WTW vs WTE questions

[lparkh]

Hi,
First quite like the cleaner palatte in the screenshots. I am an original buyer of WTE but did not play too far. Reasons:
1) time commitment
2) grind in the east - my impression from reading the WTE boards was that russians basically do a multilayer deep defense that germans must slough through endlessly.

How is the time commitment for WTW relative to WTE? I'm thinking the smaller scale of warfare in the west (in terms of net divisions committed) might make significantly quicker. On the other hand maybe the air model and supply model changes make higher complexity slowing things down?
My second point is probably a bit off base about WTE and also old (haven't reviewed boards in a while). But in the "feel of play" any comments on how WTE feels vs WTW? By that I mean does it feel grindy (I recognize that Normandy should be this way of course as should Italy) or more dynamic? Or maybe my question is ill formed.
The first question is probably the easiest to comment on.
Thanks

[Erik Rutins]

Hi lparkh,

I'll throw in my two cents.

War in the West is less of a time commitment than War in the East when you look at the Grand Campaign. There are fewer turns and fewer units although there are a few more things to do than just move units and fight each turn. However, with the expanded air phase (which you can optionally let the AI handle) and the strategic choices for each side regarding where to attack/defend amphibious invasions, it's also fairly dynamic. Italy can be a grind, if you get stuck without being able to do more flanking amphibious landings. Normandy can be a relatively brief grind, the West Wall and the Rhine can hold for a while.

Regarding the feel of War in the East - I think the balance on WITE has gone through various phases. At some point, when the Germans lose their offensive steam and strategic initiative, it does become more about local offensives and grinding it out for a while, before the stalemate breaks and the Soviets start pushing the Germans back. However, that's also historical.

Personally I find that WITW feels more strategic to me, even though the front line in WITE can be longer and have more ground forces. Having to think and plan invasions and anticipate them on defense and having a full air phase means that it has another layer that a much more ground-focused campaign can't have.

Regards,

- Erik

[mariandavid]

I find it faster - simply because of the massive reduction in the number of select/move/attack/release mouse functions since the number of units involved is far less than in most of WitE. Now you will spend more time fine tuning the air (but you really do not have do to so except in invasions) and you will brood more than in WitE over issues like selecting units for amphib and setting them aside for long term preparation. But a caveat - it all depends on your style of play and the detail you like to amass about unit values before every attack.

[lparkh]

I like the strategic aspect of where to invade. I also felt the number of strategic decision relative to number of clicks was pretty low on WTE (though that is not a very fair criticism given its design goals). Appreciate Erik you clear answer as ever. Also thank you mariandavid.
One followup if I may. I am a bit hazy on future of WiTE. There is going to be a second version based on the WiTW? Is that next in the series of a releases for this series? Or does WiTE after patching pretty much act the same?
I had my mind closed on WiTE, but you have reopened it. More strategic with fewer units, plus air war sounds interesting.
I imagine no demo?

[cato12]

id love to know the answer to this question as well.

il probably buy witw at some point but have to admit the motivation to buy it is pretty low. this is mainly due to the fact that there is ZERO chance of winning.

at least in wite the axis have a chance, a very slim one but a chance none the less. I get that some people enjoy just trying to survive a month or two longer than actually happened but that doesn't tick my box.

anyways back to the main question, will wite2 be next? [:)]

[jnpoint]

ORIGINAL: cato12

id love to know the answer to this question as well.

il probably buy witw at some point but have to admit the motivation to buy it is pretty low. this is mainly due to the fact that there is ZERO chance of winning.

at least in wite the axis have a chance, a very slim one but a chance none the less. I get that some people enjoy just trying to survive a month or two longer than actually happened but that doesn't tick my box.

anyways back to the main question, will wite2 be next? [:)]

I hope not that you are right. It's a game, and also the Axis must have a chance to win, otherwise the game is a documentary. And I want a GAME!

[bluth]

Oh yes, I would like to know also if the Axis can win, or even you know if the opposing player is really crappy, invade England !

[carlkay58]

The Axis player can definitely win. The Allies have to balance progress vs casualties. Along with having to reach certain territorial points in the game or lose massive VPs. The Air War is another place where the Allies can lose more points than they can afford to do.

The Axis is aware of the VP awards and can plan some of their defense around those. If you look at meklore's AAR the Axis are close to a marginal victory in that game. We have seen the Axis win in H2H games also. Mostly by causing large Allied casualties and slowing down the advance on the ground.

[Erik Rutins]

The Axis can absolutely win - the victory conditions allow for that.

[cato12]

maybe someone could chime in with the victory conditions but my understanding of what ive read is that Russia or the allies will get to berlin no matter what you do.

[Erik Rutins]

You're measured against history and you are effectively playing to do better than the historical performance and timeline. You could in theory run out the clock if you do well enough, though it's far more likely given the pressure the Allies can apply to the Axis that Berlin will fall at some point. There are a range of dynamic victory conditions that include both military and political/propaganda objectives, allied losses and so on that can earn you the victory as the Axis player even if the Allies eventually do take Berlin.

There are many points in the historical Western Front where the Allies could have done worse and the Germans better. When playing the Axis, you are trying to make that happen while holding the Soviets at bay for as long as possible.

Regards,

- Erik

[Joel Billings]

If you play with the East Front Control Option, then Berlin does not have to fall to the Soviets within the time frame of the game. It depends a lot on what forces you are able to put in the east while still holding off the Allies. If you don't play with the East Front Control Option, then you deal with historical reinforcements and withdrawals and the Soviets will always take Berlin at the start of May 45.

[cato12]

fair comments. hope I didn't come across as criticising the game because im not.

i will almost certainly be buying the game at some point.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: lparkh

Hi,
First quite like the cleaner palatte in the screenshots. I am an original buyer of WTE but did not play too far. Reasons:
1) time commitment
2) grind in the east - my impression from reading the WTE boards was that russians basically do a
multilayer deep defense that germans must slough through endlessly.

How is the time commitment for WTW relative to WTE? I'm thinking the smaller scale of warfare in the west (in terms of net divisions committed) might make significantly quicker. On the other hand maybe the air model and supply model changes make higher complexity slowing things down?
My second point is probably a bit off base about WTE and also old (haven't reviewed boards in a while).
But in the "feel of play" any comments on how WTE feels vs WTW? By that I mean does it feel grindy
(I recognize that Normandy should be this way of course as should Italy) or more dynamic? Or maybe my question is ill formed.
The first question is probably the easiest to comment on.
Thanks

1. Far less time. After turn 2 (3-4 hrs - WitW ) as Germany you can flip turns very fast 20-30 mins. WitE as Germany takes about 1-3 hrs until 43-45 when turns can be done in 20-40 mins.

2. WitE has changed allot, 1.08 makes for a much more fluid game.

Your 2nd point if your looking at history vs WitW or WitE.

Both fronts were static allot look at maps coving Italy/France 1943-45.

The difference is the airwar, its never static. Basicly like playing 2 games in one.

[lparkh]

Thank you Pelton for that thoughtful answer. Interesting about 1.08 answer. Will look for threads on its play experience (maybe find a 1.08 AAR). . Also appreciate very concrete time estimates.
Impressed by your win rate in WTE BTW. How much with Axis if I may ask?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: lparkh

Thank you Pelton for that thoughtful answer. Interesting about 1.08 answer. Will look for threads on its play experience (maybe find a 1.08 AAR). . Also appreciate very concrete time estimates.
Impressed by your win rate in WTE BTW. How much with Axis if I may ask?

I only play axis