Gary Grigsby lives! Maybe many of you have already see this but GG's War in the East will have a new little brother in December-- War in the West. Who's ready for a new monster in their life?
It's here... http://matrixgames.com/products/507/details/Gary.Grigsby's.War.in.the.West
Probably not this time.
They wanted monster money for the last one and I don't see why they would change their historical charging model.
I never got my £80(?) worth out of WitE. Actually it was more like £100+ because I bought the addon.
Not that it was a bad game - I just never got my monies worth out of it...so I think I'll pass unless for some bizarre reason Matrix and Slitherine have adopted a different pricing policy - in which case, never say never.
That was going to be my next question. What do think they'll charge for this one. WitE was what $80? But still if they've gotten a real workable air and naval component then they've got my loins moistening.
Completely aside from buying it (which in my case probably won't happen for a long, long time, as I'd rather support the Decisive Campaigns crew, though I respect GG's games), I'm curious about whether they'll be releasing it on Steam (and related sites like Gamersgate), which seems to have been standard for all their new releases over the past yearish.
I mean, they started way back with Pride of Nations, i.e. the single most uber AGEOD game ever made, so one of the Grigsby monster games would be the only limit beyond that. But aside from new AGEOD games (like To End All Wars and ACW2, no slouches either one), and a few which like Pr0N had already been released through other venues (notably through Paradox), they haven't tried to put up the back catalog of monsters. If WitW launches on Steam -- which at the moment I suspect it will -- that would open the door for practically all the older catalog, including not-so-old titles that could benefit from wider exposure. Like for example the Decisive Campaign series, the newest of which didn't release on Steam (much less the older ones yet).
to steam or not to steam...
a question: why does it look like they (slitherine? the lordz games studio? steam?!) just pulled commander - the great war off steam?
can't find the game in the steam library anymore...
back on topic - i really wish this game all the best. what else would you wish such a 'monster'?!
cheers!
chem!
I never got my monies worth out of WitE either so I am fine passing on WitW
Not there fault just never put the time in to learn the game (pre kids) and now with so little time left for gaming (post 3 year old twins) I either have to go with something that I already know (Command Ops etc) or something that has a lot less of a learning curve.
Con
Quote from: chemkid on October 04, 2014, 12:11:57 PM
to steam or not to steam...
a question: why does it look like they (slitherine? the lordz games studio? steam?!) just pulled commander - the great war off steam?
can't find the game in the steam library anymore...
back on topic - i really wish this game all the best. what else would you wish such a 'monster'?!
cheers!
chem!
You're right..I just looked, Commander: The Great War is still in my library but it is no longer available in the store? But back to War in the West....pricing will decide it for me, if it's like War in the East then I'll pass. I bought War in the East used on eBay and really enjoyed it so I do have an interest in the West version, just not for East pricing.
Never mentioned if they changed the surrender mechanics.
And I suppose the 3 unit stacking rule is still in place.
So...
The 3 unit stacking limit is still there.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t31.0-8/10688238_813256902028529_5783152501995711339_o.jpg)
Yes, but brigade and regimental units can be made into support units instead of on map combat units if the player chooses.
Trey
Quote from: jomni on October 17, 2014, 07:24:00 AM
So...
The 3 unit stacking limit is still there.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t31.0-8/10688238_813256902028529_5783152501995711339_o.jpg)
Anyone care to explain to a novice why a 3 unit stack limitation was a bad idea?
I presume it's a game mechanic used for balance. I also presume, perhaps, that they used it because of fitting x number of divisions into an xxKM hex grid no? In which case, are those not fair reasons for a limit on stacking?
Or - does it mean you end up with a wall of units you can't out manoeuvre but have to batter your way through?
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 17, 2014, 01:38:30 PM
Anyone care to explain to a novice why a 3 unit stack limitation was a bad idea?
I presume it's a game mechanic used for balance. I also presume, perhaps, that they used it because of fitting x number of divisions into an xxKM hex grid no? In which case, are those not fair reasons for a limit on stacking?
