great read over on the steam forum

[chemkid]

.

[Crackaces]

After the initial posting it does degrade a little bit into a rant .. but the problem with WITE is the game and a set of instructions and how it plays .. it might be us that constructs this ..

One example of the rant is details how the algorithums compute combat .. rocket man states in a lot of words why this is not needed .. but I can state in a few that for WITE understanding combat algorithms greatly goes to understanding combat results and why even though what seems to be biased toward the Germans in 1941 results in Soviets in Berlin in 1945 (If the game lasts)

[Twigster]

Just read it- glad I took the time. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Nix77]

What an excellent post with constructive discussion, although the OP is a bit too harsh on WitE in my opinion. I would've never expected a discussion like that, judging by the thread subject

[Omat]

Hi

The OP is using derogatory vocabulary. So, it is not factual and indicating that there is an other motivation for this post.

Omat

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hi

The OP is using derogatory vocabulary. So, it is not factual and indicating that there is an other motivation for this post.

Omat

That's a good observation, it almost seems as he has almost a personal feud with the developers or something. And he obviously doesn't enjoy the process of learning a game by playing, which I think many WitE players do.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Nix77

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hi

The OP is using derogatory vocabulary. So, it is not factual and indicating that there is an other motivation for this post.

Omat

That's a good observation, it almost seems as he has almost a personal feud with the developers or something. And he obviously doesn't enjoy the process of learning a game by playing, which I think many WitE players do.

The initial observations definitely devolve into a rant of sorts as the thread evolves. Just to comment on the initial post’s observations. I bought this game a very long time ago and tried to play. To provide a background.. most games I am able to read the rules and at least play competitively. WITE was an exercise in frustration. Frustration I had not experienced with the 20 or so other games I have played. (War between the states is another GG special that was a great game concept but failed because the nueances of play) Some of that frustration was observing say a player executing a move in AAR and wondering where in the hell is that remotely documented? To find out a patch changed software behavior. (BTW the software behavior documented in those pinned AAR’s has changed dramatically and are no longer applicable) I Put the game down but passively followed the forum. I got involved with the 2x3 game and our supreme leader is simply a master of the game. Though this experience I am able to understand enough to play the game, and enjoy the experience. I am still not yet there to be a competitive player..

1. So... a few players have been able to master the game without a “good” manual.
2. Some Players have been most enthusiastic to help other players learn the game through experience.

So you are quite right that the lack of a good manual has not been prohibitive. However, I might propose limiting? How many good players that are able to teach are willing and able to tutor other players ? Thus the transfer of knowledge is not scaliable. Just look at the current gathering of knowledge from the forum , and that covers just a small percentage of what is knowable about the game.

I am working on an AirPower manual from Telemecus teachings .. it is developing in my AAR as long as the 2x3 game goes ..

[morvael]

I like the post from retiredredberet.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Nix77

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hi

The OP is using derogatory vocabulary. So, it is not factual and indicating that there is an other motivation for this post.

Omat

That's a good observation, it almost seems as he has almost a personal feud with the developers or something. And he obviously doesn't enjoy the process of learning a game by playing, which I think many WitE players do.

I too concur it was a "RANT". Reminds me of the kid that wasn't picked in a sports event and is trying to get back at the person that didn't pick him. Then he went on to say how great he was.

I played "Longest Day" extensively and have to say the that the rules were good, but they were by NO means perfect. Was always finding myself looking for answers in the AH magazine "General" or other players on the written rules back in the day. So he needs to be careful where he is pointing the finger since the other fingers he is pointing are pointing back at him.

[EwaldvonKleist]

He has a few valid points, like defining terms before using them, but the words chosen are impolite and don't help his mission, if their is one.

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

He has a few valid points, like defining terms before using them, but the words chosen are impolite and don't help his mission, if their is one.

I don't know. If you need terms like "Bomb Airfield" defined, maybe WITE is not the game for you.

WITE presumes a lot of experience on the art of the audience regarding strategic computer wargames, and the manual was written with that in mind. It kind of reminds me of the old DOS manuals.

[RedLancer]

As the OP was on another forum, can we here, please treat his comments with the same graciousness as Joel. As the OP may not be a Matrix forum member with an ability to reply we ought to avoid group think. Although don't think that I take umbrage with any posts so far. I love discussion and argument but detest imbalance and rudeness.

