Question/Observation

Rusty1961 · Post by **Rusty1961** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:22 pm

Hello list!
Like many, I've wanted to purchase this game, but due to many of the negative reviews on this form-or frustrated players-I've neglected purchasing the game.

I think if the game had an air system similar (not identical) to WitP:AE that might help with sales. The air combat in WitP:AE is fascinating and fun. It succeeded where BtR failed.

Is this this case with WitE? I suspect the air war has been abstracted as opposed to WitP's detail battle resolution.

Perhaps we'll see a better air war in WitW or WitE:2?

Blond_Knight · Post by **Blond_Knight** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:37 am

In WITW you can let the AI automatically allocate sorties based on your priorities(air supremacy, tactical or strategic bombing targeting units, railyards, railroads, interdiction, etc)
Or you can manually control every air unit(their targets, altitudes, day of week they fly, and ingress/egress routes) Im sure theres other options Im missing. But its not overwhelming to control it manually.

WITW alpha tester

RedLancer · Post by **RedLancer** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:24 am

I think that the only thing that I would add to Blond Knight's comments is that in WitP:AE you control the Air Units individually. 
 
WitW is different in that Air Units are controlled via Air Directives to which you allocate the Air Units.  You have the choice to allow the AI to everything except defining priorities or you can dig into the detail including air unit loadouts.

Joel Billings · Post by **Joel Billings** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:25 pm

With WitE, we focused on the ground game and abstracted a lot of the air elements. That was a design choice given the focus of the war was the land war, unlike WitP where we had to focus on the air/naval elements and in many ways the ground game suffered. WitE and WitP (and WitP AE) are very different games. Both are massive, but other than that it's hard to compare them. They attract the grognards and we are proud of that.

If you like land warfare games, you will probably like WitE. Although I acknowledge the points of view of all here on the forum, and recognize that WitE is in no way a perfect game, don't let the negative comments alone deter you.

grognard (plural grognards)

1. a grumbler; one who grumbles
2. an old veteran soldier, specifically an old grenadier of the Imperial Guard (Grenadiers à pied de la Garde Impériale); an old complaining soldier

WitE and WitP AE are both popular games being enjoyed by many. If however a very detailed day by day air war is what you are looking for, then yes you're probably better waiting for WitW. Since we had to deal with the strategic air war over Europe and issues of air control over water in ways we didn't in WitE, we came up with a more detailed air game in WitW. We tried to do it in a way that would not overwhelm people because we still are dealing with a ground war that is much more involved than in the Pacific. We did not want to switch to daily turns for the land war but found a way to effectively do this for the air game. As an example of how things were abstracted in WitE, the air units are assigned to air base units that move across the map. This is clearly an abstraction. In WitW, we have fixed airbases on the map, and the ability to create new airbases and expand the sizes of existing airbases.

We plan to move this air system to WitE 2.0, however, it will take time for all of that to happen. In the meantime, you might find that you'd like WitE as it is. I think the question is more about your own interests in whether you like the old massive Eastern Front boardgames like War in the East, Drang Nach Osten or Fire in the East, or whether you prefer naval/air/land games like War in the Pacific.

Wheat · Post by **Wheat** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:32 am

@Rusty1961

DON'T MISS THE FOREST FOR THE TREES!

Joel gave an excellent answer, read it again.

As one of the grognards (and an old one at that), this game is well worth your dollars. Just because we complain doesn't mean we don't love the game. The game system works very smoothly and intuitively. My gosh, I have played multiple games in effect of drang nach osten (which we never got past a few turns).

Furthermore, you can get into manually swapping your planes etc, if you want to, but no, its NOT an air war game. It's just an awesome game and I might add, the more we support these kinds of games, the more of them we have.

Wargamers are never going to be a large customer group no matter how perfect the game, so if more of us don't get behind good games, then we will get fewer and fewer of them.

Commanderski · Post by **Commanderski** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:13 am

Many of us are still playing since it was released. It's not perfect, no game is, but it's close and will be closer after the next patch which may be released later this month. If you calculate the cost per game for the amount of time you spend playing it, it comes out to pennies per game.

It's the best game of the Eastern Front you will ever find and well worth what you spend on it.

charlie0311 · Post by **charlie0311** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:36 am

As another one of the "complainers" I strongly second what Ski and Wheat (probably many others) have said!!

This is a really GREAT game.

charlie

GamesaurusRex · Post by **GamesaurusRex** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:58 pm

As a confessed "Grognard", (and Joel Billings can revel in his perfect definition of the market target of WITE as proven by the fact that Wheat and I are both, in fact, members of a gamer's group known as the "Old Guard" [:D] and both of us purchased both WITE and WITP:AE [:D])...

I can assure you that WITE is a successful exercise in wargaming that is well worth the price. The game program is stable, the mechanics are manageable once understood, and the software is well supported. Although the documentation can be a bit obscure regarding the rules, many answers can be found in the very active forum.

As for "negative reviews" ? I wouldn't term the passionate debate of a deeply engrossing wargame simulation by numerous forum warriors as "negative"...
Quite the opposite... It is proof of WITE's entertainment value and it's generation of a strong, if somewhat uniquely "Grognardian", following.