Or - does it mean you end up with a wall of units you can't out manoeuvre but have to batter your way through?
It's not so much the fact that there is a stacking limit, it's that it doesn't matter what size the units are. So, say I have a division in a hex. Two other division sized units could enter that hex no problem. However, if I broke that division down into 3 regiments in that hex, no other units (even HQ or Air) could enter that hex. So, the same hex that couple happily accommodate 3 division sized units can now only handle 3 regiments. A wild ass guess is that it is to help keep the stacks small so that they don't overlap into another hex, which can be a pain to handle graphics-wise.
Ok. Thanks.
I just wish he went on and made a new monster tactical wargame.
Good grief, that thing is also WitE! -- the map covers the same area plus the Western Front!
Does it or are you just going by the map?
I only ask because although the whole map is there, it's possible it could be restricted
Yeah, I think the eastern front is abstracted or AI controlled.
Quote from: Sir Slash on October 18, 2014, 11:57:42 AM
Yeah, I think the eastern front is abstracted or AI controlled.
I've been following it quite closely and will be buying it the day it's released.
The GHC can grab units from the East Front but in can cause the collapse faster from the way I read it.
I grabbed a screenshot from post 16 http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3712936 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3712936)
QuoteYou can send units in either direction.
Here's a screenshot of the EF Box - it puts the Ostfront in play in an abstracted manner. In simple terms the more units the slower the Soviets advance.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matrixgames.com%2Fforums%2Fupfiles%2F18789%2F4CCB66EB123C47D98171B50D16C563EB.jpg&hash=85ca5356f65107e2b5da03977c7e170e1063e4c3)
Quote from: smittyohio on October 17, 2014, 02:31:13 PM
It's not so much the fact that there is a stacking limit, it's that it doesn't matter what size the units are. So, say I have a division in a hex. Two other division sized units could enter that hex no problem. However, if I broke that division down into 3 regiments in that hex, no other units (even HQ or Air) could enter that hex. So, the same hex that couple happily accommodate 3 division sized units can now only handle 3 regiments. A wild ass guess is that it is to help keep the stacks small so that they don't overlap into another hex, which can be a pain to handle graphics-wise.
Erm...wot? I'm not even a hardcore grog but that would bother the shit out of me. If I'm paying
hardcore bucks for a game - which I am in the unlikely event that I'm buying from Matrix - it had better damn well not have arbitrary limitations like these that even a novice would recognise. Christ.
Quote from: Huw the Poo on October 18, 2014, 05:03:24 PM
Quote from: smittyohio on October 17, 2014, 02:31:13 PM
It's not so much the fact that there is a stacking limit, it's that it doesn't matter what size the units are. So, say I have a division in a hex. Two other division sized units could enter that hex no problem. However, if I broke that division down into 3 regiments in that hex, no other units (even HQ or Air) could enter that hex. So, the same hex that couple happily accommodate 3 division sized units can now only handle 3 regiments. A wild ass guess is that it is to help keep the stacks small so that they don't overlap into another hex, which can be a pain to handle graphics-wise.
Erm...wot? I'm not even a hardcore grog but that would bother the shit out of me. If I'm paying hardcore bucks for a game - which I am in the unlikely event that I'm buying from Matrix - it had better damn well not have arbitrary limitations like these that even a novice would recognise. Christ.
I guess to each their own but playing WITE I've never had a problem with it. I plunked my money down on WITE the day it was released. It works and it is fair IMO.
Of course if someone wants to be critical of something whether for legitimate reasons or not people can find fault in any game ever created.
Edit---Not implying your complaints aren't legitimate but IMO they aren't views I subscribe to. I've stated in the past not every game is everyone's cup of tea.
Well I speak, as stated, as someone who isn't a hardcore grog. But I would notice that. It seems like a silly, arbitrary limitation to me. I could have 3000 troops occupy a hex, or 300, depending on what size unit I put in there? That's jarring in my opinion, and would definitely have ramifications re; gameplay. If it was a little indie game I'd be more forgiving, but for the kind of money Matrix charge I'd expect individual soldiers' inside leg measurements to be precise.