Better still can I encourage you to use this thread to provide any thoughts you may have to make the WitE2 Manual a joy to behold. The author is a forum regular (not me!) and I know he will be reading.

[Twigster]

I thought it was an interesting discussion, though it did seem that rocketman2372001 had something against the game and/or development team. There are way worse manuals out there.

[RealChuckB]

You can certainly argue about the wording and/or style of this posting (and if it hurts or help the author and his argument) but I agree with the core point he's making (the manual doesn't do a good job of helping to learn the game and therefore makes it harder for players to get into it and/or enjoy it) and I haven't really read anything in this thread that would really counter his point:

- the fact that he may be using derogatory vocabulary does not make it factually wrong;
- even if he has a personal feud with the developers (which I doubt) doesn't make his statements wrong per se (I think he's just venting his frustration, which may not be wise but is rather human);
- the fact that there are worse manuals out there doesn't make this one better.

I'm pretty sure that none of the "good" WitE players became good by reading the manual but that they spend a lot of time on this forum and even more "trial and error" to understand what's going on. If you accept that this what it takes, that's one perspective but I think it's a perfectly good perspective to expect that the documentation provided with a game is good enough to familiarize you well with the game and get you pretty far.

I think we should all be interested in making this hobby as accessible as possible (which, in turn, will bring more customers for the companies to produce these niche games, help them develop more games and ideally bring down the prices for all of us) and having unnecessary hurdles for gamers won't get us there. I don't think anyone would benefit from having a little elitist gaming corner where some grognards stay among themselves, speaking a secret language and scoff at the non-initiated [;)]

[RealChuckB]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

As the OP was on another forum, can we here, please treat his comments with the same graciousness as Joel. As the OP may not be a Matrix forum member with an ability to reply we ought to avoid group think. Although don't think that I take umbrage with any posts so far. I love discussion and argument but detest imbalance and rudeness.

Better still can I encourage you to use this thread to provide any thoughts you may have to make the WitE2 Manual a joy to behold. The author is a forum regular (not me!) and I know he will be reading.

Hi Red Lancer,

Some suggestions I would make:

- I agree with the OP on Steam that way too much space is wasted in the WitE manuals (and many other manuals) by explaining the interface and what certain menus do without giving any examples (or explanation) or actual context of the functionality.
- I also play boardgames and there are some really good examples of very well laid-out and structured manuals. One suggestion would be, for example, the manual for Holland '44 from GMT ( http://www.gmtgames.com/p-600-holland-4 ... arden.aspx ). The game has a similar scope/scale to WitE (with WitE being larger, of course) and it might make sense to take a look.
- I think having a good small tutorial in the game accompanied by a good "let's play" / AAR in the manual is extremely important (again, the GMT manuals do a great job there - take a look at pages 26 and following with the "extended examples of play")). I think having a specific scenario (likely non-historical) that covers the basic is a good way to go and to teach the basics.

BTW, I completely understand the challenge for the developers - creating a good and extensive manual takes a lot of time and effort and --quite likely-- not many will buy the game because of the manual (although I'm sure that the nice hard-bound manuals that Matrix Games offer are a big draw).

[tomeck48]

Speaking as someone who still has a lot to learn, I share the author's frustration with the rule book, especially the part of explaining all the interface stuff before you even get to the part of how to move a unit. I did some technical training manual writing during my career and frankly was (and still am) very frustrated with the manual. Thankfully, I was able to use this forum, the videos and just plain old "learn by doing" to supplement the manual

My recommendation would be to have (as someone above suggested) a more complex tutorial with good documentation. Though not so complex as to scare anyone away. That would give the new player some context to move deeper into the rules.

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: RealChuckB
- I think having a good small tutorial in the game accompanied by a good "let's play" / AAR in the manual is extremely important (again, the GMT manuals do a great job there - take a look at pages 26 and following with the "extended examples of play")). I think having a specific scenario (likely non-historical) that covers the basic is a good way to go and to teach the basics.

