Matrix Games Forums

Rebel in canoe
Forgets glory of Grotius,
Ruler of Asia.

Nothing wrong with waiting. This is a big purchase in game terms. When Command Modern Naval Operations came out I had all sorts of reservations and held off.

Over time and a nice 20% sale and I was on board.

Eventually we all succumb to the dark side....

.....we do indeed

It hasn't got proper naval units, but even so, I just couldn't resist [:)]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

.....we do indeed

It hasn't got proper naval units, but even so, I just couldn't resist [:)]

Too bad it doesn't have a War in the Pacific naval system. I really enjoyed the naval combat and building of amphib task forces. It would add flavor to see your invasion fleet off Italy getting bombed and praying your LSTs and transports don't get hit.

I see in another thread they are considering something to add on for the air stuff. Perhaps a naval/air add on to give it a WitP flavor would be worthwhile. You could also add on a "what if" and give the Axis a decent naval/air component to see if the could not only seriously disrupt or even shoot up any Italian amphib invasion, but also contest a European invasion.

I may not have to revisit War in the East. Been collecting dust.

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

ORIGINAL: warspite1

.....we do indeed

It hasn't got proper naval units, but even so, I just couldn't resist [:)]

Too bad it doesn't have a War in the Pacific naval system. I really enjoyed the naval combat and building of amphib task forces. It would add flavor to see your invasion fleet off Italy getting bombed and praying your LSTs and transports don't get hit.

But that's about all you would see (off Italy, and France - 3 invasions in 2 years). Pretty much complete Allied air superiority in the Med by '43, and complete Naval dominance. You use the WitP bits three times, and then it's just auto convoy supplies. I would rather have the land supply and ground combat of WitE/W than that of WitP and losing the naval system because of it doesn't seem a bad swap to me!

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

ORIGINAL: warspite1

.....we do indeed

It hasn't got proper naval units, but even so, I just couldn't resist [:)]

Too bad it doesn't have a War in the Pacific naval system. I really enjoyed the naval combat and building of amphib task forces. It would add flavor to see your invasion fleet off Italy getting bombed and praying your LSTs and transports don't get hit.

But that's about all you would see (off Italy, and France - 3 invasions in 2 years). Pretty much complete Allied air superiority in the Med by '43, and complete Naval dominance. You use the WitP bits three times, and then it's just auto convoy supplies. I would rather have the land supply and ground combat of WitE/W than that of WitP and losing the naval system because of it doesn't seem a bad swap to me!

When the 39/41 module is added Allied air superiority in the Med won't be assured.[;)]

When WitW gets linked to WitE and WitP things will really get interesting. Looks like GG will be busy for some time. May not be able to retire on some island paradise till 90.[:D]

Great opinions, for and against, I enjoy both sides.

I think War in the East was and is an outstanding game, except the air warfare module just seems to be off a little.

I have great concerns about War in West but only about the air warfare module side. I have no doubt it's a great wargame, just worried the air module detracts fromt the game. I will buy at some point, but will hold off till more review come out on the air side.

I've always thought that if you ever played the boardgame "Redstorm Rising" the air warfare system was perfect, and would have fit well into the War in the West series, i.e you slot your squadrons into different regions for bombing, air superiority, interdiction etc, and then you compare with what the other side has done and winner is chosen each turn in each area. Maybe War in the West does this, and I hope it does, I guess I will find out in due time.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Joel wrote this text way back in Feb 2012 (Original here:  http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3051557  )

Our next game will be War in the West 43-45 which will be the same scale as WitE and will include a more robust air game with the land campaigns and strategic bombing. After that we plan on War in the West 40 (which will include Norway, France, England and the Med, and add a new detailed naval system) and War in the West 41-42 which will focus on the Med. War in the West 43-45 will have campaigns that start in the summer of 43 and the summer of 44, as well as shorter scenarios. We have an alpha map for all of Europe (including the Soviet Union to east of the Urals), North Africa and the Middle East). We plan to use this map to eventually produce a WitE 2.0 which would fit in with the War in the West products and allow us to fill in a complete War in Europe. Of course, this will take many years.

It's great to see all you WitP guys here - having played WitP, WPO and WitP:AE I merely observe that WitP is a principally a naval game with abstracted land units whereas WitW is a land game with an abstracted naval model.  I love your thinking but quite how it might work takes genius - thank goodness for GG.

Well, the way I read Joel's post (wishful thinking admittedly involved), I want to see a trend. WitE was a land game with abstracted air and naval model. WitW43 is a land game with abstracted naval model. WitW40 will provide the naval model. So we are on the road to heaven [8D]. Or hell [:D]

But first, let's enjoy some WitW43, as far as our PBEMs allow for it.

Was busy yesterday so finally got it today. Thanks all who helped for the diligence!!