Quote from: Huw the Poo on October 18, 2014, 05:03:24 PM
Quote from: smittyohio on October 17, 2014, 02:31:13 PM
It's not so much the fact that there is a stacking limit, it's that it doesn't matter what size the units are. So, say I have a division in a hex. Two other division sized units could enter that hex no problem. However, if I broke that division down into 3 regiments in that hex, no other units (even HQ or Air) could enter that hex. So, the same hex that couple happily accommodate 3 division sized units can now only handle 3 regiments. A wild ass guess is that it is to help keep the stacks small so that they don't overlap into another hex, which can be a pain to handle graphics-wise.
Erm...wot? I'm not even a hardcore grog but that would bother the shit out of me. If I'm paying hardcore bucks for a game - which I am in the unlikely event that I'm buying from Matrix - it had better damn well not have arbitrary limitations like these that even a novice would recognise. Christ.
I should point out there was another thread where an arbitrary limitation on platforms within a game which was classed as a "premium" product and was charged as such was mentioned by "he who shall not be mentioned" on these very boards and everyone, man, woman and dog, were justifying the developers reasoning for doing so
Just sayin' :P
For the record - that limitation was a bit confusing but never bothered me much either. :)
I'm not sure the stacking limitation bothers me. It certainly didn't bother me when I played WitE (though I didn't play that nearly as much as I should/could have. I always kind of took it as a limitation on land space. Say the hexes were 40KM (I don't know)...I always viewed the stacking limit as not being able to squeeze anymore units in there and, even if you could, they'd be a beautiful target for a carpet bomb.
That's how I viewed them anyway.
On the bright side, 3 units is definitely easier to manage than actually taking into account the number of men that can fit in a hex like in WITP.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 19, 2014, 01:48:55 AM
Quote from: Huw the Poo on October 18, 2014, 05:03:24 PM
Quote from: smittyohio on October 17, 2014, 02:31:13 PM
It's not so much the fact that there is a stacking limit, it's that it doesn't matter what size the units are. So, say I have a division in a hex. Two other division sized units could enter that hex no problem. However, if I broke that division down into 3 regiments in that hex, no other units (even HQ or Air) could enter that hex. So, the same hex that couple happily accommodate 3 division sized units can now only handle 3 regiments. A wild ass guess is that it is to help keep the stacks small so that they don't overlap into another hex, which can be a pain to handle graphics-wise.
Erm...wot? I'm not even a hardcore grog but that would bother the shit out of me. If I'm paying hardcore bucks for a game - which I am in the unlikely event that I'm buying from Matrix - it had better damn well not have arbitrary limitations like these that even a novice would recognise. Christ.
I should point out there was another thread where an arbitrary limitation on platforms within a game which was classed as a "premium" product and was charged as such was mentioned by "he who shall not be mentioned" on these very boards and everyone, man, woman and dog, were justifying the developers reasoning for doing so
Just sayin' :P
For the record - that limitation was a bit confusing but never bothered me much either. :)
I'm not sure the stacking limitation bothers me. It certainly didn't bother me when I played WitE (though I didn't play that nearly as much as I should/could have. I always kind of took it as a limitation on land space. Say the hexes were 40KM (I don't know)...I always viewed the stacking limit as not being able to squeeze anymore units in there and, even if you could, they'd be a beautiful target for a carpet bomb.
That's how I viewed them anyway.
Fine point. ;)
Quote from: Nefaro on October 19, 2014, 04:25:01 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 19, 2014, 01:48:55 AM
Quote from: Huw the Poo on October 18, 2014, 05:03:24 PM
Quote from: smittyohio on October 17, 2014, 02:31:13 PM
It's not so much the fact that there is a stacking limit, it's that it doesn't matter what size the units are. So, say I have a division in a hex. Two other division sized units could enter that hex no problem. However, if I broke that division down into 3 regiments in that hex, no other units (even HQ or Air) could enter that hex. So, the same hex that couple happily accommodate 3 division sized units can now only handle 3 regiments. A wild ass guess is that it is to help keep the stacks small so that they don't overlap into another hex, which can be a pain to handle graphics-wise.
