A small question

[GreyJoy]

Hi all,

first of all: i am already a buyer. Bought all GG's games and will keep on doing that, but i have this question for the devs.

I own both WITPAE and WITE and it seems to me that the WITPAE system has led to a much greater audience (buyers) than WITE, even if the latter rapresents a surely more well known theatre than WITP.
We all know that AE has its drawbacks (especially when it comes down to land combat system), but i am curious to understand why the devs have decided to start a new game with the WITE system as roots instead of the AE one.
The time-scale, for example... i believe one of the most succesfull aspects of AE is the fact that it is a 1day turn game, instead of a 1week of WITE. I knw many people complain about it, but, judjing from the forums, AE is much more succesfull, so that may mean that the audience prefers the AE variant...
and so on...

Just curious...not critizising anything

[Jim D Burns]

My guess is your impressions are off and the overall audience for the two games is vastly different and WitP AE loses by a long ways. We WitP AE players are a loud minority in the wargaming world, thus our forums are full of posts, and the sheer complexity of the game adds a lot to that phenomenon as well. But my life experience with 30+ years of wargaming under my belt is the more complex a game is the smaller the audience that buys it is. And I don’t think there is a game out there that comes close to being as complex as WitP AE.

It would be really great if they’d release at least some numbers. Not specifics, but perhaps a percentage figure stating game n sold x% more units than game z or something. Doubtful they’d release the info, but it would be a great discussion topic if they did a chart showing what kinds of purchasing trends exist in the hobby for games of different complexity.

Jim

[RedLancer]

I don't know the definitive answer and perhaps Joel will post.....
 
....however if the question is why is WitW not like WitP:AE then it's because it is a development from WitE which itself started in 2000 !  I don't think your premise of a choice to use the WitP system as it is more popular ever applied.
 
(That said on the one hand I do wish that WitE had a more active modding community like WitP:AE but on the other I'd love to work on a Battle of the Atlantic Game based on the WitP:AE system)
 
 

[Joel Billings]

WitP and WitPAE have more of a naval/air centric game system, while WitE has a more ground centric system. We felt redesigning WitE to add the needed air elements would get us what we needed for WitW. We were also looking for a system that would still allow us weekly ground turns. That's the short answer.

As for sales, your assumption that WitPAE has a bigger audience than WitE is false. Without getting in trouble and giving away numbers, let's just say they're fairly comparable. The difference is the WitPAE players are more vocal on the forum, and seem to have more public two player games going. I think more WitE players are content to play against the AI and aren't as interested in the forums as the WitP players. Over the many years of Gary's games, I'd say the Eastern Front WWII games have been more popular than the Pacific War titles, but WitP and WitPAE don't have as much competition as WitE in terms of similar titles. I think this has allowed WitP to build a solid and vocal community. I think the fact that the community itself carried on and built WitPAE has only helped to keep it going.

In any case, I'm biased and think both systems are good.

[Update]

I play both games so...
One additional point is that the possible target audience (players) is
a bit different. WITP AE is most likely more appealing to USA-based players (US units involved) and
WITE is for Europeans (German units, Russian units etc.).
I think that WITW will correct this POSSIBLE difference.

Just an observation [:D]

[GreyJoy]

Thanks for the quick and interesting answers guys.

Yes, I get it. The audience may not be a perfect reflection of the forums activity. I see.
As one who has played both games (and BTR/EDay too), WITPAE has probably rapresented (for me, at least, even if I perfectly understand this is very subjective) the real ZENITH of the wargaming experience. What I mean is that in AE you feel like you can really determine a grand strategy over many years of war; a grand strategy that can differ completely from the historical one.
At the same time, in WITE, given the scope of the game and the "narrow" (I know, it is not really narrow) playground, you cannot really alter the historical grand strategy. Surely you can change the Barbarossa strategy, but you are forced to play a "Barbarossa" if you get what I mean.
in AE you are not forced to "Pearl Harbour" the US. You can decide to concentrate on Manila and/or Singapore, or you can invade Canada or Russia. You can switch from a Pacific historical strategy (Solomons, Port Moresby, Marshalls, Mariannas etc etc) to a CBI one (China-Burma-India)... in few word: you really "feel" you're in command. You are the one who decides everything (obviously given some limitations).

