Will it be a failure like WitP?

[Skanvak]

Even if the game seems better than WiP. I am afraid that some needed UI feature for such game will be lacking. I stop playing WiP when the PBEM speed got longer than the turn theorical time, lack of statisical data user friendly. In brief, too much details so I felt that to have fun I need to have a team to manage my side of the war. Which led to the bigest lacking in such a monster game : No multiplayers for one side.

So I ask will this game have multiplayers for one side? That is the possibility for the player to allocate part of the front or selected unit to another player (a bit like Hitler gave only a limited number of unit to Manstein, it only at the end that Guderian was given command of the all front).

This features is the difference between a buy or ignore (unless turn are very short to play but how can it be with a big game as this...).

[paullus99]

Well, I can tell you - if you had the manage production on your side, it would take a heck of a lot longer to play.

I seriously doubt you'll be disappointed.

[Terminus]

Wow, I never knew that WitP was a "fialure"...[8|] Always thought it was one of, if not the most successful game in the whole Matrix lineup, but I guess I, and all others who bought it, must be wrong.

[Skanvak]

Question of point of view, I agree the engine is interesting BUT a monster game with huge micro management MUST support team play in a user friendly way, if not I don't buy period (I played WitP). If you cannot address my question, you should not answer.

[paullus99]

You might be able to set certain HQs to be controlled by the AI - but I seriously doubt you are going to have multi-player options on the same side.

[Hard Sarge]

I have played WitP with an Allied commander on my side

he had his commands, and I had my commands, we shared resources when they came in, it worked well

[Skanvak]

I know Sarge, I opened a topic on the subjects on the WitP AE thread, which such answer belongs (beside why every one try to say do without?). Here i am trying to find out if the game will be as deceiving for me as Witp was or not. So this is as much, is there too much micromanagement so I will be overhelmed like in WitP or no, that just a lot of counter but play fast.

One of the second reason I do that, it that Command and control of your general is important, I would have like to have game that allow that. Ie play in a chain of command. In case of conflict between the player or when playing with team mate you don't know it is better to have the computer enforce separation of what is given to who. That allow to have coordination error too (street congestion because two player send there unit to pass by the same highway). That give too a some power to the GHQ player as it will have in reality (Guderian have to asked to be put under Kluge command to use Kluge units). So I think that can be a plus for Monster Game with micromanagement.

Paullus, thanks to address my question, your answer are meaningful.

[wworld7]

It is your choice to pass on this game if you desire. As nothing I have seen so far leads me to believe that it will include the feature you want.

But I would advise you to wait until it comes out when you can read reviews and AARs that are written. Then you can judge whether the complexity level is too great for you.

As much as like WITP I am looking forward to this game.

[cantona2]

To the OP. WitP was and is not a failure.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

WitP failure?!?! [8|]


WitP is one of the most (if not the most) successful games 2By3 made and Matrix produced - it can never ever be called a failure - it was outstanding success with strong support of users and developers even after so many years after initial release - a feat like that is something like that is truly rare in wargame industry these days!


If someone has personal dislike of some WitP features and/or interface it is personal thing that should never be generalized! [:-]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Capt Cliff]

I agree with the orginator of the thread ... I passed on WitP because it's complexity not reflecting reality. I have Uncommon Valor and was frustrated no end with the lack of this or the BS work around to do that. So I saw no change with WitP so I passed on it.

As for WitE I think it's a diamond in the rough and might be Matrix's all time top seller, if done right.

[Joel Billings]

I must tread carefully here since I fully understand what the original poster was getting at yet also want to acknowledge that WitP and now WitP AE are very successful games.

I enjoyed UV when working on it because I found it manageable. Because I understood the system, I was able to enjoy WitP, although I never had the time to play more than the smaller scenarios during development. If I had come into WitP cold, I probably would not have survived the encounter. Over the years I've been accused by some of dumbing down Gary's designs. I guess I didn't succeed with WitP. [:)]

The design goal for WitE was to create a playable yet very detailed game at a scale we've never done before. Because it's a game designed for land combat, it's by definition easier to play than UV/WitP. It's also been designed so that you can play and enjoy it without a lot of micro-management. On the other hand, those testers that have taken advantage of all that the system offers in terms of micro-management (leader transfers, support battalion reassignment, HQ formation integrity, air doctrine settings, and more), have been able to do better than those that ignored all of these items. The amount of micro-management that one can do in many areas is limited by Admin points, and the amount of admin points you have can be set as a game option, so for those players that agree on less micro-management they can decrease the amount of admin points both sides get. On the other hands, those that want lots of micro-management can increase the admin points. This provides some flexibility for even PBEM players.

