could explain it better (and at greater length) since he used to teach this stuff and I only studied it.

When you set out to create a mathematical model of conflict you face an initial challenge in your choice of temporal and spatial granularity: at very large granularity you can create a model where you push "start" and it will tell you who won the conflict; at the other extreme you can attempt to construct a model at such fine granularity that it will inform you that on the 14th day of the conflict Private John Smith was killed by artillery fire on the outskirts of Rodevenko. Once you create your model, you must run sufficient trials to achieve some level of statistical confidence in the results. You are then inevitably faced with the fact that your predicted results deviate from the results expected by the designer and/or the customers paying for the model. When that occurs the designer has four basic choices: 1) tweak the initial conditions, 2) change the math portion of the model, 3) add external constraints to the operation of the model, and 4) change the "expected results" in the mind of the designer/customer.

#1 is used most frequently but is constrained by reality since the initial conditions of a conflict of interest are usually known, at least at a high level. Note that one of the primary drawbacks (other than cost) of a fine-grained simulation is the fact that at a low enough level the initial conditions are NOT known and given enough flexiblity to change them the designer can produce pretty much whatever result a customer desires (which in the real world means that the customer has wasted his money unless that was the purpose of creating the simulation in the first place.\

#2 is rarely done to any great extent to the the exteme cost in time and money of any but the must superfical changes in the math model

#4 is unfortunately the rarest outcome in the real world of combat simulations; customers especially don't like to be told by computers that they had it all wrong

#3 is usually the choice after changing the initital conditions (#1) fail to produce the "expected result": for example, for an Armored Cav advocate, if the Russians fail to advance far enough on the first day (thus indicating that your Cav screen is sufficient) you add a constraints that eliminate traffic friction at the border due to "prior planning", increase the effectiveness of first day bombardments due to "prior registration". The point is that you can add as many special rules as you like and pretty much create any result that you like but that is doing nothing to increase the accuracy or the "historical nature" of the simulation.

So that is a lot of words to say that I don't believe that you should change a model that produces good results over a multi-year period by constricting it with a bunch of "special rules" in order to produce an historical result in the tenth week of the campaign (for example)

[Redmarkus5]

Hi Pompack.

Actually, I agree with you. Please take a closer look at what I am trying to say

I don't expect an exact replication of history, just a realistic set of constraints to keep things reasonably believable. This has been achieved in other excellent games, such as WiTP, but WiTE is not yet at that stage, IMO.

This has stirred up a huge number of comments, so it must be a sensitive topic for some reason.

Cheers,

Mark

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Hi Pompack.

Actually, I agree with you. Please take a closer look at what I am trying to say

I don't expect an exact replication of history, just a realistic set of constraints to keep things reasonably believable. This has been achieved in other excellent games, such as WiTP, but WiTE is not yet at that stage, IMO.

This has stirred up a huge number of comments, so it must be a sensitive topic for some reason.

Cheers,

Mark

Oh I would not call it "sensitive" in the sense of people worrying about kicking over sacred cows as much as just plain "interesting". It was said earlier that people can "agree to disagree" but in an "interesting" thread people agree to agree but only at great length and after much pontificating [:D]

[Redmarkus5]

OK, peace. If you take a look at my 'House Rules' thread, you will get a better idea of what I am trying to outline

[PyleDriver]

redmarkus4@ I really think in less than one week of playing this you can come to that conclusion. Play it, learn it, and let us know how you feel in a month.

[Redmarkus5]

Sorry - what conclusion?

[PyleDriver]

That this game doesn't have "a realistic set of constraints to keep things reasonably belelievable"...

[Redmarkus5]

OK. I hear you and I'm open to being convinced. But if I see weird things in the first week (such as the whole Soviet southern front running away) am I not entitled to harbour some doubts?

Anyway, I am starting the Road to Kiev scenario and an AAR thread to show what I experience and illustrate how at least one noob customer plays the game. All comments and suggestions welcome!

[PyleDriver]

Well the AI may do some strange things. It tends to be Moscow heavy. Once you jump into a few PBEM games agianst experenced Soviet players, you my be singing a different tune...

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I want to find out if my views are in the minority here.

Did you buy this game (or are you thinking of buying) primarily to:

1. Play against an AI that uses clever tactics, but which will play very differently from the historical human generals (for example, by giving up Minsk to defend further back), or

2. Play against an AI that gives you a reasonable facsimile of WW2 operational decisions, as per actual history (for example, by standing and fighting in 1941 even if a pocket is formed), or

3. Play PBEM vs. a human - anything goes.

Please post your thoughts.

Will be picking this one up soon and will be #3 (not necessarily anything goes). I only use the AI for learning a game.

I take issue with the way this poll was worded though. You can get #2 much more so with a human opponent using house rules (the AI will never agree to using house rules [;)]).

[raizer]

Stalin was in total shock when the germans came over on that june morning.  Stalin was not communicating for a few days.  The soviets defended in place, up against the front, cause thats where they were when germans hit them.  Stalin was not preparing any attack against Germany  at this time, in fact he was doing the opposite.  He was refusing to listen to his front line commanders "that something was brewing."  He refused to allow his air force to fly recon missions over the front.  The soviets captured a few sympathizers prior to the attack, debriefed them and learned on the invasion, but stalin refused to listen. Just as he refused to listen to the information the British were providing him about an upcoming german offensive.  He refused all these things because he was deathly afraid of giving the germans a pretex, a reason, to attack...the germans did anyways and stalin was paralyzed with fear, demonstrated by his inaction, during those opening days of the campaign.    

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Well the AI may do some strange things. It tends to be Moscow heavy. Once you jump into a few PBEM games agianst experenced Soviet players, you my be singing a different tune...

But for those of us who don't WANT to play PBEM, does the Soviet AI act as if it had Comrade Stalin (and, by extension, Comrade Beria [;)] ) looking over it's shoulder?

It doesn't matter too much in the long run given the already posted answer that it's moddable. [:)]

[Howard7x]

1 & 2 for me.

I enjoy playing human players and I must admit, the server based games seem so much more fluid and easy to do than the old PBEM systems.
For me it comes down to time and commitment. I love playing wargames but my lifes pretty hectic most of the time nowdays so playing against an AI means I can save it at any point and I have no pressure to resume the game or get a turn back to someone within the week or whatever.

I imagine a full campaign human vs human game would take some time, even with a great deal of commitment by both parties because you want to win more [;)] so will take time with your turns.
Where as against the AI, it doesnt matter so much and I dont care if I suffer a major defeat, you can learn along the way without looking completely dumb!

[Oleg Mastruko]

#3 for me.

[Redmarkus5]

You can play the shorter scenarios vs. a human and they also sit there as saves until you are ready. And some of us humans are pretty dumb players too

[PyleDriver]

Steve@ I think Stalin would have wanted to defend Moscow the most. So the AI isn't far off... I have pressed alot, which was never taken into effect, that if Moscow is captured, moral should go down for the Soviets...

[Mifune]

#1 and #3 for me