War in the West

[sveint]

Just a feedback from one player: not really interested in these games. Would be more interested in a game of the entire European front, 39 to 45 (with much more player freedom, even if it would deviate more from history).

[buchand]

Ouch! WWII at division level!!
This will lead to social and economic breakdown as gamers ignore jobs and families in order to gain lebensraum/stop the facist hordes in the name of freedom [both could apply to Uncle Joe Stalin but thats a different discussion]. [:D]

Seriously - as individual games they sound fantastic but joining them together will be for the real hardcore only. Hope the interaction doesn't hold up Western Front.

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: buchand
Ouch! WWII at division level!!

Is anyone else old enough to remember "IT" ...

The entirety of the War in Europe on a scale of individual soldiers and civilians, individual vehicles, ships and aircraft with a map the size of a football field and, literally, a truckload of counters ...

It was a joke review in Avalon Hill's "General" Magazine, making fun of SPI "monster games" ...

But, wait ... why not integrate all the Close Combat games ... for an integrated WW2 ETO game ... modern computers can handle all the detail [;)]

[duck, dodge, weave [:D][:D][:D]]

Phil

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I think WITP-AE, WITE, and WITW should all be combined in one massive, mind-bending engine.

With pilot training features as per WITP AE!!!

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

He's right about the quoting Glantz thing though. There are some who attempt to silence any wayward comments with exactly that technique...

There might be some, but something that used to piss me off was all the criticism on the game based on clearly proven misconceptions - if not, just pure delusions - based on post-war German memorists and their faithful fanboys-cum-historians. Not to mention Soviet regime propaganda, which insisted in portraying the whole affair as a succession of crushing victories after crushing victories all the way from Stalingrad to Berlin.

I tend to cite Glantz - from time to time - to illustrate my points, rather than trying to shut other peoples' mouth. I have even referred to Von Mellenthin description of the Chir battles during the Stalingrad German debacle, but I'm very conscious that what he describes as a "brilliant tactical and operational victory", is arguably more of an "operational stalemate" and a "strategic failure". And Glantz isn't perfect either: he consistently disregards air power in his studies, considering it a "sideshow".

It's all about having some common sense, and giving honest answers to honest questions.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I count 36. I can't think any other designer/programmer that comes close. Are there any board game authors that can claim this many designs? Other than Jim Dunigan, I'm not sure there is.

Ty Bomba. He cranked out quite a few titles back in the 80s and 90s. (I'm including his Command Magazine games here.)

[Kriegsspieler]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We're planning on several different games that will together cover the entire War in the West. The first is 43-45 Italy/France, the next will probably be Norway/France/Med (with Italy) in 1940, with another game being the Med 41 to mid-43 (by Med I mean the area surrounding the land areas surrounding the Med). That's the current plan anyway. The 1940 and 41-43 games will both include a major new naval addition to the WitE game system. It will not be WitP (not at that level of detail), but it will be a fully designed naval system to work in conjunction with the WitE rules.

Just a comment in reponse to this brief sketch by Joel Billings of how "War in the West" is likely to evolve. This IS meant ultiumately to add up to a 1939-1945 equivalent of War in the East, isn't it? When our computers all have 8 or 16 parallel processors as their standard CPUs and the game engine can break its calculations down to make them go faster and each of us has a small-scale nuclear generator to power these CPU's, then we'll get the BIG game, right?

Seriously, though, what I miss in this description is any specific attention to the naval war in the North Atlantic -- the U-boat strangulation of the UK, the search for the Bismarck, etc. Unless that "1940" game is meant to cover that stuff.

[gradenko2k]

When our computers all have 8 or 16 parallel processors as their standard CPUs and the game engine can break its calculations down to make them go faster and each of us has a small-scale nuclear generator to power these CPU's, then we'll get the BIG game, right?

On this note, does WITE actually support / utilize multiple cores on our CPUs?

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I think WITP-AE, WITE, and WITW should all be combined in one massive, mind-bending engine.

WOOT! That's a massive game for sure [:D]

Let's see - we have War in the East, War in the Pacific, and coming is War in the West. What would you name a combo of all 3 and keep the "War in the" theme?

