Matrix Games Forums

Have finally made it through the Manual to Appendix A and have the following question:

How can you justify forcing an artificial change in the Initiative on a German player who's game has progressed to the point depicted in the attached screen shot?

The shot is from my last game of WITE1. I had to crop the image to get the file small enough to upload.
The game date is 7/15/43.

If this was a WITE2 game an artificial change in initiative would be forced upon the German player without regard to the simple fact that the real initiative has never changed.

Will the answer be that the German player can never hope to do this well in WITE2?

Because the Allies are about to be on the mainland of Europe, and thus the Soviets will no longer surrender no matter what the situation?

I suspect that in WITE2 this would have worked out as an Axis AV and so you wouldn't get the initiative shift?

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Because the Allies are about to be on the mainland of Europe, and thus the Soviets will no longer surrender no matter what the situation?

In general, this is a good explanation.
However, I think it should be more nuanced...maybe compare total numbers of German and Soviet armies and also situation at front (VPs) ?
I had initiative switched to Soviets in July 43, even that my German army has about 0.6M more men then Soviet army. I also held both Moscow and Leningrad and was still pushing very hard to east...and allies were not yet landed to Sicily (they took N. Africa mid-June). Don't think that even landing in Sicily should switch initiative in such situation on Eastern front (at least not for some time).
I agree that to implement algorithm to correctly represent such things may be too hard tough....

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Because the Allies are about to be on the mainland of Europe, and thus the Soviets will no longer surrender no matter what the situation?

I'm glad you added a question mark otherwise I would've forced to call that answer complete bunk.

Refusing to Surrender and Seizing the Strategic Initiative are completely different animals.

The Host of the Armies of the West arrayed before the Gates of Mordor refused to surrender, but they did not seize the initiative until the One Ring was destroyed.

The initiative only has one impact in the game. It determines who can win an auto victory. Technically it starts the clock on the Soviet point scoring instead of Axis point scoring, but basically it's as I said intended to determine who can win automatically. As the German player, you are free to keep attacking if you can and feel that is the best strategy. Given that as I said, it is past the time when the Soviets would surrender, I think the explanation is valid. As stated, in the case you show, it's likely to have been an Axis victory already, so it's a moot point. It would have added some complexities had we not picked a definite switchover point, and we felt it was not worth allocating the time/resources to deal with them.

Autovictory is only valid in application in Head to Head games between opposing players.

Solitaire players couldn't care less about autovictory and it has no bearing whatsoever on their game play.

The point I was endeavoring to make is that the Soviet side does NOT deserve to have the Strategic Initiative handed to them on a silver platter. They should be required to work to earn it.

As configured, it smacks of Soviet bias in the game design leaving a decidedly unpleasant taste in one's mouth.

In that case, you seem to be upset by the word initiative being used even though it is just a word and has no impact on the game. I appreciate your point, but totally disagree with you re it signifying bias. In this case, it was more an issue of what got us the results we wanted with the least programming complications. Of course, you are free to disagree.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
It would have added some complexities had we not picked a definite switchover point, and we felt it was not worth allocating the time/resources to deal with them.

Perfectly valid explanation, thank you.
This game is such great simulator of actual ww2 warfare, that it's sometimes easy to forget that such decisions need to be made (as in any SW development project).

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

In that case, you seem to be upset by the word initiative being used even though it is just a word and has no impact on the game. I appreciate your point, but totally disagree with you re it signifying bias. In this case, it was more an issue of what got us the results we wanted with the least programming complications. Of course, you are free to disagree.

Yes, you seem to have pegged it.

I am upset at the use of a word that doesn't seem to actually apply.

I find the claim that it is just a word rather pedantic.

Words convey meaning and the poor word choice succeeded in conveying the wrong meaning.

I understand now that the initiative isn't actually changing, just which side has an opportunity to score points.

Please correct me if the following presumption is inaccurate:

If the game screenshot I posted had been WITE2, while the German side could no longer score more victory points for the objectives they would most certainly continue seizing from the heavily weakened Soviet side, the plus side of the equation for the German side is that the weakened Soviet side that would continue losing objectives would not be scoring any points.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

....

Please correct me if the following presumption is inaccurate:

If the game screenshot I posted had been WITE2, while the German side could no longer score more victory points for the objectives they would most certainly continue seizing from the heavily weakened Soviet side, the plus side of the equation for the German side is that the weakened Soviet side that would continue losing objectives would not be scoring any points.

You say you've read the manual (first post). If so, you have all the information you need from the rules in section 29 to make a good comparison and work out if your progress would have been enough to trigger an Axis win already (ie before the initiative change).

Second, the rules in the last para of 29.1.2 apply after the initiative changes, which tells you how further Axis gains affect the Soviet score.

Finally the rules for 31 December 1944 are in 29.1.4 offer another way in which a high scoring axis player can win despite the Soviets having the initiative.

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

....

Please correct me if the following presumption is inaccurate:

If the game screenshot I posted had been WITE2, while the German side could no longer score more victory points for the objectives they would most certainly continue seizing from the heavily weakened Soviet side, the plus side of the equation for the German side is that the weakened Soviet side that would continue losing objectives would not be scoring any points.

You say you've read the manual (first post). If so, you have all the information you need from the rules in section 29 to make a good comparison and work out if your progress would have been enough to trigger an Axis win already (ie before the initiative change).

Second, the rules in the last para of 29.1.2 apply after the initiative changes, which tells you how further Axis gains affect the Soviet score.

Finally the rules for 31 December 1944 are in 29.1.4 offer another way in which a high scoring axis player can win despite the Soviets having the initiative.

Did you simply not read, or did you not understand, the clear statement that solitaire players couldn't care less about when some artificial determination of 'victory' is triggered?

