Game Suggestion

[Redmarkus5]

Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their own view of what 'correct' means.

The market will ultimately decide which view is the most important, if not the most correct.

I wish you no ill and if you feel that your customers are generally happy, then fair play to you - you should feel free to ignore my nonsense comments.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

...I wish you no ill and if you feel that your customers are generally happy, then fair play to you - you should feel free to ignore my nonsense comments.

I am a volunteer tester and have no customers, nor do I take your comments about the game personally. I am very happy with how the game turned out. Could it be better? Sure, but I feel that way about every game I've played since starting wargaming back in the 60's. Every once in a while I feel the need to speak up here when, IMHO, someone is being overly harsh in such a way that it might cause newcomers to think the game is unplayable or unworthy of the awards it has received.

[Redmarkus5]

I understand your point of view, Elmo.

Mine is based on 12 months of playing the game from a paying customer's perspective. I feel that there are a number of issues remaining (you can read my posts of those of others to see what those issues are).

I have put a lot into trying to mod the game and I am a strong supporter of other Matrix games in other Forums, while I criticize those that I feel are lacking. I am passionate about the topic, but I do try my best to be fair overall.

My main issue with WitE has always been the amount of effort needed to get testers/devs to accept that there's an issue. This goes way back to day 1 after release and there's a whole history of issues that were raised and denied, only to end up being fixed.

I think that if the 'team', whether volunteer or otherwise, had been more open to criticism of the game from the outset, people like me (and I'm not the only one) would have been softer in our approach.

As it is, I have always felt that it is necessary to 'fight' to get a point across here.

[heliodorus04]

Listen, if you want to read posts in which someone says, essentially, that WitE was alpha-tested in house, and release in late 2010 to be beta tested by people who had to pay the highest starting price for any wargame, ever (name me another game that costs $80 on PC in the last 16 months), then you should track my IP address around, because I am certainly a vocal critic.

Now, you can argue that certain things like the first winter rules, or the armament and manpower multipliers were going to have to be adjusted later after realising how trends go.  You can make a fair argument that the implementation of HQ Buildup distance limits (20 MPs or whatever it is) is a fair adjustment/patch after seeing how a broader group of players can exploit things unexpectedly.

But here are the kinds of things that are in this game that even a first-time game designer wouldn't have included in the game:

Originally, the change to 1942 TOEs for German units resulted in their experience dropping significantly even though they only changed OOB.  That should have been caught in testing, and it was not.  The game released with German units becoming conscripts in 1942 by fiat; how did that go through closed-beta in however long this game was beta tested (perhaps it was a bug that wound its way in after a patch as an unintended consequence).

The most egregious aspect of the game that should have been caught in design (let alone alpha-testing) was the manner in which ground combat sees all elements rush to 50-meter range regardless of the tactical blunder it creates for superior ranged weaponry.  Anyone who knows anything about World War 2 combat should have known that this would create unrealistic combat outcomes.  In point of fact, we all know this is one of the most problematic design decisions restricting realistic combat from being seen in the game.  For those of you who are still fans of Matrix game design, you've found a way to look over this somehow.  What I see in this mechanic is a company that wanted to get away with insulting my intelligence. That's not even how the first world war was fought; perhaps the American Civil War, but not world war 2 on the eastern front.

When I re-read the box cover on WitE, I see "strategic" and "operational".
Strategic to me means being able to allocate resources and spending resources on a national scale to better my warfighting capability.  The Soviet side has the ability to create units (though not to allocate and spend resources) the German side has none.  So I have to give WitE a "fail" rating objectively on that.

Operational to me means having constraints imposed on my side around the movement of supply and other essential strategic assets, such that I can't do everything because resources are not plentiful.  The focus of an operational game concerns moving enough stuff close enough to where it's needed at exactly the right time it's needed, and not running out of stuff or wasting stuff on your offensive.

WitE attempts to be operational by virtue of rail lines and complicated supply expenditures within units during combat, but there is no meaningful supply constraint.  There is only a distance inefficiency (i.e., how many MPs are you off rail).  We all know the quote about logistics.  Operational games are supposed to be about complicated logistics models.  WitE has a supremely simple logistics model.  I might be able to overlook that if it produced a better game, and it did produce a better game when Germany could double-up FBDs and make additional headway (with strategic tradeoffs), but that strategic option for Germany was forcibly removed.

It just doesn't take a genius to see that various WitE design decisions were either lazy (weather zones, as an example), unbelievably poorly thought-out AND unquestioned or unheeded in closed beta testing (impetus to close on 50-meter combat range), or just biased in favor of the Soviet side (brigades providing full ZOCs, the ability to create units and SUs, Soviet CP abilities and divisional change costs, no restriction on Guards cavalry, and this list goes on and on and on and on).

My complaints about WitE design aside, as a consumer, I think I was taken advantage of by virtue of the premium, $80 price (though I paid $90 which included $10 for a manual that shipped to me already incomplete and out of date, and I have never been offered a credit or a refund for wasting my money on this useless heap of pages), and by virtue of the fact that now some 15 months after release, they are still recognizing that they did some very a-historical, game-unbalancing stuff (like giving Soviet Armies the same CP as German ones, to cite only one example lately).

