AE and WitE and WitW

[Anachro]

ORIGINAL: obvert

Grigsby for instance has said that he would never do another game as complicated or detailed as WITP.

Well, that just makes me sad. So was this game no financially a success? Not financially a success enough to warrant a new game? We all know the community is small, but I'd hate to see games like this go down the route Paradox seems to be taking its games...

[Rising-Sun]

Someone or team may pick this up as long they don't ruin it. But they will need permission to do it though.

[Canoerebel]

It's inevitable that someday there will be a successor to AE, whether done by Matrix or by a dedicated enthusiast with a good idea and with lots of time on his hands, who works out of his basement office. It's just going to happen one of these days. And if that person or group of people has sufficient inspiration to create a game of similar complexity and scope but with enhanced graphics and interface it could be superior to what we're playing now. But AE set a very high bar. What a classic it has become.

[AlessandroD]

I hope you are right Canoerebel, because it would be a truly labor of love [:)]

[moonraker65]

I'm all for upgrading and making things better but don't ruin it. I think the reason WiTP and AE are so popular is because people like the degree of control and once you get used to the macro management it can be a fascinating experience to play. Somewhere along the line that "X Factor" was lost in WiTE and WiTW because the dynamic was changed for the worse

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: moonraker

I'm all for upgrading and making things better but don't ruin it. I think the reason WiTP and AE are so popular is because people like the degree of control and once you get used to the macro management it can be a fascinating experience to play. Somewhere along the line that "X Factor" was lost in WiTE and WiTW because the dynamic was changed for the worse

They went for bigger sales volume through faster GCs. That middle segment may not exist. There is a market for tablet games that are quick and easy. There is a market (perhaps small) for AE mega-scale, multi-year games. The middle of the wargame industry may have been hollowed out in the 2000s.

AE is the most popular game Matrix/Slitherine sells. I don't know if it's the highest sales volume. But having the most active forum after ten years ought to count for something.

[obvert]

Here is a good article on Slitherine/Matrix and their philosophy of design. Kind of supports what Bull is thinking.

Slitherine did well with IOS and Battle Academy but are now committing to the PC market, not going for more IOS/Android stuff. They sound like they're doing well, growing the business and relishing their position as leader in the niche that is large scale, detailed wargames.

I hadn't realized much of this and assumed everyone was pointing toward IOS and action, real-time, etc. Sounds like they're even more committed to this demographic and its needs and desires.

JD McNeil - Slitherine/Matrix MD

"Owning a market like war sims is a bit of a boon. Not only are your audience generally very dedicated, well off and engaged, they generally don't mind paying full price if it means they get exactly what they're after.

"It's kind of a luxury and a necessity of working in a niche," says JD. "If we went down that route of discounting very, very quickly, then you're going to hit saturation. Our job is to maximize revenue for the developers, and if we're not managing the price properly, then they basically end up getting less that they would. They may have sold lots of units, but volume doesn't matter, it's the value that they generate from them. That said, we had a Steam flash sale on Panzer Tactics that sold staggering numbers this weekend."

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-07-30-if-im-truthful-i-think-our-player-group-is-obsessive-would-be-a-word

[SuluSea]

I own all three but only play two.

AE is the pinnacle of war gaming, IMO.

I find WITE interface better than AE it may only take familiarity. WITE is the first East Front game I've played. I really thought WITW would take me by storm but the game hasn't delivered what I hoped it would. I'm wondering how much I will enjoy WITE 2.0 and may sit it out for a while, do my homework and continue playing these great games.

Count me in with the group waiting for the next big Pacific War game (or AE like Med game).

[patrickl]

Tired of playing AE for so long. Need an new game fix fast.[:D]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

I own all three but only play two.

AE is the pinnacle of war gaming, IMO.

I find WITE interface better than AE it may only take familiarity. WITE is the first East Front game I've played. I really thought WITW would take me by storm but the game hasn't delivered what I hoped it would. I'm wondering how much I will enjoy WITE 2.0 and may sit it out for a while, do my homework and continue playing these great games.

Count me in with the group waiting for the next big Pacific War game (or AE like Med game).

I pulled the trigger on WITE and WITW about 4 months ago.

Was a bit disappointed in WITE as I was expecting something more along the lines of the original War In Russia that I played the heck out of an truly loved.
Played intensively for about a month in spite of eth disappointment and then quickly grew bored with it.