I see the certain addition of both WITW and WITE2 to my software library when they reach maturity as more proof of Joel Billing's correct market definition.

hfarrish · Post by **hfarrish** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:20 pm

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

As another one of the "complainers" I strongly second what Ski and Wheat (probably many others) have said!!

This is a really GREAT game.

charlie

Four years after release I still find myself processing a turn or so a day...no matter how many new release distractions come I still find myself coming back to WITE!

Ketza · Post by **Ketza** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:44 pm

Great game. One of the best gaming investments I have made.

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:51 pm

With all due respect to the other players (hi Ketza!), I guess I'll have to post a dissenting opinion on this one... It can be a fun game as long as you aren't necessarily looking for something resembling the Eastern Front during WWII.

I personally also found the combat engine to be convoluted, opaque, and unrealistic, and the reinforcement model/schedule to be very different from reality.

I stopped playing this game long ago and doubt that I'll buy another GG game.

Freyr Oakenshield · Post by **Freyr Oakenshield** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:18 pm

one hell of a game

certainly, the most realistic and the best simulation of the eastern front that's available for PC

it's really worth every penny

darbycmcd · Post by **darbycmcd** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:27 pm

I also would give this game a big thumbs up. It has some rough spots for sure. Really, you need to play with a bit of historical mindset and not try to find ways to game the system, although I think it is less a problem these days. It is not perfect at all, but I found that those who claim it has no resemblance to reality really mean it does not give results THEY think are realistic.... and equally often I have been most impressed by the lack of real knowledge those selfsame people have of real-world military operations....

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:38 pm

ORIGINAL: darbymcd
It is not perfect at all, but I found that those who claim it has no resemblance to reality really mean it does not give results THEY think are realistic.... and equally often I have been most impressed by the lack of real knowledge those selfsame people have of real-world military operations....

That's pretty rich...last time I checked logistics were important in "real-world military operations," unlike in this game. And a cursory review of the historical losses/reinforcements of the Sov army will show how far off the game is.

darbycmcd · Post by **darbycmcd** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:00 pm

I actually think you are right about the logistics model, it is not excellent. Far too much throughput, additionally attrition rates are far too low, all of which means a higher than historical level of sustained offensive capability.

But the problem with your other statement is contained within itself. Cursory glances give false comparative information. The players do not reenact, they create a new set of circumstances. So when a player looks at, for example, a sum total of historical losses and compares with the game, it is a meaningless comparison. It would in fact be strange if the sum total of the two set of actions where the same! What I mean is, you say losses are off, but is that strange if the Soviet player runs away, or the German player prepares for blizzard? Should the results of non-historic actions still lead to historic results? You have to understand how those historical results were achieved and then ask "if the players do exactly the same actions as the historical commanders, would the game give reasonably historical results?" I actually think the answer is yes, close enough.

This happens all the time in the criticism of this game. All the time you hear German players complain about, for instance, not having the historical advance of Case Blue, but they don't strip the front of armor to support one large schwerpunkt, they are distracted from geographic objectives by obsessive encirclement, and they are unable to convince the Soviets to commit large reserves to protect Moscow... so is it bad that Case Blue doesn't happen... NO it is good! Non-historic circumstances should not produce historic results.... same goes for later war Soviet players whining about slow pace of operations against well dug in Germans (wah, why can't I penetrate the line more than 20 miles EVERY WEEK along the ENTIRE FRONT)

What you need to look at is the distribution of individual combat results. In general I think they are within tolerance. GG does like a very chaotic combat system, which I actually think is a good game design as it gives some feeling of uncertainty to combat.

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 2:00 pm

Honestly, I've participated in, or at least read closely, the debates on these issues ad nauseum when the game came out, and am not really interested in doing so again. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of the game, and I'm glad that some people like it, although I do think it is fair to provide dissenting opinions to someone considering purchasing the game.

However, I found your comment that, with regard to those who consider the game unrealistic, you have "been most impressed by the lack of real knowledge those selfsame people have of real-world military operations..." to be very patronizing and not particularly appropriate for a discussion forum, which is intended to, you know, discuss things without launching personal attacks.

darbycmcd · Post by **darbycmcd** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 2:42 pm

You are right, it probably was too direct, I am sorry for offending you. I was responding to the tone of your post which I felt was overly negative and lacking support for its arguments. Suggesting the game does not resemble East Front operations, is convoluted and unrealistic, ending with your statement that you would not buy another product in this line.... it's fairly strong. I agree that the forum is a place for opinions, and I support you posting yours... even though this is a business forum for a product of which many of us would like to see more, and you are posting in a way to lower sales. But at the same time, do I not have the right to express my opinion of your opinion? Was my comment on your opinion stronger than your comment about the game?
But I agree with you that this is going no where, I will refrain from further posts on this subthread.

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:28 pm

ORIGINAL: darbymcd
do I not have the right to express my opinion of your opinion? Was my comment on your opinion stronger than your comment about the game?

Well, you can say whatever you want, but you'll note that my opinion was about the game, and I didn't (and wouldn't) say, for instance, that "anyone who likes the game is an idiot." Isn't the difference obvious?

GamesaurusRex · Post by **GamesaurusRex** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:13 am

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Yes... Passionate debate IS proof of entertainment value. If not in the game, then certainly on the forum.

STEF78 · Post by **STEF78** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:51 am

I'm playing wargames for 40 years, WITE is my best purchase ever.

It's worth the price paid.