Doctrine and what if's

[Wild]

Hey guys,
I just wanted to follow up on the subject of changing doctrine and of having more what if's in the game that i read in the what's new in 1.04 thread. I didn't want to take that thread too far of subject so i thought i would start a new one.

It seems like some people think there should be the ability to change doctrine and create more what if's and other ahistorical things. If not there seems to be the fear that the game could become dry and boring over time.

I myself am against this. I prefer to have as close an approximation to history as possible. That's why i bought the game. I never find it boring and do not think it will lose it's appeal.
I feel that that sort of thing is more in line with a Hearts of Iron type grand strategy game.

However i am just one member of the community and would like to hear what my fellow wargamers think on this subject.

What will it be guys, maximum historicity or maximum flexibility?

[jomni]

I dunno.  More "what if's" will really tick of the historical grognards (not me).
And more possibility of gamey stuff happening and this then increases the call for house rules.

[Farfarer61]

I suppose it is really a blend of "we all have hindsight" and 1941-45 reality. No Axis player is doing so as they want to relive the fun of winter 41 and Stalingrad. No Soviet player is eager to have the fun of mass encirclements. So Of Course people are playing to to achieve non-historical results (duh). Thats the fun.

[Wild]

Jomni, that's a very good point. Changing things too much away from history, would probably increase things that some player's would find gamey. Thus increase arguing and the need for more house rules.

Farfarer, I agree. The fun is in achieving things that are non historical. Such potentially capturing Moscow, avoiding Stalingrad, ect.
However i am not arguing against non historical results. Rather, i'm arguing that they be achieved in an historical fashion, with the production, doctrine and overall situation that was in the real war.

What excites me about this game is trying to do better then my historical counterparts did with the same tools and situation that they had.

Of course i realize that this is only a game and cannot replicate things with the accuracy that i would like. But it's the closest thing i have found so far.

I cannot express my enthrallment enough with WitE. When i read Glantz and then play a few turns, the eastern front seems to really come alive for me.
That is why i would like to see the game stay as close to history as possible.

I guess i was just wondering if other players felt the same way, or see it as more of a grand strategy game.

Thanks for the input guys.

[pad152]

If you want history read a book because you won't get it from a game, human players will always push the boundary of what a game allows not history. Trying to limit what a player can or can't do will ruin the game long term, nobody really wants to just repeat history anyway.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Wild
Jomni, that's a very good point. Changing things too much away from history, would probably increase things that some player's would find gamey. Thus increase arguing and the need for more house rules.

Farfarer, I agree. The fun is in achieving things that are non historical. Such potentially capturing Moscow, avoiding Stalingrad, ect.
However i am not arguing against non historical results. Rather, i'm arguing that they be achieved in an historical fashion, with the production, doctrine and overall situation that was in the real war.

What excites me about this game is trying to do better then my historical counterparts did with the same tools and situation that they had.

Of course i realize that this is only a game and cannot replicate things with the accuracy that i would like. But it's the closest thing i have found so far.

I cannot express my enthrallment enough with WitE. When i read Glantz and then play a few turns, the eastern front seems to really come alive for me.
That is why i would like to see the game stay as close to history as possible.

I guess i was just wondering if other players felt the same way, or see it as more of a grand strategy game.

Thanks for the input guys.

The problem is the definition of replaying, or staying close to, history. I want to have forces that have the same capabilities of the historical forces, recognising that these capabilities changed over the course of the war. I don't neccesarily want to replay history - I don't want crowd my best mobile forces into a city, have them fight room to room, whilst leaving my weakest forces to hold the flanks. I don't want to plan an obvious attack, then delay for months so that the enemy can build extensive fortifications. I don't want to leave prepared border fortifications to move into a dangerous salient, in Poland, and then delay full mobilsiation until too late.

I would like the option to do both, play against an historical enemy, who uses the historical doctrine, but also have a shot at the alternatives.

Hind-sight can be a powerful tool, we know from history what did not work in the campaign, but we can never know what would have happened if Moscow had fallen, or if the Germans had evacuated Stalingrad in good time, etc.. Many options do not need hind-sight, there were alternative plans for Barbarossa, which were formed before 22nd July 1941, therefore, without hindsight and I would like to try them (an alternative 'OKH Barbarossa' plan is already available as a user designed mod, with more to come). There were many alternative strategies and doctrines proposed during the war, on both sides, and it would add a lot to the game to have them available.

What would have happened if the Germans had stopped offensive operations sooner in 1941 and put supply priority into winter clothing and equipment, difficult to judge because it didn't happen, but do the first winter effects always have to be so severe. How would it have worked out if Stalin had not purged the Red Army in 1937 - improved morale, better command and control, or if Tukhachevsky reforms and armoured doctrine had not been abandoned.