Haven't been able to get past the tutorials on WITW. Absolutely HATE the combat results reporting on air battles with tiny text scrolling at the top of the screen and no animations.
Have to admit I'm addicted to the baordgame style lining up of combatants to face of in both naval and air combat that is the standard fare of AE.


and btw I love your new avatar Sulu...every few months I pull out the rules to that game intent on relearning it and having a go only to be daunted by the rules I would have to memorize in order to play.
Getting soft in my old age! What ever happened to the days of obsessive reading to assimilate the rules of a newly acquired game and then having to remember them in order to be able to play properly?
Computer games make the good old days of board gaming look like too much work now.

[Revthought]

I own all three titles, and while I play War in the East occasionally (never really War in the West), I usually stick to AE.

Here is my take:

War in the West:

The game is sound, mostly. It certainly does a better job of modelling the air war better than War in the East, however it still has balance problems.

The amphibious assault mechanics are really weak as far as I am concerned, and I really disagree with the nearly complete lack of modelling the naval war--even though 1943 was a critical year in the Battle of the Atlantic.

However, if you want my real opinion about why the game lacks the popularity of War in the East or War in the Pacific AE, it's because of design decisions I think are rather questionable. The biggest of these is the time frame covered by the game.

I understand why they chose to focus on the Western front from 1943 to 1946--it's far easier to balance properly than doing the whole war--but in practice it forces the players in multiplayer games into single roles. The Allies are always the offensive player, the Axis is always playing defense--a defense I might add that they have no hope of winning in any other way than pulling off their VP targets.

Now compare this to both War in the East and WiTPAE where both players get a chance to go on the offensive AND fight a defensive war. I really think this small little thing turns a lot people off to the game.

Added to that, there is really zero strategic element to the game--War in the East suffers from this somewhat too. For example, unlike WiTPAE bombing factories doesn't actually stop the production of things like u-boats or tanks. It merely nets the Allied player VP. On a personal level, this is what makes strategic bombing in WiTP so much more satisfying to both do and defend against, even though, arguably, the pure mechanics in WiTW are better.

War in the East

War in the East is somewhat better than War in the West in some of the "fun" aspects of the game. As I've said above, both players get the opportunity to play both offensively and defensively, which is good. And if you are playing the Soviets, you have some say in strategic elements like division composition. However, this is not the case for the Germans. I really feel the game would be better if the German player (and the Soviet player) were allowed more freedom in deciding things like vehicle/aircraft production and supply production.

I also think that logistics, for how important this was in Russia during WWII, are too simple.

The biggest problem with WiTE when compared to WiTPAE is related to multiplayer. For example, there is absolutely no incentive for the Soviet player to risk troops in the early war defending cities--like Kiev--that Stalin insisted be defended.

What's more, the game mechanics encourage a specific kind of checker board deployment of troops on the defensive for the early soviets so that zones of control prevent breakthroughs. What this means in practicle terms is that, unlike WiTPAE, you end up fighting the same totally ahistorical war over and over again in multiplayer.

That's the beauty of AE! There are a few "accepted" strategies; however, you just never know what you're opponent might try. In WiTE you know "Axis player will use X troops to try and do X by winter, and soviet player will deploy X troops in exactly this way to try to stop them" every game.

Just my 2 cents.

[IdahoNYer]

I was more of an Eastern Front buff, with the Pacific War a close second. Was tremendously looking forward to WiTE when it came out. Had "Second Front" and "War in Russia" (as well as PACWAR, Uncommon Valor and WiTP too!), so getting WiTE was a no brainer. Enjoyed my first couple of games against the AI in '41 scenarios to gear up for PBEM. Played my old Panzer Campaigns partner in a couple of PBEMs - one went the distance (still stickied on the WiTE forum [8D]) from both sides. Enjoyed the game up to the point of the Soviets getting Rifle Corps. Then, to me, the game system broke down. Capability to breakthrough and maneuver died. Game didn't give a good "feel" for the war in the east from mid '42 on - from either side IMO.

I haven't gone back to WiTE since L_S_T and I started our PBEM. Its had a number of patches since then, so I'll probably give it another shot at some point.

Had no real desire to get WiTW - a France '40 version, or a regimental scale Desert Campaign would grab me more.

[szmike]

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

Had no real desire to get WiTW - a France '40 version, or a regimental scale Desert Campaign would grab me more.

The latter was added with Operation Torch expansion, unfortunately it's later date than I'd desire and Germans are on defensive side again with battered DAK.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: szmike

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

Had no real desire to get WiTW - a France '40 version, or a regimental scale Desert Campaign would grab me more.

The latter was added with Operation Torch expansion, unfortunately it's later date than I'd desire and Germans are on defensive side again with battered DAK.

warspite1

Yes I was interested in getting Torch but then was told it was not actually Torch at all - a bit of an unfortunate misnomer....

Operation Torch was the Allied invasion of French North Africa. Great - this will be interesting as a scenario!....

