I suspect it is rapidly approaching the time to wrap this up since your subsequent (fairly unusual in this sort of setting) put up or shut up post makes it clear the usefulness of my feedback has been determined. Further effort on my part is unlikely to do us nor the dead horse any favours. [:)]
ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
To do the early war years, and the war in the Med, you have to have a flushed out naval game, and a flushed out air game (how else would you do the Battle of Britain, Sea Lion, Norway, North Africa, Battle of the Atlantic).
If Sea Lion is possible with historical set up, then the game is broke.....[;)]. I really don't see you need to do the battle of the Atlantic in any detail at all, and everything bar Norway was unnopposed from the naval perspective. Norway was a sneak attack and the Germans lost 10 destroyers in short order at Narvik once the RN turned up.
The law of diminishing returns might suggest that an exiting new naval model doesn't really need to be too complicated given the relative strength of the KM and the RN. We're surely not going to simulate large unit sorties, and the KM was spent after Norway having suffered less than 15 ships lost if memory serves.
Most German Cruisers and above were lost in harbour as were many Italian units. There is an argument, to be fair to your POV, that the period 40-42 had some combat between Cunningham and the Italians, but lack of fuel and the combined Allied fleets saw them stay home after that and it wasn't really on the scale of the Solomons.
Or, put another way, the best wargame I've ever played on the Pacific War correctly realised that land combat was largely incidental to the operational campaign, and wasted little time on it, concentrating instead on the Naval and Air models.
It was a good policy because it focused the game and the available development resources on what really mattered. What would a similiar approach here in the west suggest should be the priority?
That would be the humblest essence of my point. A detailed naval model isn't going to give the Germans the ability to prevent Dynamo, prevent Overlord or Dragoon or attempt Sealion, it isn't going to give the French the ability to stop the Germans at sedan all other things being equal, and it won't help the Germans defeat any of the major landings because they lacked the naval resources (good naval model or not) to challenge Allied might.
To stand a better chance, thus enhancing replayability and maintaining interest, the game needs the best ground model possible, because only here could the Germans realistically put any sort of spanner into the works. Only here can the two sides approach the sort of operational parity that makes for replayability, surprise and options.
That said, let's agree to disagree. If I go any further, someone might confiscate my WitE...[;)]
Now in 1943-45, the naval game is not as important, but the issues of air control over water are important (why didn't the Allies invade in Northern Italy in the summer of 43?).
War in the East is a monster operational game covering the largest land war in history. But War in the East does not really do justice to naval issues or many air issues because it was not critical to the land war and could be simplified. In the West, to do them justice like we think War in the East does justice to the land issues, we need more detailed systems (not at the WitP level, but more satisfying for the serious gamer). Logistics are critical in all areas, and we've learned a lot with our WitE experience, just like our Uncommon Valor game taught us some things we needed to learn before we did WitP. We think we can do better in WitW, and that will be necessary and helpful for all of WiE (including WitE 2.0).
No real argument except to ask where these more detailed naval models will create choice?
Or, put another way, it is true to say that Naval affairs were crucial to Allied success, but wrong (IMHO) to believe you have to simulate it to any real detail because on no level could the Germans challenge Allied naval might. If only one side has an interest in something, you may well be better off abstracting it.
We could try to do all of WitW 1940-45, in which case we'd say, we'll see you in 3-6 years if we haven't been forced to sell our houses and get a day job first.
An argument I fully, wholly and unreservedly appreciate, but which was not really articulated at a point before I started irritating you. My only mild come back would be that many of us do have day jobs and houses to pay for as well, hence our interest in decisions that triple the cost of something we desire. As I've said before, I am lucky enough to earn reasonably well and would pay (at least until you told me not to, how can I change your mind on this decision?) but this is an important calculation for many.
Tell me "we can't afford to do these games at any other scale now we've selected a scale, and have to do three games to maximise the revenue stream so we can afford to complete the project at all" and I'll buy them all, I'm happy to support those few people making games I want to play. Tell me "this is the best way to do it, what do you know?" whilst waving a big banner at me with the words "track record" written on it, and I may not buy, I believe my arguments are exampled enough, and sufficiently well articulated to warrant a less dismissive approach.
Some have argued we took on too much in doing WitE 41-45 all at once, but we made the decision to do it all at one time.
Do you think the decision worked?
I do.
With WitW, we see a clean break between the later years when the naval issues were simpler, and the earlier years where we need to create a new naval game.
As above. Germany was a land power with a modern air force. I don't really see you need an operational naval game of any great detail to create a game about her defeat because her options were strictly limited and relatively easy to simulate in the naval sphere.
Remember, there will be scenarios in both 43 and 44 where the Allies will have an opportunity to choose different invasion sites and build up to the invasion. To me this is still an operational game, and as you can see in the screenshot there are lots of hexes (please don't critique the map as it's an alpha map which will ultimately be painted and will go through several more rounds of data adjustments - we already have a list of changes to be made). It's not WitE, and there will be times when the Allies are bottled up in small parts of the map, but it's still an operational game (divisions, not corps or army units).
You're a Historian as well as a Wargame designer. In 43-45, the equation is simple. Only by bottling the Allies up can the Germans create any kind of operational campaign. When the Germans aren't bottling the Allies up, they will be retreating, plain and simple. They don't have the numbers to create a front line the length of central France so, to be fair, it'd be surprising if large parts of the map of France were actually used for anything other than retreating through.
That is my point, and what I suspect the Beta AARs will reveal to you. Before turn 70 (ish) and the retreat to the west wall, there are only two operational moments on Land. The Italian peninsula and the bottling up of the initial landing. If these are a collective 15-20 hexes long and mainly attritional frontal assaults, then the game has a problem (although admittedly, perhaps only one I'm bothered about). As the German player, giving me a new naval model and a new air model is scant comfort in the light of this, because I don't have any ships and only have a handful of planes piloted by average pilots who don't have the fuel to fly very often.
In a nutshell, this is my critique. I apologise if it's taken a few pages to get there.
The new air game will allow for the simulation of the strategic bombing campaign, and the east front holding box will add the dimension of having some control over east vs west front strategic choices. We think the new air game and the invasion possibilities will make for an interesting game that is within our capabilities to do in a reasonable time frame (not a bridge too far).
The new air game will certainly add something, although as I've said already, I don't see a myriad of options. I think the invasion possibilities are being overcooked since the germans couldn't actually prevent a landing wherever it took place lacking either Naval or air assets in the numbers required. In that sense, all the invasion rules really need to do is simulate lift capacity and logistics tonnage.
Then, we can try to fill in the gaps and construct a WiE. In order to do a WiE game, it needs to all be at the same scale, and we selected this scale a long time ago, but doing a War in Europe game all at once just isn't possible, and isn't the best way to refine all of the systems we'll need to have working. Just a reminder, we aren't EA working on the next Madden Football, with tremendous resources to bring to bear for a market of millions of consumers.
As above, I fully appreciate this sort of argument, and if I wasn't banned from purchasing, I'd buy the game as a nod to this reality.
I hope this gives our customers (and potential customers) a better understanding of our thinking.
It does.
I wish you, your team and your company all the very best with your endeavours.
Respect and regards,
IronDuke