Even if I had confidence in the Matrix team to release a well-designed game, I would now be required to wait at least 12 months before I could buy it.  In fact, this is what I advocate for people who are still fans of Matrix: don't give them your money right at release - let them sweat it first.  Since we know that they will release a product when it still needs heavy user-conducted testing, we would be foolish to pay for the ability to conduct that testing.  Moreover, given the principal of the time-value-of-money, by not buying for several months upon release, you can achieve the effects of a meaningful financially impactful boycott of Matrix's business practices and yet still get your game at a time when the worst of the bugs are likely to have been worked out.

On an hour for hour basis, I did get $80 worth of entertainment in my 14 months of playing, but it cost the company all the goodwill I had toward it and their strongly sympathetic element within the community. There is a small but vocal group-think of sovie-o-phile players that will bully anyone who disagrees with them about anything. They are hypocritical, inconsistent, and most egregiously, as convinced of their own superiority as the nazis themselves were, and they have done a very nice job of leading the game toward a point where people who might otherwise derive fun from playing Germany are slowly and steadily abandoning the title.

 

[ADMIRAL3]

Congratulations to WITE's developers it is the best wargame i've played so far. Questioning on details is just a waste of time

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

...As it is, I have always felt that it is necessary to 'fight' to get a point across here.

Every post in these forums gets read by at least one person on the team and probably more than one in most cases. Bugs, good ideas, and constructive criticism get discussed in the tester area and often here too. The ranting tends to get ignored, or occasionally reported to Matrix for action. But not every concern can be addressed and not every good idea implemented due to the fact that the devs have families to feed and they need income to do that. So at some point they have to say No and go on about their business of making the next game. Hell, I've been asking since alpha to have the army/front colors for the non-phasing player side turned on and the answer is still No. So be it.

So don't think that just because your well presented points or concerns are not addressed or "fixed" that they are being ignored. It may just be that we live in an imperfect world and the devs can only do so much with any one game.

[Redmarkus5]

Well, I said I wasn't alone... Better phrased than anything I have ever set down on this subject, I must say.

Please note that I am a Soviet player and until the Spring '42 CV problem came to light most of my complaints related to the relative ease with which the Soviets could win 1-2 years ahead of schedule. So not all Soviet 'fan-boys' hold contrary views to your own and not all of us want an easy win.

Indeed, I agree with all of your well crafted points, in particular the one you make about goodwill and consumer willingness to spend the same kind of money early on for the next title in the series. I might 'buy to test', because I'm a bit of an a-hole, but many previously loyal Matrix customers will doubtless be waiting to see the results of the 'testing' the early adopters will apply to the next title in the series.

There's a decent thesis on good business practice in the software industry lurking in these threads somewhere!

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

...As it is, I have always felt that it is necessary to 'fight' to get a point across here.

Every post in these forums gets read by at least one person on the team and probably more than one in most cases. Bugs, good ideas, and constructive criticism get discussed in the tester area and often here too. The ranting tends to get ignored, or occasionally reported to Matrix for action. But not every concern can be addressed and not every good idea implemented due to the fact that the devs have families to feed and they need income to do that. So at some point they have to say No and go on about their business of making the next game. Hell, I've been asking since alpha to have the army/front colors for the non-phasing player side turned on and the answer is still No. So be it.

So don't think that just because your well presented points or concerns are not addressed or "fixed" that they are being ignored. It may just be that we live in an imperfect world and the devs can only do so much with any one game.

Elmo, that's very nice to hear and it's almost the only positive feedback I have received from the testing/development side of the house in the last 12 months. Thanks.

If, occasionally, a dev came online to say - nice idea, we're discussing it - thinks would be so different...

[Tentpeg]

Redmarkus4;

It is good that you keep plugging away at trying to make the game better. Please do not stop. You are not alone.

To the those who read the forums;

1. Why does the Grand Campaign not end in May 45?

2. Historical Tables of Organization & Equipment seem to be the framework used for the OOB and the changes to the OOB. So why reduce German divisional artillery in 42? If your reply is based on "losses" then why is the same guideline not used on the Soviet OOB?

[randallw]

The TO&E for the Soviets changes quite a bit for the full campaign.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

Redmarkus4;

It is good that you keep plugging away at trying to make the game better. Please do not stop. You are not alone.

To the those who read the forums;

1. Why does the Grand Campaign not end in May 45?

2. Historical Tables of Organization & Equipment seem to be the framework used for the OOB and the changes to the OOB. So why reduce German divisional artillery in 42? If your reply is based on "losses" then why is the same guideline not used on the Soviet OOB?

I feel fresh and newly motivated!

[Redmarkus5]

Deleted

[Tentpeg]

Should the Soviet TO&E's not be the basis for the OOB? I know the Player can pick and choose what he builds but still should not both sides be given the option of choosing what the leadership layed out as most feasible verses what someone decides should be the structure.

Force stricture was one of the things I did for Uncle Sam. I know that the TO&E of a unit was never what it went war as but it was the framework one began with.