WAR IN THE WORLD? LOL

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

ORIGINAL: buchand
Ouch! WWII at division level!!

Is anyone else old enough to remember "IT" ...

The entirety of the War in Europe on a scale of individual soldiers and civilians, individual vehicles, ships and aircraft with a map the size of a football field and, literally, a truckload of counters ...

It was a joke review in Avalon Hill's "General" Magazine, making fun of SPI "monster games" ...

But, wait ... why not integrate all the Close Combat games ... for an integrated WW2 ETO game ... modern computers can handle all the detail [;)]

[duck, dodge, weave [:D][:D][:D]]

Phil

Hell yeah I am old enough to remember that. Actually, I did not know about the article in the General. My wargaming buddies were talking doing a session of War in the Europe (SPI) when it was mentioned. I though it was his original idea, lol.

But since in WitE you can drill down from a Panzergrenadier Div to the Panzer Pioneer Squad, then look at the devices and see they have 8 satchel charges, are we not close to having "IT" [8D]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz


Is anyone else old enough to remember "IT" ...

Old enough, and still have the magazine around...somewhere. IIRC, it was written by Alan Moon, who had a great column in The General magazine all those years ago. He then went on to design some pretty good games for some of the German boardgaming companies.

[RocketMan]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
Is anyone else old enough to remember "IT" ...

If I remember correctly, the review talked about the difficulty of working around the building pillars, that some of the workers were inexplicably missing from the game and how roof leaks were effecting the outcome of the battle. It was hilarious!

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I'm going to take one of my big guns out of its carrying case and take a shot at Matrix:

Given how poorly the actual combat mechanics of War in the East, and how utterly pointless the so-called "Strategic Decisions" available to the Germans are, there's simply no way in hell I'll buy a War in the West product.

Just as Germany is bound to its winter 1941 demise, France will be bound to its no-reserves charge into Belgium.

But wait, maybe I'm wrong and France will be given complete freedom of command and control exactly as the Soviets are in 1941. In that case, Germany players can re-create the stalemate of Verdun as France players erect a perfect grid of brigades forward soaking up German MPs and combined stacks of French armor and infantry creating Schwerpunkts.

What's that? There will be a Norway campaign? Well, with the British and French having to ship in and ship out divisions as their historical counterpart does, that should be a gripping campaign as you invade Narvik only to have to withdraw the troops 4 weeks later. How about a Dutch campaign where the only counter the Dutch get to move is the royal family? Maybe Denmark can hold out until 50 soldiers are killed!

Will a US invasion be required on June 6, 1944? Will US Supply be modeled perfectly so that every division from Caan to St. Lo has exactly enough to launch full-frontal attacks?

Will an Allied player ever even need to launch Market Garden when you can just grind down German infantry turn after turn all across the front? What earthly point will there be for the Germans to do anything other than enact major forts along every major river from the Somme to the Elbe?

I get the impression from my time with Gary Grigsby games that his games start with a foregone conclusion about who will win and how, then he piles a bunch of ridiculous and unnecessary statistics into it covering the range of rifle grenades, the top armor for 79 Porsche turrets for Tiger IIs, and how many kettenkrads were produced in a given month from 43 to 45, he throws all that stuff in until his program is dripping with pointless calculations that overpower the mathematical dynamics of combined arms warfare, and calls it a game.

When it turns out to be 1-dimensional, and exploitable to the point of absurdity, someone quotes Glanz and says that's very realistic.

You know....this is actually pretty funny....and part of the humor is that your dead-on re: some of the inevitable reactions (i.e. Lets quote Glantz....or [insert Historian here] We have ALOT of that over on the AE and previously the WitP forum.

If there's a fault in GG designed games....its the same feature that makes his games so addictive. Detail Control with a carefully crafted illusion of detailed representation over an engine that ultimatley employs a boatload of Randoms. [:D] What you describe here is the same problem as in WitP. From Turn 2 onward, the Allied side does not react and fight in the way they did historically. Most players focus on what Player One (Japan) is doing "ahistorically" but given the Allies are like the Soviets......ultimatley so much more powerful than the initial Antagonist side.....they benefit the most from hindsight unless the Axis player comes up with some seriously implausible exploits to win an auto-victory.