Regardless, a poor word choice led to a misunderstanding. Yes, I participated by being the one who misunderstood, but I'm not the only participant. I'm not the one who made the poor word choice that led to the misunderstanding.

Why is it that when I come to this forum to level a criticism, I find myself being targeted as the one who did something wrong?

Why can't those responsible for the error, or mistake that led to the misunderstand just stop dissembling for at least one minute, and man up and shoulder some accountability.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
...

Did you simply not read, or did you not understand, the clear statement that solitaire players couldn't care less about when some artificial determination of 'victory' is triggered?

Regardless, a poor word choice led to a misunderstanding. Yes, I participated by being the one who misunderstood, but I'm not the only participant. I'm not the one who made the poor word choice that led to the misunderstanding.

Why is it that when I come to this forum to level a criticism, I find myself being targeted as the one who did something wrong?

Why can't those responsible for the error, or mistake that led to the misunderstand just stop dissembling for at least one minute, and man up and shoulder some accountability.

You do know there is a version of the GC that removes the VP system? But you seem to be discussing the version with the VP - so you get information about that.

Now I often (prob most often) play vs AI and actually I appreciate the VP system. It creates a nice tension between being in charge of the armed forces but not the state - which in my view is the correct location of the player in WiTE2.

Probably a wee waste of time, but worth bearing in mind the personal viewpoint 'I don't like this' does not make it a mistake, its just a design choice you disagree with. Its the same (important0 difference as between 'WAD but not to my taste' and 'its a bug'

The poor word choice WAS a mistake.....not simply something I don't like.

Nice try though.

Nice to see Hans being his usual self on the WITE2 forum as he is on the WITP:AE one. Consistency to be admired.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Because the Allies are about to be on the mainland of Europe, and thus the Soviets will no longer surrender no matter what the situation?

I'm glad you added a question mark otherwise I would've forced to call that answer complete bunk.

Refusing to Surrender and Seizing the Strategic Initiative are completely different animals.

The Host of the Armies of the West arrayed before the Gates of Mordor refused to surrender, but they did not seize the initiative until the One Ring was destroyed.

In what sense is it complete bunk? It would be helpful to refer to the actual historical context rather than Tolkein's writings.

So...

You're playing a game which needs to have formal words to delineate game concepts and you fully understand what the intent of those words are. In this case a swap of the scoring used to determine victory in both the player sense and in the "the soviets would have surrendered thereby ending the war" sense. You knowingly want to go outside the bounds of that game system, to indulge in something the game system was not designed for and at this point represents a personal fantasy of continuing to kill soviets long after the soviet union has been reduced to a rump state in central Asia. The government likely collapsed, rendering reinforcement of the '43+ Red Army as if it were Real '43 as clear absurdism. And, having passed the point where game concepts like VP or Initiative have any real meaning - as stated previously, you're indulging in a personal experiment well outside the bounds of the game or any probable counterfactual history - you're angry because Caesar has not crowned you as still holding onto a game concept that a) is no longer relevant, and b) you've already said you don't care about because it is artificial?

[quote]ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Nice to see Hans being his usual self on the WITE2 forum as he is on the WITP:AE one. Consistency to be admired.

1+! [8|][8|][8|]

All this angst over a word.........

The meaning was clear to me, so I don't get it.

I find it rather silly.

The English and appearing in both the manual and the game tends to be of fairly high quality. I presume it to be British English. Among native speakers playing are: Americans, Canadians, British, Australians, New Zealanders, ... (if I left any out I am sorry) and many second language players such as Germans, Russians, Chinese, ...

* Statistically, second language speakers of English now out number natives.

Finally, connotation varies even within the the USA by region, social class, ethnicity, generation, ...

So, I find this rather a trivial debate; especially when the documentation is superb no matter what dialect of English is employed by the writers.

Where as the game does have important real issues which have come up here in terms of balance and air operations.

Let's try to keep our eye on the ball. (If there is only one language thing I regret is lack of support for other than English ... to think of the many grogs who are missing out. I know because for years I gawked at Graviteam, but do not read Russian ... maybe waited 10 years for the growth of an English speaking player base/market.)

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

....

Please correct me if the following presumption is inaccurate:

If the game screenshot I posted had been WITE2, while the German side could no longer score more victory points for the objectives they would most certainly continue seizing from the heavily weakened Soviet side, the plus side of the equation for the German side is that the weakened Soviet side that would continue losing objectives would not be scoring any points.

You say you've read the manual (first post). If so, you have all the information you need from the rules in section 29 to make a good comparison and work out if your progress would have been enough to trigger an Axis win already (ie before the initiative change).

Second, the rules in the last para of 29.1.2 apply after the initiative changes, which tells you how further Axis gains affect the Soviet score.

Finally the rules for 31 December 1944 are in 29.1.4 offer another way in which a high scoring axis player can win despite the Soviets having the initiative.

Did you simply not read, or did you not understand, the clear statement that solitaire players couldn't care less about when some artificial determination of 'victory' is triggered?

Regardless, a poor word choice led to a misunderstanding. Yes, I participated by being the one who misunderstood, but I'm not the only participant. I'm not the one who made the poor word choice that led to the misunderstanding.

Why is it that when I come to this forum to level a criticism, I find myself being targeted as the one who did something wrong?

Why can't those responsible for the error, or mistake that led to the misunderstand just stop dissembling for at least one minute, and man up and shoulder some accountability.

If you want an answer to that its because generally the forum is a place where folk come to ask for advice, help, clarification etc... and as in life if you behave in a boorish obnoxious manner in return then otherwise helpful folk will tend to go a bit sour too. Joel, Loki and others have given you clear concise explanations and hopefully you now have cleared up your misinterpretation, say thank you and move on like a good gentleman and folks will help you next time too.