....er no. Operation Torch in WITW starts on the 10th - not the 8th - and the naval ops, the landings, the fighting at Casablanca, Fort Lyautey, Oran and Algiers have all happened [&:]

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

I own all three but only play two.

AE is the pinnacle of war gaming, IMO.

I find WITE interface better than AE it may only take familiarity. WITE is the first East Front game I've played. I really thought WITW would take me by storm but the game hasn't delivered what I hoped it would. I'm wondering how much I will enjoy WITE 2.0 and may sit it out for a while, do my homework and continue playing these great games.

Count me in with the group waiting for the next big Pacific War game (or AE like Med game).

I pulled the trigger on WITE and WITW about 4 months ago.

Was a bit disappointed in WITE as I was expecting something more along the lines of the original War In Russia that I played the heck out of an truly loved.
Played intensively for about a month in spite of eth disappointment and then quickly grew bored with it.

Haven't been able to get past the tutorials on WITW. Absolutely HATE the combat results reporting on air battles with tiny text scrolling at the top of the screen and no animations.
Have to admit I'm addicted to the baordgame style lining up of combatants to face of in both naval and air combat that is the standard fare of AE.


and btw I love your new avatar Sulu...every few months I pull out the rules to that game intent on relearning it and having a go only to be daunted by the rules I would have to memorize in order to play.
Getting soft in my old age! What ever happened to the days of obsessive reading to assimilate the rules of a newly acquired game and then having to remember them in order to be able to play properly?
Computer games make the good old days of board gaming look like too much work now.

Hi Hans, Yeah the solo rules are very difficult to remember for me. I have the rules on PDF if you ever want to print them and study.

Have a great weekend. [:)]

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

I own all three titles, and while I play War in the East occasionally (never really War in the West), I usually stick to AE.

Here is my take:

War in the West:

The game is sound, mostly. It certainly does a better job of modelling the air war better than War in the East, however it still has balance problems.

The amphibious assault mechanics are really weak as far as I am concerned, and I really disagree with the nearly complete lack of modelling the naval war--even though 1943 was a critical year in the Battle of the Atlantic.

However, if you want my real opinion about why the game lacks the popularity of War in the East or War in the Pacific AE, it's because of design decisions I think are rather questionable. The biggest of these is the time frame covered by the game.

I understand why they chose to focus on the Western front from 1943 to 1946--it's far easier to balance properly than doing the whole war--but in practice it forces the players in multiplayer games into single roles. The Allies are always the offensive player, the Axis is always playing defense--a defense I might add that they have no hope of winning in any other way than pulling off their VP targets.

Now compare this to both War in the East and WiTPAE where both players get a chance to go on the offensive AND fight a defensive war. I really think this small little thing turns a lot people off to the game.

Added to that, there is really zero strategic element to the game--War in the East suffers from this somewhat too. For example, unlike WiTPAE bombing factories doesn't actually stop the production of things like u-boats or tanks. It merely nets the Allied player VP. On a personal level, this is what makes strategic bombing in WiTP so much more satisfying to both do and defend against, even though, arguably, the pure mechanics in WiTW are better.

War in the East

War in the East is somewhat better than War in the West in some of the "fun" aspects of the game. As I've said above, both players get the opportunity to play both offensively and defensively, which is good. And if you are playing the Soviets, you have some say in strategic elements like division composition. However, this is not the case for the Germans. I really feel the game would be better if the German player (and the Soviet player) were allowed more freedom in deciding things like vehicle/aircraft production and supply production.

I also think that logistics, for how important this was in Russia during WWII, are too simple.

The biggest problem with WiTE when compared to WiTPAE is related to multiplayer. For example, there is absolutely no incentive for the Soviet player to risk troops in the early war defending cities--like Kiev--that Stalin insisted be defended.

What's more, the game mechanics encourage a specific kind of checker board deployment of troops on the defensive for the early soviets so that zones of control prevent breakthroughs. What this means in practicle terms is that, unlike WiTPAE, you end up fighting the same totally ahistorical war over and over again in multiplayer.

That's the beauty of AE! There are a few "accepted" strategies; however, you just never know what you're opponent might try. In WiTE you know "Axis player will use X troops to try and do X by winter, and soviet player will deploy X troops in exactly this way to try to stop them" every game.

Just my 2 cents.

Much better summary than mine. I'm a WITE fan but I don't disagree with any of it.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea


Much better summary than mine. I'm a WITE fan but I don't disagree with any of it.

My post probably sounded more critical of WiTE than I actually intended. Despite the flaws I listed, it's still an excellent game I play from time to time; however, multiplayer in WiTE really has nothing going for it in comparison to WITPAE.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

I own all three titles, and while I play War in the East occasionally (never really War in the West), I usually stick to AE.