Of course GG is hardly alone here.....I got an education from one veteran who used to play the boardgame version of WitE who described using very similar multi-hex tactics to blunt/absorb German mobile warfare tactics. All perfectly legal under the rules and coupled with perfect hindsight created a game that hardly bore resemblence to the real deal.

A War in the West has even bigger challenges. I remember back in the day geting a copy of the 8Bit "Western Front" game simulating D-day onward and being all excited after years of re-playing War in Russia. I never even ended up finishing a single game. It was so boring. Once the Allies landed it was a forgone conclusion. The Allied side ruled the air....had virtually unlimited logistics and more strength. One can get around this in part by representing more of the West.....(like France 1940) but its like you said. First thing thats going to happen is the Allied (French) player will immediatley fall back on the defensive setting up a multi layered tiered defense and the Germans can thus beat their party insignias against it. [:D]

How to resolve? I'd suggest several things/ideas.

1) Don't overfocus on detail control/representation. Newer doesn't have to mean more and more micromanagement and screen clutter as one attempts to represent every device/unit and the seperate exp values of each.

2) I always thought Norm Koger's "Operational Art of War" had a great idea in utilizing "Trigger events" that until tripped would lock down elements of the player's side or at least restrict their options. This feature represented the "Higher political/military" powers constraining you....the Theater commander from just doing whatever the hell you want. Just a thought. WitP tried to crudely simulate elements of this by use of "Political Points" but it was restricted mainly to buying off land and air units from certain Theater commands that otherwise can't be moved from their area of deployment. Once "Bought" you had the typical Total Control of that unit. One can expand on this by having certain requirements at game start for the player like "You are not authorized to conduct a mass withdraw into the interior in order to [magically] counter a new form of warfare that the enemy will deploy against you"

3) maybe a more dynamic AI in which your not just either one side or the other....but have the option to have the AI control one nation......say the UK Expeditionary Force while you control France.....or vice versa. Imagine your consternation if your best laid plan is laid waste by a sudden withdrawl by your "ally" (as historically happened at one point in 1940)

[gargoil]

1) Don't overfocus on detail control/representation. Newer doesn't have to mean more and more micromanagement and screen clutter as one attempts to represent every device/unit and the seperate exp values of each.

WitW will certainly be built on the same engine as WitE.

2) I always thought Norm Koger's "Operational Art of War" had a great idea in utilizing "Trigger events" that until tripped would lock down elements of the player's side or at least restrict their options. This feature represented the "Higher political/military" powers constraining you....the Theater commander from just doing whatever the hell you want. Just a thought. WitP tried to crudely simulate elements of this by use of "Political Points" but it was restricted mainly to buying off land and air units from certain Theater commands that otherwise can't be moved from their area of deployment. Once "Bought" you had the typical Total Control of that unit. One can expand on this by having certain requirements at game start for the player like "You are not authorized to conduct a mass withdraw into the interior in order to [magically] counter a new form of warfare that the enemy will deploy against you"

Agreed. I certainly believe that, while they design those western campaigns, that these will be so self envident that they will have to design for it. I am not worried.

3) maybe a more dynamic AI in which your not just either one side or the other....but have the option to have the AI control one nation......say the UK Expeditionary Force while you control France.....or vice versa. Imagine your consternation if your best laid plan is laid waste by a sudden withdrawl by your "ally" (as historically happened at one point in 1940)

While I would not deny this to anyone that wanted it, I have played too much HOI 3 to be able to stand not being able to coordinate even to the most rudementry level with my allies to want what you suggest.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

3) maybe a more dynamic AI in which your not just either one side or the other....but have the option to have the AI control one nation......say the UK Expeditionary Force while you control France.....or vice versa. Imagine your consternation if your best laid plan is laid waste by a sudden withdrawl by your "ally" (as historically happened at one point in 1940)

While I would not deny this to anyone that wanted it, I have played too much HOI 3 to be able to stand not being able to coordinate even to the most rudementry level with my allies to want what you suggest.