Well, though I'm not buying yet, I'm hoping/planning to buy after Christmas - In case I get a giftcard to use (one of few things on my Christmas list).

Several years ago I switched buying boxed versions of games and relied on the electronic manuals. But I'm planning to get the boxed version WitW for the manual. I'm looking forward to having this manual.

Thanks!
Rick

ORIGINAL: PzB

I'm never in doubt about buying GG games, we've been having a great time together since "Warship" back in 85 and Ive never been dissappointed!
Family and a toddler keeps me from playing anything but the AI these days but, when PzB Jr is a bit older we will be returning with some AARs of our own - with tanks, can hardly wait [:D]

So gratz on another great release, will be a nice little Xmas treat [8D]

My first GG title was Pacwar. Man, did I ever love that one. I bought it twice even. Once in the box, and then once in a jeweled case.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

It's not marketing really -  it's development time.  WitW took well over two years.  If you push the timeline back beyond May 43 you really need a more developed naval game which adds another layer of complexity to iron out and balance. 

Additionally, it was originally slated for December 2013!! I remember reading a post about it "hopefully be(ing) ready for Christmas of 2013". That was missed, but we can see it takes time to get things right.

Lots of respectable people giving their opinion in this thread. I find that the lack of naval operations and the IGO UGO system is the biggest turnoff for me. That being said, it might very well turn out to be a game I will enjoy a great lot and put many hours into.

ORIGINAL: robinsa

Lots of respectable people giving their opinion in this thread. I find that the lack of naval operations and the IGO UGO system is the biggest turnoff for me. That being said, it might very well turn out to be a game I will enjoy a great lot and put many hours into.

I've been tooling around with the Husky scenario. Once you get into the game and start tweaking the setting to your liking this game really begins to show its potential. Even without a robust naval operations system it really begins to grow on you.

Play balance problems just inevitably pop-up from games of this complexity, particularly after it's released and inventive players figure out creative ways to "game" the system, whether it's CV Death Stars, Lvov pockets, Artillery/tank stacks, HQ chaining, run-away gambits, etc. No doubt within the first few months someone will be invading Denmark in 1943 or para-dropping on Berlin or :"death-bombing" the Reich or some sort of unforeseen gambit that requires further tweaking to balance out. - Q-Ball

I've never been one to try and game the system so maybe I am not the best to comment but I think players will find a lot less to game in WitW. The constraints of shipping and the new logistics system (superb!) are one reason and another is the Allies don't have anything approaching force parity until mid 1944 so rushed invasions are very high risk indeed. "Gaming" issues revealed in testing were dealt with. For example, Berlin has a fortress unit to prevent a para drop from seizing the capital.

My only complaint is the ship foghorn noise sound effect - it scares my cats.

ORIGINAL: chris.munson
I've never been one to try and game the system so maybe I am not the best to comment but I think players will find a lot less to game in WitW. The constraints of shipping and the new logistics system (superb!) are one reason and another is the Allies don't have anything approaching force parity until mid 1944 so rushed invasions are very high risk indeed. "Gaming" issues revealed in testing were dealt with. For example, Berlin has a fortress unit to prevent a para drop from seizing the capital.

That's about my sense too - I'm sure gamers will find ways, but at release I think WITW is better balanced than WITE or WITP were at their releases.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: 76mm

If by playable you mean that the game did not crash, etc., then you are correct. If you mean that the rules were well thought-out, and the game balanced (among many issues, the blizzard rules, 1:1=>2:1 rule, etc.), then I strongly disagree--hence the many patches the game has gone through.

I haven't been involved in WitW's testing for a fairly long while, but based on WitW's release, I'd say some very hard lessons were learned from WitE's release.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

You certainly have a right to that opinion. I disagree in that many of the issues you are pointing too only became issues after months or years of competitive multiplayer play where the community reached a consensus that they preferred a change from the original design.

This is a very unfair to the commitment of WitE's test team, Erik.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Actually I think that some of the significant issues, particularly the blizzard rules, were apparent right away, and it was difficult at the time to understand how they were overlooked during play-testing...

A game being released with certain problems doesn't mean feedback exposing those problems wasn't given.

-

As stated above, I have the impression that WitW is a significantly more polished product at release than WitE was, with all the new mechanics having been thoroughly tested it seems. Earlier in the thread, it was mentioned that due to the decreased turn numbers and in a way also the more limited scope (as you'll only have a fairly large numbers of divisions in the field in mid 1944 at the earliest) it's easier to balance than WitE. The fact that no one is jumping up and down the forum to answer questions or discuss potential issues, like I did when WitE is released is also a good sign if it isn't needed.

Personally, testing WitE and the aftermath of that testing, including the opinion that the test team failed as mentioned again by 76mm made it a bad experience for me, and after the initial testing of WitW I just wasn't going to let that happen to me again.