If there ever will be this kind of "extended examples of play", I would really love if they had detailed explanations and reasoning behind the decisions and moves made in the example. Preferably a single example would cover a single area of the game, like supply, exhaustively.

The current manual almost forces you to create your own lists of relevant rules under different topics to get a good general overview on how things actually work, very much like the Condensed Rules PDF does to some extent.

Not having an updated living manual make things even more complicated.

[56ajax]

I think the gentleman has a point, the manual is lacking in explanations and readability. I must admit it is a last resort. However, some of the criticism could be answered by having a terms, definitions and abbreviations section but tell me for example, who doesn't understand what Bomb Airfield means.

But then when I don't know something, I get on the forum and ask, and i usually get a helpful response - the forums are like an online helpline. And i get to talk to people all over the world.

And as for the price, considering the ongoing support, I think it is great value. I suppose I am biased as I have been playing the game since it came out.

Long Live WiTE and for WiTE2 can we have a better manual please.

[morvael]

I know the manual is now completely outdated, but I remember I have enjoyed reading it immensely in 2013, and it gave me all the necessary information to play and win my first campaign against AI. Obviously mastering any systems required longer learning, but I don't think the goal of the manual was to provide information about every single rule that is in effect, and partially it was by design (which I have learned later).

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

As the OP was on another forum, can we here, please treat his comments with the same graciousness as Joel. As the OP may not be a Matrix forum member with an ability to reply we ought to avoid group think. Although don't think that I take umbrage with any posts so far. I love discussion and argument but detest imbalance and rudeness.

Better still can I encourage you to use this thread to provide any thoughts you may have to make the WitE2 Manual a joy to behold. The author is a forum regular (not me!) and I know he will be reading.

So confession time .. I'm doing the manual. And yes am reading avidly any commentary on the existing documentation for both WiTE1 and WiTW - and have found the type of issues raised by those brought to WiTW via Steam very informative as these are less likely to have graduated from paper maps and counter style games.

I've a mixed background - I sometimes lecture in Social Policy research methods, I make a fair bit of my income doing social policy evaluation, I edit documents for the rest of my living and have written on line pedagogic (ie teaching) material focussed on how to conduct research projects. Across that, have a very simple view, if the reader/user mis-understands something its not their fault, its a flaw in the explanation.

So what are we trying to do?

a) we are retaining Red Lancer's brilliant one page guides from the WiTW documentation. I still use these when playing that game as they really capture the key issues;
b) we are trying to write up the manual so there is a single early chapter that covers the key game concepts and how to play the game. Its deliberately detail light and written in the second person (you do ...) and includes a detailed walk through of the intro scenario (incl not just what but why comments);
c) the rest will be detailed but issues such as define terms, abbreviations in a single easy to find place have been adopted; and,
d) If the underlying system matters because its something the player can directly affect using the tools provided - well it will be described in detail (but hopefully in a comprehensible way), if the underlying system is critical to the game well again there will be detail (even if the actual operation is almost all in the game code) [1], if its something that goes on in the logistics phase out of sight then the description will be indicative. None of these categories are hard and fast ... and of course there is no single approach that will satisfy everyone.

The end product hopefully will be documentation that allows a new player with or without experience of WiTE1/WiTW to get into the game and say win a Road to ... scenario vs the AI on neutral settings. But there is also a need to produce a comprehensive reference manual that goes much beyond this.

At this stage the documentation is tentative. We are close to a decent first draft of the manual but major issues of layout/format etc have not even been thought about. Never mind supporting material such as videos etc.

I'm trying to find and follow almost every documentation related thread I can find (the Wargamer has a good critique of the WiTW manual as an eg). As Red Lancer says, raise issues here, they will be read, they may help improve the material supporting WiTE2.

Edit: [1] - the movement rules are an example of this. In practice, in both WiTE1 and WiTW, you left click on the unit(s), the map changes to show you how far you could move, you hover over a hex and a movement path with the cost in MP is overlaid, you right click to execute the move. So unlike a paper/counter game you don't need to add up MPs as you move (ie where you would need a detailed movement cost table) as its done for you. However, I'd very strongly suspect that all of you would be surprised if there was no movement cost chart in the manual? Not least you might want to work our why you can't move to where you want to reach, or be planning moves in advance and want some idea of the likely costs.