Here is my take:

War in the West:

The game is sound, mostly. It certainly does a better job of modelling the air war better than War in the East, however it still has balance problems.

The amphibious assault mechanics are really weak as far as I am concerned, and I really disagree with the nearly complete lack of modelling the naval war--even though 1943 was a critical year in the Battle of the Atlantic.

However, if you want my real opinion about why the game lacks the popularity of War in the East or War in the Pacific AE, it's because of design decisions I think are rather questionable. The biggest of these is the time frame covered by the game.

I understand why they chose to focus on the Western front from 1943 to 1946--it's far easier to balance properly than doing the whole war--but in practice it forces the players in multiplayer games into single roles. The Allies are always the offensive player, the Axis is always playing defense--a defense I might add that they have no hope of winning in any other way than pulling off their VP targets.

Now compare this to both War in the East and WiTPAE where both players get a chance to go on the offensive AND fight a defensive war. I really think this small little thing turns a lot people off to the game.

Added to that, there is really zero strategic element to the game--War in the East suffers from this somewhat too. For example, unlike WiTPAE bombing factories doesn't actually stop the production of things like u-boats or tanks. It merely nets the Allied player VP. On a personal level, this is what makes strategic bombing in WiTP so much more satisfying to both do and defend against, even though, arguably, the pure mechanics in WiTW are better.

War in the East

War in the East is somewhat better than War in the West in some of the "fun" aspects of the game. As I've said above, both players get the opportunity to play both offensively and defensively, which is good. And if you are playing the Soviets, you have some say in strategic elements like division composition. However, this is not the case for the Germans. I really feel the game would be better if the German player (and the Soviet player) were allowed more freedom in deciding things like vehicle/aircraft production and supply production.

I also think that logistics, for how important this was in Russia during WWII, are too simple.

The biggest problem with WiTE when compared to WiTPAE is related to multiplayer. For example, there is absolutely no incentive for the Soviet player to risk troops in the early war defending cities--like Kiev--that Stalin insisted be defended.

What's more, the game mechanics encourage a specific kind of checker board deployment of troops on the defensive for the early soviets so that zones of control prevent breakthroughs. What this means in practicle terms is that, unlike WiTPAE, you end up fighting the same totally ahistorical war over and over again in multiplayer.

That's the beauty of AE! There are a few "accepted" strategies; however, you just never know what you're opponent might try. In WiTE you know "Axis player will use X troops to try and do X by winter, and soviet player will deploy X troops in exactly this way to try to stop them" every game.

Just my 2 cents.

Very good review!

[SheperdN7]

I play both AE and WitE and Imho AE is a 9.5/10 while WitE is a solid 8/10. Why? Because AE has SOOOOOOOO many different strategies and consequences to picking a strategy. In AE the aspect of having EVERY SINGLE pilot named and his combat record shown (at least in terms of missions flown and kills) is just plain awesome. AE has a much more active community and I think it has a solid pipeline of young players (aged 25 or less) like myself that look to follow in the footsteps of the older admirals of the community. AE is a GREAT game, a top 3 game of all time for me while WitE is a perfectly SOLID or GOOD game. I think WitE would benefit from having AE level of air control and combat instead of its current iteration of "set doctrine" and "select target".

AE has unlimited amounts of strategies (with the exception of capturing DEI as Japan) WitE has 3 strategies for the Axis:

1. Rush for Leningrad to free up the Finns, swing south after Leningrad falls, use said Finns to garrison northern cities.
2. Rush to Moscow and form a defensive line in Autumm of '41, proceed to take Moscow after Winter.
3. Get to Karkov in the south to capture the enormous T-34 industrial base, proceed to the Caucasus after Winter to economically cripple Soviets

The one knock I have against AE is the land combat but even then I think it is a small price to pay for the ABSOLUTELY PERFECT naval and air combat.

And there's my 2 cents. AE is in the HOF as the G.O.A.T. [&o]While WitE is a solid perrenial all-star.

[Anachro]

I concur with the above. I think the biggest problem for WitE is that by its very nature the strategic options available to the player are limited, whereas WitP has so much versatility in strategy and objectives because it is so large and encompasses so much of the globe. A Japanese player has so many options; likewise, an Allied player has so many options. This isn't the case for WitE and I don't know if it can ever be the case for WitE. I do think that there is such an opportunity for a Western Theater game to have at least some of the depth of WitP, but this would require Matrix doing, as others have mentioned, a scenario that starts in 1939, not 1943.

Hope to see you back to doing multiplayer soon, Sheperd.