Out of all the developers I worked with, either as a tester or a team member, working with the team for WitE was my worst experience hands down. That didn't actually have anything to do with Joel and Pavel (the parttime programmer, who wanted to spend more time coding than explaining the mechanics, which was usually understandable: that was why he was in the team after all), the two team members I actually talked to, but rather with Gary never appearing on the forums to discuss the mechanics and never responding to feedback. It gave me a feeling that I had essentially wasted hundreds of hours as the feedback never got through to where it mattered.

As such, I won't be buying WitW. However, based on the initial impressions and what I'm hearing about the commitment of the test team in the stages where the game was truly playable, I think I can recommend the game if you enjoy strategic-scale wargames where you can really see your plans "grow up" as the historical reality of the game is such that you'll need a decent plan before invading as the Allies, and the air war also needs to be properly planned. It might sound like a paradox that I won't buy the game but still recommend it, but my reasons for not buying the game are personal and don't have anything to do with the merits of the game, which were already clear in the early testing stages when I was still in the test team.

WitE's combat engine, flawed as it was, was capable of simulating WWII combat with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The fact that it didn't doesn't mean that the capability to do so wasn't in the system. The AAR's and initial comments make it sound like this release is more like what WitE could have been, and what WitE 2.0 will hopefully be like.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

You certainly have a right to that opinion. I disagree in that many of the issues you are pointing too only became issues after months or years of competitive multiplayer play where the community reached a consensus that they preferred a change from the original design.

This is a very unfair to the commitment of WitE's test team, Erik.

That comment actually had nothing to do with WITE's test team or test process. It's clear that you had a bad experience testing WITE - that was certainly not universal but please don't read all my comments through that filter. I was not trying to put down the WITE test team at all. For a complex game like WITE or WITW, because of the many moving parts, often to make major balance or design changes the development team needs to see some pretty overwhelming feedback and often that can only happen once a much larger group of players is playing through the game.

Out of all the developers I worked with, either as a tester or a team member, working with the team for WitE was my worst experience hands down. That didn't actually have anything to do with Joel and Pavel (the parttime programmer, who wanted to spend more time coding than explaining the mechanics, which was usually understandable: that was why he was in the team after all), the two team members I actually talked to, but rather with Gary never appearing on the forums to discuss the mechanics and never responding to feedback. It gave me a feeling that I had essentially wasted hundreds of hours as the feedback never got through to where it mattered.

Sorry to hear that - frankly, if Gary spent his time on the forum these games would never be finished. The team is setup so that feedback is collected and does flow to Gary as well as other team members. It's possible whatever feedback you are upset about not being heard was in fact heard, considered and a decision to not make a change made.

Frankly, I think that if you have an issue with the WITE test process from 4+ years ago, it would probably be more appropriate for you to discuss that with Joel and me via PM or e-mail rather than here. In any case, I'm glad that you think WITW solved the issues you had with WITE and I hope you will take a second look at WITW and WITE 2.0 in the future.

Regards,

- Erik

Frankly, I think that if you have an issue with the WITE test process from 4+ years ago, it would probably be more appropriate for you to discuss that with Joel and me via PM or e-mail rather than here.

It was brought up, I didn't bring it up. When someone posts that we had essentially failed, and instead of saying that certain features were still being tweaked or according to the developers required more feedback before being changed, you say that the issues 76mm mentioned only became issues after months of testing by players after release, that is not fair to the test team as a whole. You give the impression that those issues were not a concern around release.

I felt that the feedback wasn't managed properly due to a lack of direct contact with the main designer and programmer (Gary) and explanations as to why certain features were in the game/why they couldn't be changed. That doesn't mean the testing itself was all bad, as the potential was clearly there. The feeling that the game could have been better with less artifical rules was the most frustrating part, and not just for me.

Anyway, I'd say it's telling that when WitE was released, I made around a hundred posts per day on average whilst this release is going much more smoothly with the test coordinator making a handful of posts, Pavel looking at bugs and there clearly being fewer confused and sometimes negative impressions. That's also why I feel the quality of the game is probably more polished at release than WitE was. WitE was more of a true monster game in size, with lots of land combat that would nearly inevitably (from a statistical perspective) expose problems. WitW is also a monster game in spirit, but a larger part of the game is about planning and there's less room for gamey stuff.

I purchase these titles upfront because this is a niche market and I want to support the niche market I am interested in. WITE did not have Ubisoft size programming dept to deal with the complexity of such a rich game in the timely fashion everyone expects from Assassins Creed. That being said, Ubisoft is not putting out the genre of games I am interested in. So, I do not think the criticism is well placed when one considers that gamers in the genre are somewhat fortunate to have these few people plugging away with titles and scenarios/campaigns that take someone with the brains beyond a 12 year old to become immersed in. That being said, for some people $90 is a lot of money, and those are financial considerations only individual consumers can make.