In WITE, on the other hand, you cannot say: "hey, forget Barbarossa until 1942 and send everything to Africa" or something like that. You are "forced" to play other's grand strategy (the ones decided in RL) and that is, imgho, a kind of a "minus" comparing to AE.

So, I am not saying this isn't good "per se". I know many people prefers to play faster and "less complex" games than AE (not that WITE isn't complex, mind you!), but I kinda feel that using the same "system" (not specifically the engine), the "forma mentis" of WITE instead of AE may consist in losing some of the great results the DEVs have achieved with AE.

Ok, maybe I am just too in love with AE not to be able to see the real good that is in WITE... one thing I know is that I have deeply loved BTR/EagleDay and its system and my wet dream has always been to have a came like AE with that air system.
Now we have a game like WITE with that air system... it's already something and I shouldn't (and I am NOT!) complain.

I know I am gonna love WITW. These were just few thoughts of a one who really really admires (and loves) what this team (GG+Matrix+Henderson Field) has done so far...don't know if these thoughts are useful or not. probably not.[:D]

Faithfully, your loyal costumer [&o]

GreyJoy

[Devonport]

Really interesting post Greyjoy. As an absolute 'newbie' I have owned AE but never been able to devote the time needed to master it. It certainly generates really great AAR's that, to my mind, reinforce what you say about the game (including your current one [:)] WITE, which I don't have, doesn't seem to attract as much PBEM interest and the diversity of game play you talk about. As an outsider WITE doesn't have the same immersive attraction for me. I am looking forward to buying WITW because it is smaller than WITE (less units to worry about) but hopefully deeper (logistics, air war and amphibious). Also because I am inherently more familiar with the theatre I expect it to be more intuitive for me. As for replayability, from what I have seen the WITW scenarios offer more options for 'what ifs' than WITE if not the same as AE. Maybe WITW will help me get into AE?

[warshipbuilder]

I'd love to work on a Battle of the Atlantic Game based on the WitP:AE system)

There is a game I want to see.

[sh0nyu]

Indeed WitW will be good - another time the player can decide to invade Italy or France. And you can choose the area of the invasion. In WitE you are right - there is no real choice. But in all cases WitPAE/WitE/WitW there must be given a scenario where the action takes place

I think WitW will be a little monster with all strategic air operations, invasion and tactical air support stuff. But it will be great...

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

In WITE, on the other hand, you cannot say: "hey, forget Barbarossa until 1942 and send everything to Africa" or something like that. You are "forced" to play other's grand strategy (the ones decided in RL) and that is, imgho, a kind of a "minus" comparing to AE.

This is quite unfair. WITE stands for War in the East and not War in Europe, so why should other theatres like Africa matter? It's like an AFB in AE complaining that the game locks him into a Germany first strategy.

[mrfeizhu]

There is no way i will not buy war in the west (other than my own death), but i do wish it was more like war in the pacific. War in the west its seems is that you have a huge map and the fighting is going on over a small area ( when compared to the rest of the map). Once there is a grand Campaign that starts in 1939 than it will be different.

[morvael]

Nothing like Hearts of Iron for the Axis to be able to invade Brazil or the USSR to attack India...

[mrfeizhu]

"Nothing like Hearts of Iron for the Axis to be able to invade Brazil or the USSR to attack India..."
the axis invaded Brazil after the war [;)]

[morvael]

Yeah, but in HoI2 it was a good tactics to invade Brazil in 1936 to secure supply of vital resources in a period when the AI was still reluctant (blocked by scripts) to declare war on you [:D]

[Helpless]

the axis invaded Brazil after the war

and odds were 7:1

[GreyJoy]

thank you all for your kind responses[:)]

[JocMeister]

Didn´t know you played WitE GJ. [:)]