Erm...wot? I'm not even a hardcore grog but that would bother the shit out of me. If I'm paying hardcore bucks for a game - which I am in the unlikely event that I'm buying from Matrix - it had better damn well not have arbitrary limitations like these that even a novice would recognise. Christ.
I should point out there was another thread where an arbitrary limitation on platforms within a game which was classed as a "premium" product and was charged as such was mentioned by "he who shall not be mentioned" on these very boards and everyone, man, woman and dog, were justifying the developers reasoning for doing so
Just sayin' :P
For the record - that limitation was a bit confusing but never bothered me much either. :)
I'm not sure the stacking limitation bothers me. It certainly didn't bother me when I played WitE (though I didn't play that nearly as much as I should/could have. I always kind of took it as a limitation on land space. Say the hexes were 40KM (I don't know)...I always viewed the stacking limit as not being able to squeeze anymore units in there and, even if you could, they'd be a beautiful target for a carpet bomb.
That's how I viewed them anyway.
Fine point. ;)
+1...never bothered me at all, a minor bump in the road....WITE is a great game, though the enormity of the full campaign has eluded me....the scenarios are great.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 19, 2014, 01:48:55 AM
Quote from: Huw the Poo on October 18, 2014, 05:03:24 PM
Quote from: smittyohio on October 17, 2014, 02:31:13 PM
It's not so much the fact that there is a stacking limit, it's that it doesn't matter what size the units are. So, say I have a division in a hex. Two other division sized units could enter that hex no problem. However, if I broke that division down into 3 regiments in that hex, no other units (even HQ or Air) could enter that hex. So, the same hex that couple happily accommodate 3 division sized units can now only handle 3 regiments. A wild ass guess is that it is to help keep the stacks small so that they don't overlap into another hex, which can be a pain to handle graphics-wise.
Erm...wot? I'm not even a hardcore grog but that would bother the shit out of me. If I'm paying hardcore bucks for a game - which I am in the unlikely event that I'm buying from Matrix - it had better damn well not have arbitrary limitations like these that even a novice would recognise. Christ.
I should point out there was another thread where an arbitrary limitation on platforms within a game which was classed as a "premium" product and was charged as such was mentioned by "he who shall not be mentioned" on these very boards and everyone, man, woman and dog, were justifying the developers reasoning for doing so
Just sayin' :P
For the record - that limitation was a bit confusing but never bothered me much either. :)
I'm not sure the stacking limitation bothers me. It certainly didn't bother me when I played WitE (though I didn't play that nearly as much as I should/could have. I always kind of took it as a limitation on land space. Say the hexes were 40KM (I don't know)...I always viewed the stacking limit as not being able to squeeze anymore units in there and, even if you could, they'd be a beautiful target for a carpet bomb.
That's how I viewed them anyway.
Very good point JD!
Hex's are 10 miles across (I don't know how many KM's that is). Say I have 3 German divisions averaging 16,700 men and their equipment. I'd have better than 50,000 men in a 10 mile hex not counting if I have support units attached which could be up to 3 per unit to divisions or their HQ if deliberate attacking and leadership checks are passed. Three total support units can participate in attacks from along the chain of command in attacks. On the defensive there's also reserve activations where in theory more men could be in the hex depending on leadership checks.
I believe their thought process on this is sound. There may be other beefs that are legitimate in my mind but this isn't one of them as already stated. The supply system is getting a total overhaul and the game will be more realistic than ever IMO.
I'm excited for the direction 2by3 is taking this.
But in WITE, the Russians can squeeze in 3 corps in a hex. :coolsmiley:
OK, JudgeD...you vagued me beyond comprehension re: "the other premium product", &c.
Not that I need know, but it took such significant effort to try and suss out what you were talking about that I think something basic in my cerebral cortex just punted and went home.