I don't think anybody wants a game than runs on tramlines and can never change direction, it is the 'what ifs' that could provide the most interesting aspects of the game.

This is a win win situatation, making alternatves available does not stop other settings and scenarios being available, to play an entirely historical game, with the same limitations suffered by the historical commanders, which is an essential baseline on which to build any alternatives. [:)]

[Panama]

There's no reason anyone would be upset if people were able to have optional settings. If someone wanted a historical game they could do it. Throw in an option for free set up if you want. Put in a set of tick boxes for different game options for what ifs. No need for anyone to be ticked off.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Panama
There's no reason anyone would be upset if people were able to have optional settings. If someone wanted a historical game they could do it. Throw in an option for free set up if you want. Put in a set of tick boxes for different game options for what ifs. No need for anyone to be ticked off.

Which is why I say it's a win win situation, hopefully we will all get what we want from the game. The problem is, as Joel Billings has said on another thread, it is a huge undertaking to work out and test what the historical settings should be and to be able to advise users which settings to use.

It is getting the historical capabilities of the forces right when you are putting them into scenarios that never happened and there are no real results to measure. [:)]

[Commanderski]

I think there are many options in the game now to make as many "what if's" as you want. As Axis you can move your Panzer divisions around to any part of the map that you want. As Soviet you already know what to expect and can plan defenses accordingly or even move your forces around to make some decent early counterattacks. You make the decisions on your objectives, not somebody in Berlin or Moscow.

Making any changes to the start or end date and any outside variables would tend to make this game more towards a "fantasy" type game. The amount of research Matrix, the developers, and testers did to make this game as detailed as it is is just amazing. To make any ahistorical changes that would affect the game would require them to do additional research and testing which would take them away from improving the game, like the new 1.04 patch they are working on.

[barkman44]

Like with witp i would like to see more gc starting dates like a gc starting with the point at which the germans attained their maximum advance along the entire front before the soviet counter attacks.
or an earlier start to the 1943 gc so you can decide what to do and when about the kursk bulge.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Commanderski
I think there are many options in the game now to make as many "what if's" as you want. As Axis you can move your Panzer divisions around to any part of the map that you want. As Soviet you already know what to expect and can plan defenses accordingly or even move your forces around to make some decent early counterattacks. You make the decisions on your objectives, not somebody in Berlin or Moscow.

Making any changes to the start or end date and any outside variables would tend to make this game more towards a "fantasy" type game. The amount of research Matrix, the developers, and testers did to make this game as detailed as it is is just amazing. To make any ahistorical changes that would affect the game would require them to do additional research and testing which would take them away from improving the game, like the new 1.04 patch they are working on.

Perhaps I was not clear, I agree that the options and settings will give most people what they want from the game, that's why I say that it is a win win situation. There will be an historical game and also scenarios and settings to provide the rest. The 'OKH Barbarossa' scenario, one of my favourite variants, is already available and I guess there will be many more.

From the 'what-if' point of view the fixed start date is a shame, but that's how it is, there are still options for a later start date. The 'Patriotic War 1942' (user made scenario for WIR) might be a good candidate for WiTE - Russian attack on a disarming Germany that has won the war in the West. Nice to give the Russians an opportunity to attack with early war equipment.

I don't expect any of this to delay the work on 1.04, the developers would not do that anyway, these additional scenarios will come in time, as the game gets into people's blood. I'm just flying the flag for 'what-ifs', but not asking for any priority, I think it will happen by itself. [:)]

[Lrfss]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: Commanderski
I think there are many options in the game now to make as many "what if's" as you want. As Axis you can move your Panzer divisions around to any part of the map that you want. As Soviet you already know what to expect and can plan defenses accordingly or even move your forces around to make some decent early counterattacks. You make the decisions on your objectives, not somebody in Berlin or Moscow.

Making any changes to the start or end date and any outside variables would tend to make this game more towards a "fantasy" type game. The amount of research Matrix, the developers, and testers did to make this game as detailed as it is is just amazing. To make any ahistorical changes that would affect the game would require them to do additional research and testing which would take them away from improving the game, like the new 1.04 patch they are working on.

Perhaps I was not clear, I agree that the options and settings will give most people what they want from the game, that's why I say that it is a win win situation. There will be an historical game and also scenarios and settings to provide the rest. The 'OKH Barbarossa' scenario, one of my favourite variants, is already available and I guess there will be many more.

From the 'what-if' point of view the fixed start date is a shame, but that's how it is, there are still options for a later start date. The 'Patriotic War 1942' (user made scenario for WIR) might be a good candidate for WiTE - Russian attack on a disarming Germany that has won the war in the West. Nice to give the Russians an opportunity to attack with early war equipment.