[AFV]

It seems insane for a game of this scope, that had to have had 1000s of man hours (or tens of thousands) devoted to its development, has the feel that the victory conditions were made in minutes, almost as an afterthought.

[Redmarkus5]

I agree. I feel that the developer needs to stop and think about his strategy before pushing ahead.

In terms of major WW2 titles, he has:

- the WitP series with daily turns, detailed air and sea operations, abstracted land operations and a production model for the Axis side.
- WitE is weekly turns with a detailed ground combat model, a more abstracted air model and naval apparently coming in WitW. There is production only for the Soviet side.
- EDtBtR has daily turns, a highly detailed air warfare model, abstracted ground combat and no naval component. There is some limited production or logistics capability for the defender.
- WitW will presumably be weekly turns? Production? Fully detailed air and sea war, yet with weekly turns? Problematic...

The games have been structured to emphasize key aspects of the war in each theater, but what is really required medium term is a standard model that allows the individual games to converge, either towards a grand WW2 title, or at least to support simultaneous play in multiple theatres. This would allow the PBEM community to become more structured (team games, tournaments, etc.) thus prolonging and extending the life and penetration of the individual games. If it is to survive, the genre needs new recruits and many of them.

Victory conditions, weather models, logistics and production models, CCC & leadership, diplomacy & partisans, the air-land-sea battle paradigm should all become standardized across all titles in the 'series'. Players should be able to focus on the strategic and operational differences, rather than having to master a new game design each time they purchase a new title from the same developer. In terms of turn cycles, my personal preference would be to have daily as the default, with an option (as in WitP) to use a 3-day cycle, or even a 7 day cycle.

I am not arguing against evolution and improvement here. I am saying that there seems to be a lack of a clear direction.

[gradenko2k]

I think you're looking for a clear direction where there isn't one. That is, WITP, EDTBTR and WITE were never really meant to mesh together. Maybe WITP and and EDTBTR, but only by coincidence, and not particularly well. The WITE -> WITW direction is the only one so far where 2x3 has said out-right that they're making these games with the intent of tying them all up together.

As for a detailed air and sea war with weekly turns, you only have to look as far as Grigsby's Pacific War for a design that pulled that off reasonably well.

[amatteucci]

In my humble opinion, a way for Matrix Games to maintain the gamers' interest on this series and to evolve the engine into a comprehensive system that allows realistic reproduction of land, air and sea warfare in Europe is to plan for inclusive new releases, and not for mutually exclusive theaters of operations that will be only joined in a hypotherical monster-game that will be released ad the end of the times.

In other words, WitW should not be a game focusing on the war in Western Europe alone, but should also include the Eastern Front. This would not be an impossible task since the new map is, AFAIK, ready, and all the OOB work is already done. Start with a July 1943 grand campaign scenario (Zitadelle and Husky) and allow for one-front only campaign as additional scenarios.

One might say that this proposal is not commercially viable since it would require Matrix Games to release a game and a half (WitW plus the late war part of WitE2) at the price of a single game. But I think that this solution will be able to generate a higher volume of sales.

In fact, while I would undoubtely spend $80 (or more) for such a game, even on release, I won't be so keen on spending the same amount (or even less) for a game with the scale of WitE that covers only the the war in Western Europe (and, maybe Italy). And I say this mainly from an Allied-player perspective. I presume that, from the perspective of an Axis-player, it would be wonderful and exciting to have the possibility to decide where and when send your units instead of enduring the inflexibility of a fixed withrdrawal schedule.

Thus, a hypothetical "War in Europe (the late years)" would be much more attractive than a simple WitW release, will generate (IMHO) much more sales and, at the same time, won't require double work by the developers (because much of the work for the Eastern part is already done).

Moreover, such a solution will, hopefully, keep players coming and will pave the way for the final release (that includes also North Africa and the early years, with a revised engine that will allow also for detailed naval operations).

OK, this proposal might seem naive or dumb to someone but I do think it's not as absurd as it seems. And I'm not proposing this because I simply want to get more spending less but because I really think this is the way to go in the interest of both Matrix Games and the community. If my goal was simply to bargain for a lower price I'd say, go on with WitW but sell it ad fifty bucks.

After all, do you think that, after Uncommon Valor, instead of making WitP it would have been a better idea to produce: War in the Aleutians, War in the Philippines, War in the Duch East Indies, War in ... OK, I think I made my point! [:D]

[amatteucci]

<deleted>

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

I think you're looking for a clear direction where there isn't one. That is, WITP, EDTBTR and WITE were never really meant to mesh together. Maybe WITP and and EDTBTR, but only by coincidence, and not particularly well. The WITE -> WITW direction is the only one so far where 2x3 has said out-right that they're making these games with the intent of tying them all up together.

As for a detailed air and sea war with weekly turns, you only have to look as far as Grigsby's Pacific War for a design that pulled that off reasonably well.

Oh, I know there's no clear direction, or at least not before now and even that's a 'maybe'. What I'm saying is that there should have been a strategy all along (after all, war gaming on the PC or table top are hardly new arenas) and that if the genre is to survive in the console era there MUST be a coherent strategy that is supported by the core user base.

[Redmarkus5]

Yes, I agree with everything you say there. Good points, well made.