That said, every "heavy" game of this type is going to try to prevent mega-stacking in some way. Why? Because, in a previous generation of games, particularly board games, people occasionally didn't prevent them and horrible, grossly a-historical mega-stacking happened. We're wargamers...we're dicks that way. (Pardon my french.) Given the opportunity by a ruleset to do something we will, given infinite time, monkeys, and typewriters, do it and smile evilly at those we're playing against as we do so.
How well a particular system controls this (I think the DC system is an elegant one), is part of how we'll judge the game. For me, WiTW, like it's predecessor, is some kind of grognard Ur-porn. It's something our lizard brain craves irrespective of need or time to play. The Tiller WWI games are like this for me, too...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: jomni on October 19, 2014, 03:07:25 AM
On the bright side, 3 units is definitely easier to manage than actually taking into account the number of men that can fit in a hex like in WITP.
Yeah, far be it from me to bash my favorite game but one of the drawbacks are mega stacks of both infantry and naval assets. Even keeping in mind the 40 mile hex's . Some of the stacks you see are humorous to say the least.
I like the hex limitation mod for land units myself to prevent over stacking. :)
I understand the point to not overstacking divisions or corps or the Russian equivalents thereof (ha ha).
I don't understand the point to not overstacking regiments. That's what was being complained about upthread, and I haven't yet seen a defense of only allowing three regiments per 10 mile hex where three divisions could also feasibly fit.
My guess would be that the practical defense is, "If you're trying to stack more than three regiments together you should damn well reorganize them anyway, duh." Assuming that's possible, as I seem to recall from reading about WITE. (I have it but have never played it, because I love donating money to charitable causes like Matrix. ;) )
Also, yes I was just going by the minimap, but then the abstraction explanation confuses me. Does the minimap cover area not on the main map? Is half or more of the main map dedicated to an abstract representation of the godawfully huge wars going on over there?
Quote from: JasonPratt on October 19, 2014, 02:43:41 PM
My guess would be that the practical defense is, "If you're trying to stack more than three regiments together you should damn well reorganize them anyway, duh." Assuming that's possible, as I seem to recall from reading about WITE. (I have it but have never played it, because I love donating money to charitable causes like Matrix. ;) )
JP...I think you got it right with your comment about regiment reorganization. Makes sense to me.
Quote from: Cyrano on October 19, 2014, 09:47:12 AM
How well a particular system controls this (I think the DC system is an elegant one), is part of how we'll judge the game. For me, WiTW, like it's predecessor, is some kind of grognard Ur-porn. It's something our lizard brain craves irrespective of need or time to play. The Tiller WWI games are like this for me, too...
Yeah, but we actually
played several of those! I've yet to stir myself to play more than a single WitE scenario and I shake and swallow my tongue every time I launch WitP.
I still think we need to play an entire Tiller WWI campaign...
WitW addresses a number of "limitations" in the original WitE.
Which was and is a very fine game, especially for the shorter scenarios. These limitations became more important in campaign games (in my opinion). I don't think there's a better Eastern game at the divisional level at the scenario level (scenarios can be indeed almost as big as the Grand Campaign). I never quite understood why people obviated the excellent scenarios: some of the ones featured in the expansions by Trey Marshall (the poster Great Ajax in this thread, I presume) are excellent and I duly recommend them to everyone.
Where WitE design kind of broke down a bit was in the Grand Campaign - which probably is the modality that most people played. Over the years it has become apparent that there were a number of major bugs plaguing the engine, and that, for whatever the reason, some systems and mechanics were devised as "workarounds" on those bugs. That's my reading of the extensive and very detailed patch notes that Morvael has been putting out since he took charge of WitE development. This latest "community patch" - see the humongous patch notes below
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3717730
That features a number of items that is obvious have been hanging out in the engine since December 2010. It is interesting to see that it has taken the participation of core group of expert players (like Pelton and MichaelT, renowned for knowing how to use the quite broken logistics mechanics to great effect), former beta testers (Flaviusx), along with someone working on his spare time on the code, to set the monumental game that WitE was into perhaps the best Eastern Front game ever (until the advent of WitE 2.0 built on top of the WitW engine, an upgrade and extension of WitE engine).