I think the game will appeal to those that want the detail of WitP, but I also think that many of those turned off by the complexity of the WitP system would find WitE more accessible (although it's still a very complex game). I've found WitE very addictive and have enjoyed playing Barbarossa and Typhoon over and over during the past year. I'm looking forward to having time to play some of the other scenarios coming on line now.

[ShaiHulud]

I'm one of those who has passed on WitP: AE because I no longer want to deal with minutae. Heck, When I read that the manual was well over 300 pages I was already decided. For the record, I don't get into the PBEM stuff. Always some hair-splitter with gamey tactics and exploits.

However, I AM looking forward to WitE, avidly. It has been about 4 generations of computers since someone (Grigsby, in fact) put out a great eastern front game.

[Montbrun]

I don't think English is the OP's native language, so I gave him a pass on this one...

[Rasputitsa]

Reading of the way Hitler ran his daily briefings, gathering together a few tanks in one position, improvising some infantry somewhere else, I like to have the micro-management capability available. But, generally the High Command responsibility is to oversee operations and set parameters, therefore, good AI house-keeping is useful. The widest options the developer can provide will give a game that will suit the taste of the maximum number of players. [:)]

[Skanvak]

true that english is not my native language.

Thought, I wonder why there is so much opposition toward a build-in system for team play?

Actually A game like WitP with a Team play feature will interest me, but alone, I just don't have time even if the system is as detail as one can be. I should say that fanatical defence of a game just make me think that I am right :p

But again, wouldn't it be nice to have built-in team play for WitE? I have always wanted a game where possibility to play the chain of command was build in. I think that we could let the GHQ player do micromanagement as override (and upset is generals).

It seems that WitE would be more on the line of what I am willing to do alone.

Thanks Joel, Shai and Cliff for the insight.

[Yank]

You're entitled to your opinion of course, as are the others who disagree with you. If we can't have a constructive debate on these boards then what good are they? But using a word such as 'failure' to describe WITP is a bold statement and bound to be controversial here. Nobody should be surprised that it triggered a reaction.

[Skanvak]

Thought, there is one thing I don't understand : why the team play proposal is seen as an attack? Is there only me that want such a feature?

[paullus99]

I don't see it as an attack (though claiming WiTP is a failure will get you a knee-jerk reaction). Implementing a team hierarchy is just very difficult from a programming perspective (not to mention the synching issues that might develop, having to pass around save files from person to person to person).

It could also make a long game all that much longer, since you're waiting on turns from multiple individuals.

[Zaratoughda]

Joel....

I am one of those that also passed on WitP due to it being... too much.

And I see you mention playing the Barbarosa scenario in WitE.. and my question is.... is this scenario one that ends around the time of the first mud (Oct 41 I believe)? If not, would be nice to have a scenario along those lines that is relatively short.... particularly given the number of counters at hand.

(Maybe a scenario that was the same also except ending after the Russian winter counter attack).

On a related issue.... Rob Kunz did a number of scenarios for TOAW (I believe there were like 8 of them..... crossing the Nemus, attcking Smolensk, the move south to Kiev, etc).... on the progress of AGC over the course of the first year.... and I talked to him a while back about doing the same for WitE and he said he would be interested (been waiting until WitE comes out to get back to him.... would offer myself as playtester). Now, his scenarios for TOAW were regimental level so we would have to see if they could be done with WitE (hmmm... might be difficult given weekly turns in WitE)... but if so would be relatively short low unit count scenarios which would appeal to those that really prefer the smaller scenarios.

How would something like this sound?

Zaratoughda

P.S. As far as the multi-player question is concerned.... I don't see why WitE can't be good for multi-player play as is. Unlike TOAW, you don't have all the units across the map lose MPs when there is a combat, so would seem to me that you could have, say an AGN player do his stuff, then a AGC do his stuff, etc. But, I haven't played the game so can't say for sure.