Honest but Apprehensive.

[Rog the dog]

Seriously, I anguish over buying WITW even with the sale price. Whilst really enjoying WITE (which I bought originally at the full price), I balk at regarding this edition of WITW as a valid WW2 game because of the already foregone expectations by 1943.
In WITE I had, at least, a fair though difficult possibility of winning by capturing the main Russian cities etc., ASAP. In WITW by 1943 the Axis was doomed so, for me, playing this version of WW2 as the Axis would be more of a strategic game exercise within the WITW parameters of some pre-chosen battles.

I would appreciate any worthwhile comments re. my "dilemma" (which might just include my waiting for the next G.Grigsby editon of WITE2). Thank you for your input. :)

[Blackdeath]

Agreed, this is a historical game not a sanbox perse game. The outcome is determined and the best you could do is slow down the Allies and do better then historical but I do not think you could win this war. There are other games I am looking at will allow you to win the war itself but never go on sale . http://schwerpunktgames.com/misc/games/world-war-ii-europe-1939-1945/ I own 2 of their games and they are really good, thinking of picking this one up with lots of scenrios. Made by two people there is a risk they may never complete the last 15% or so left to do... Not to mention WITW currently has a issue with Windows 10 for some users like myself, waiting for a patch of course.

[Rog the dog]

Thank you, Blackdeath, for your comment. That schwerpunkt game looks interesting.

[Blackdeath]

Yeah I have the russian / German and one of his original game no longer sold. I am just not sure for 50 dollars if he will ever finish all 102 scenerios, but I do like he russian / german one. Its a bit simplier than WITW, not as much chrome and play more like a board game with odds and such versus historical determining factors. I do like WITW but hate the thought of playing for 50+ hours and knowing I can never win..lol.

[Rog the dog]

quote: ". . .hate the thought of playing for 50+ hours and knowing I can never win. ."
Exactly how I feel. I saw that Ron has up to 70 scenarios finished ?
Will check out the Russian/german game on his site. Years ago I had a couple of those board games - Panzer Leader etc. Loved them

[Lovenought]

Making historical games and making games where Germany conquers the world is mutually exlusive.

And you CAN win in WITW. It's entirely possible for the Allies to not have broken out of France and for the Soviets to be stuck in Poland by the time August 1945 arrives and the scenario ends. You can achieve a conventional strategic defensive victory. But that isn't necessary to win, because the Victory Point system is very good at making the Axis player feel like he is doing well, and making the WA player feel like they are failing. It's pretty nailbiting to be honest, when you are 30km from the German border but the VP screen is inches away from moving from "draw" to "Minor German victory". Conserving or gaining VPs informs all of my thinking in the late game, as the Allies. I assume my German opponent is similarly on the edge of their seat when it comes to VPs.

[Blackdeath]

Maybe, but I always felt that WITW needed some linked scenerios to make it feel more under control perhaps. I spoke to Ron via email yesterday and I have been playing a few of his games since the dos days. They are good, not alot of chrome like WITW but its a very good game in my opinion, I just wish he would advertise more. They are def a niche within a niche.

[Rog the dog]

Originally posted by Lovenought:

Making historical games and making games where Germany conquers the world is mutually exlusive.

And you CAN win in WITW. It's entirely possible for the Allies to not have broken out of France and for the Soviets to be stuck in Poland by the time August 1945 arrives and the scenario ends. You can achieve a conventional strategic defensive victory. But that isn't necessary to win, because the Victory Point system is very good at making the Axis player feel like he is doing well, and making the WA player feel like they are failing. It's pretty nailbiting to be honest, when you are 30km from the German border but the VP screen is inches away from moving from "draw" to "Minor German victory". Conserving or gaining VPs informs all of my thinking in the late game, as the Allies. I assume my German opponent is similarly on the edge of their seat when it comes to VPs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I appreciate your comment. However,as you say you played as the Allies, that still makes me think that playing as the Axis during the present WITW setup would be much more "nailbiting" compared with the Allies and the chances of even a minor victory thus less probable.

That was the dilemma I face. Since WITW is obviously a very explicit and factual demonstration of the actual historical 1943 background to the overall WW2 war, that very background does, in fact, make the Axis have much more of a potential defeat than that of the Allies. I had thought of the possibility of (if possible) pulling back from the Eastern front sufficient men (whilst leaving enough to hold off the Russians) and therefore possibly ending up with what you describe as the "nailbiting" endgame moves which could just (maybe) give the Axis a "convential strategic defensive victory" but, frankly, that seems to me to be wildly improbable.

Again - I thank you for your comment. I just wish an Axis-chosen player could shed some light on this situation with WITW.

[Red Lancer]

When I wrote the scenario 4th Supreme Command for the Torch DLC this question was foremost in my mind. I've been very surprised that it has been so popular.