HOI3 was really bad. They couldn't even manage to get right the location of Stalingrad on release. I bought the three of them and they never felt quite right, even with the extensive modding. I'm really looking forward to World In Flames - with the Days of Decision thing in, hopefully - finished.

[cherryfunk]

HOI3 is better than it was, although still suffers from some big problems.  An AAR writer recently complained that he had asked his Italian and Hungarian allies to attack the Soviets, who were grinding their way across Turkey -- the Italians and Hungarians promptly sent their expeditionary forces to Finland to join the front there...
 

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: cherryfunk
HOI3 is better than it was, although still suffers from some big problems.  An AAR writer recently complained that he had asked his Italian and Hungarian allies to attack the Soviets, who were grinding their way across Turkey -- the Italians and Hungarians promptly sent their expeditionary forces to Finland to join the front there...

They had surely researched the "Indirect Approximation" naval doctrine

[heliodorus04]

You can say there was a lot wrong with HOI3 (the only one in the series that I've played), and you'd be right.  The AI was not good, in particular playing the allies it was extremely weak and poorly coordinated.  That being said, you had complete control of the geo-political decision-making of whatever major power you wanted (yes, allies couldn't really 'start' the war but that was largely immaterial given that the games about starting the Axis starting the war).  I found the resource/production/research model in the game extremely engaging.

At the right AI settings, which you could tweak as you preferred, it was a particularly hard AI to fight against, if only because of certain artificial bonuses it got.  If you hear a new WitE player ask how he should set up the German AI so he can play the Soviets himself, you're going to say "Tweak the German AI up a lot to make it challenging..."  In that, they're very similar experiences.

And I think in several ways HOI's land combat engine reflected combined arms warfare better than our present and past iterations of WitE.  It didn't bog itself down in the details of 24 sIG33s.  "Stuff" got better as time went on (depending on research speeds), and sometimes small disparities meant a lot...  Simple execution of the model left the game open to strategy, and the calculations were much more open and accessible to the player.  Alas, HOI's air and naval combat engines were supreme train wrecks, which meant the Pacific theater was a bit of a joke supreme (it sounds better if you read it as French). 

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I get the impression from my time with Gary Grigsby games that his games start with a foregone conclusion about who will win and how, then he piles a bunch of ridiculous and unnecessary statistics into it covering the range of rifle grenades, the top armor for 79 Porsche turrets for Tiger IIs, and how many kettenkrads were produced in a given month from 43 to 45, he throws all that stuff in until his program is dripping with pointless calculations that overpower the mathematical dynamics of combined arms warfare, and calls it a game.

Out of curiosity, how many Grigsby games have you played? It seems to me you have a few criticisms and concerns and have filled in the gaps between them with assumptions.

Regards,

- Erik

In real life, it often is a foregone conclusion who will win and how. Therefore, a game whose mechanics create that effect (all other things like player skill being equal) strikes me as detailed and accurate rather them something to criticise. Throw in a committment to implement user feedback and clean up issues, improve the interface and add new features (The Hiwi stuff in 1.05 looks an excellent addition) and I reckon we should count our blessings. We are a niche market, completely ignored by major software developers, who are still getting first class products because of companies like Matrix and 2by3.

As for the chrome, just check the forums for this and WITP. It's the attention to detail that completes GG games for many people. For every Guy not that interested in the thickness of Porsche turret top armour, there are five more whose thirst for accurcy demands it is in there, and accurate to a nanometre.

Besides, if it's not to your taste, there will be something else in the Matrix catalogue that doesn't play that granular but covers your area of interest. Are you sure this is actually the game for you?

Respect and regards,
ID

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

You'll have a lot of reading to do since he's designed around 30 games.

Getting back to the thread title for a second....is the intention to change the scale?

It's a smaller theatre. With small numbers of divisions I don't know it would feel right operationally playing at 10 miles a hex and divisional counters. France 40 and Rhine 44 would be largeish, but it feels like a regimental sized game to me.

Regards,
ID