I don't expect any of this to delay the work on 1.04, the developers would not do that anyway, these additional scenarios will come in time, as the game into people's blood. I'm just flying the flag for 'what-ifs', but not asking for any priority, I think it will happen by itself. [:)]

I support this method and idea[8D]

[Angelo]

Like yourself I prefer historically reaslistic games, having grown up with SPI and Stratagy and Tactics magazine.

However, this game has turned out to be a disappointment as far as histotorical realism is concerned and the lack of options for what-if's has limited the game. The hard coded start dates and end dates, lack of a weather system, hard coded first winter effects etc... the list goes on, leaves me feeling I've been cheated. [8|]

As I know the outcome 90% of the time before I even start playing, I'll play it occationally maybe when a major patch comes out or I want to beatup some nazis or soviets [:D]

I doubt that I'll even look at War in the West let alone buy it, if this game is any indigation of it's quality.

[mussey]

"What will it be guys, maximum historicity or maximum flexibility?"
 
Why can't we have both? Not sure why we should be locked into just one.

[Zorch]

Mussey,

Your post reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon where the PHB says 'Why can't we concentrate across the board?'

Historicity and flexibility are often incompatible (game vs. simulation).
That said, I prefer a historical situation with optional rules to balance the game.

[Wild]

Lots of great comments guys.

I agree that there would be nothing wrong in having some ahistoical options for players who might want them. I just wouldn't want the developers to spend too much time on that until the game has been fully polished.

Wow, Angelo. I couldn't disagree more. For me this is probably the best game ever made. I certainly don't come anywhere near to feeling cheated, and they are improving it all the time. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

Now bring on War in the West!!!

[Angelo]

ORIGINAL: Wild

Lots of great comments guys.

I agree that there would be nothing wrong in having some ahistoical options for players who might want them. I just wouldn't want the developers to spend too much time on that until the game has been fully polished.

Wow, Angelo. I couldn't disagree more. For me this is probably the best game ever made. I certainly don't come anywhere near to feeling cheated, and they are improving it all the time. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

Now bring on War in the West!!!

I like the game or the idea of the game and will still play it occasionally but "the best game ever made" give me a break![8|]

As an operational game Matrix Decisive battles or HPS Panzer series are way better.

And as a strategy game it lacks potical events, strategetic level options and the German side can't even change it's prroduction!

Again if WitE is any indication of what War in the West will be, I ain't buying it.

If steps are taken to make an actual strategic level game with all the trimmings, I'll reconsider. But there is no indication from 2By3 games that the basic game designs will be improved.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Angelo

ORIGINAL: Wild

Lots of great comments guys.

I agree that there would be nothing wrong in having some ahistoical options for players who might want them. I just wouldn't want the developers to spend too much time on that until the game has been fully polished.

Wow, Angelo. I couldn't disagree more. For me this is probably the best game ever made. I certainly don't come anywhere near to feeling cheated, and they are improving it all the time. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

Now bring on War in the West!!!

I like the game or the idea of the game and will still play it occasionally but "the best game ever made" give me a break![8|]

As an operational game Matrix Decisive battles or HPS Panzer series are way better.

And as a strategy game it lacks potical events, strategetic level options and the German side can't even change it's prroduction!

Again if WitE is any indication of what War in the West will be, I ain't buying it.

If steps are taken to make an actual strategic level game with all the trimmings, I'll reconsider. But there is no indication from 2By3 games that the basic game designs will be improved.

Yeah, I think the best game ever thing is a little over the top for me but everyone will have a different best. It is a good game. I do know for certain that I will never again pay $80 for a 2by3 game. Way overpriced. Maybe $50.

[PyleDriver]

There should be a new rule, people that don't have the game, shouldn't say crap about it...

[mussey]

Love this game! One of the best. I look at the time I spend enjoying it and understand that I will continue to do so for a long time. My wife just spent $125 for 2 tickets for a Lucy O'Ball thingy at the Palace Theatre - a one-moment-not-so-feel-good-event-that I will cringe-in-the-morning-thingy-feeling. I'm getting my money's worth with WITE. Countless hours!
 
Now that being said, as this series gets more 'strategic' as compared to 'operational' then more options for random events and politcal what-if's will become neccessary. Let the players decide (at Preferences) what options they want to use or try out. The one in this game currently (unless I'm missing something) is I would like to be able to have Finnish forces attack across that stop line - maybe pay a bunchload of Adm Pts or a consequential possible Finnish govt collapse/coup that takes Finland out of the war. Would be cool to see a possible Turkish intervention. Stuff like this could be optional for each player to decide at start-up. The beauty of the old board games was/is that we could do this kind of stuff, or make new rules if we saw something that just didn't look 'right' in the original rules. (Boy, the things I created with Third Reich in my youth still brings rapture to my heart [:)]).
 
The joy of gaming is unique to each individual and hopefully in the future, as the designers work the bugs out they will incorporate more of this into their updates.