The question I faced when I started on the scenario is whether a player with 20/20 hindsight can do better than history and what does that actually mean. The problem is that the game - whether WitE or WitW has so much data that is tied to history. If you do better should the Ta152 arrive sooner? That's the point that if you decouple history too much then the data begins to fail you and the accuracy of the data is the bedrock of the game. If you want to 'allow' the Axis do better the you have to change the data too. Lovenought's comments sum things up better than I.

[Rog the dog]

Red Lancer - thank you. I hear what you are saying. Actually, to be more precise let me refer to two comments from above:
1. Blackdeath said: ". . hate the thought of playing for 50+ hours and knowing I can never win.." and 2: Lovenought said: ". . It's pretty nailbiting . . .as the Allies. . . I assume my German opponent is similarly on the edge of their seat. . " (re. the "similar" possibility of the Axis getting a victory).

All I am saying is that, considering the fact of the actual history being used as a forerunner to the situation of 1943, an Axis player must logically realize that for him it has to be MUCH more difficult to even get a "conventional strategic defensive victory".
I agree that one cannot, or should not "decouple history" to enable either side to win. That would create a fantasy game based loosely on history. If, accepting the established history the situation is based on, an Axis player believes he can somehow win even a very minor victory in the WITW included scenarios, I think he is in "cloud cuckoo land".
I agree with Blackdeath :) but I do not wish to "allow" the Axis to win by changing game data.
BTW - is it possible to pull troops from Russia at some point, to possibly achieve a minor victory for the Axis ?

Therefore, "realistically",if an Axis player eventually sees the inevitability of defeat (after 50+ hours, lol), I think the game should include the possibility of an "honorable decision by the Axis to surrender to the Allies in the West", (as was attempted, although not so honorably, by some of the Axis leaders in 1944/45.) when they saw defeat facing them both in Russia and in Europe by '44/45. In real life that, of course, was stymied by crazy Hitler and the historical outcome was horrendous for all concerned. I love wargaming :) :)

[Red Lancer]

I get what you are saying completely. As you may have already have read the decision to start the game in 1943 was driven by development time. By starting in 1943 a highly abstracted naval model could be used and even then the game still took 4 years.

Even with a naval model a 39 start is a huge ask as the 39-43 period saw limited ground combat (excepting the East and North Africa) and numerous changes to the wider political structure of Europe - especially in the Balkans. How you develop a game that manages this period at the level of detail in WitW remains to be seen.

So given those constraints the question is what does winning actually mean? Our solution was simply 'better than history'. In the short scenario Westwall which starts with the ability to launch Market Garden - if as the Allies you only achieve historical results then it's a draw. Similarly in 45 Campaign as the Axis you can choose not to launch Bulge and if you hold on longer then you win.

This is an Operational Level wargame so achieving strategic victory is not a principle factor.

[Rog the dog]

Thank you, Red. You are a very patient person and I do appreciate your taking the time to regard my "speculations". Re. the making of a full war, I did see how much effort G.G. and Co., put into WITW and the effort re. all of WW2 at that scale would be staggering, I guess.

Also, as you say, ". . as the Axis you can choose not to launch Bulge and if you hold on longer then you win " That def. scratches my back :) . I now sense the possibility of a shrewd move along those lines to avoid total defeat.

May I ask your opinion re. the possibility of moving some troops from the Eastern front to possibly engage in a similar Axis ending, whilst tentatively holding the Russian onslaught off for sufficient time ? Is that in the game ?

Again - my thanks for your time and patience. "War is Hell" but playing it as a game can be Heaven :)
p.s. D/loading right now. YAY !!!

[Red Lancer]

Yes - the game includes the East Front box as an option. This allows you to move units to and from the 'East' (includes Balkans & Norway). The overall combat value of the EF Box governs the speed of the Soviet advance. The system is an abstraction but allows flexibility. If you don't use the EF Box then the movement of units to and from the East is historical so in the Bulge example 6th SS Pz Army will be pulled east to Budapest.

I hope you enjoy the game - it is a steep learning curve but the video tutorials, one page guides and the Player's Handbook do help.

[Rog the dog]

Will def. enjoy it now. Take care, my friend.

[Firefly]

Hi Red Lancer, thanks for developing a great game. I bought it two days ago and I am hooked to all the scenarios and enjoy the gameplay. Suprisingly, the controls and how to play weren't really an issue and and once you get the basics it becomes a really fasincating game - definitely an upgrade from Hearts of Iron 4 which I played.
I have one question, however, about something I keep experiencing on several scenarios. On the scenarios Westwall, Diadem to the Gothic Line and Bulge to the Rhine after turn 1 the Axis AI will always withdraw all its units away from the front-line and to the far edge of the map. I turned the Eastern Front option off - expecting maybe that was it - but it continued to happen. I changed the difficulty levels, turnt fog of war on but it still happened. Would you have any idea what is happening and how I stop it from happening?

[Rdizzle]

From the forums this seems like a known bug.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4386835
Waiting on the hotfix