Regarding stacking - actually it makes a lot of sense. I think that people miss the following fundamental point: there's a difference between the amount of people and vehicles you can cram in a given area, and the area a unit occupies when conducting normal operations. The stacking limit makes all the sense in the world when units are divisions. But it is very hard to justify convincingly, with units smaller than that, more so when an ancient engine like TOAW solved "high density troop concentrations" in a very elegant and functional way. It is funny though, that in early versions of WITE the AI waved through the stacking limitation quite often to the dismay and chagrin of people playing against the computer...
I am not sure if will get into WitW right away, but here's my list of stuff that quite never worked in WitE and WitW seems to be setting straight:
- Road network abstraction - In WitE roads were abstracted away, and in such away that the Soviet road network was rated in equal terms as the Polish or the German. In WitW there's at least country-based modifiers that address the difference between a road network relying on all-weather roads and one that doesn't.
- "HQ Buildup mechanics" - This was totally broken in WitE up to the soon to be released 1.08 patch. It was meant to model the capacity - at the operational level - of prioritizing resupply and refitting of forces earmarked for major offensives. Unfortunately, it rather was a massive hole in the supply system that allowed to keep units deep in enemy territory supplied at a level that defied reason. It seems that the implementation of the mechanic basically teleported supply over hundreds or thousands of kilometers, walking over the modeled limitations in lift capacity - both rail and "truck" based. In WitW this is going to be modeled by a player controlled system based on setting up depots, so units nearby these depots have higher chances of getting fully resupplied, introducing the necessity to actually "plan" your offensives carefully.
- Killer TOE upgrades and refitting mechanics - WitE features a very detailed TOE system that does give a lot character to units. Unfortunately, there lots of bugs in the upgrade mechanics - which is understandable, given the massive number of 'elements' contemplated - and weapons sometime "upgraded" downwards. Also important is that the logistical and combat echelon of units were modeled explicitly, and both had equal priority when receiving replacements. For nations which are hard pressed to cover 'gaps' - as Germany from 1943 onwards - the lack of control - or intelligence by the AI controlling this - contributed to a great degree to the Wehrmacht disintegrating at a faster way than historical.
- Irrelevance of the Air game - to be honest, the air war system in WitE was totally broken (Soviets organizing large scale air offensives involving hundreds of planes). This made attacking with Axis panzer forces all but suicidal from 1943 onwards. This improved significantly with constant patching, but I always found a mystery why sometimes aircraft flew on support of ground ops and when it didn't. Interdiction never felt right and had no effect on the supply system.
- Excessive abstraction of the "other" front - the shifting requirements of the OKW were modeled as a system of inflexible reinforcements and withdrawals. For instance, it could well happen that key panzer formations "disappeared" from the order of battle without player intervention in the middle of a major operation. This is kind of historical, but since the schedule of operations isn't - the players' dictate that - these fixed schedules could well spoil a very successful offensive. I doubt that if the Kursk offensive would actually managed to break into the Soviet operational depths, Hitler would have been so retarded as to withdraw those units in the middle of a success with major strategic implications. Now the player has the chance to control the trade-off between the necessities of both active fronts.
- Meaningless Campaign Victory Conditions - For reasons I can't really understand (according to 2by3, limitations in the AI) the scenarios featured victory conditions more flexible than those of the campaign. For instance, taking into account casualties rather than just physically occupying certain locations on the map. The campaign VC's were such that an Axis player more successful than his historical counterparts would be damned to an ignominous defeat if the Soviet player could turn the tables as the playing field got rigged by the - hardcoded - increasingly favourable strategic elements. Much worse, it didn't reward the Soviet player trying to actually defend his territory - the standard way of playing the 1941 GC campaign for the Soviets was to minimize losses due to encirclement, abandoning huge tracts of the Soviet Union for the Axis to conquer, until the Axis was stopped by the logistic limitations (the build up mechanic above couldn't eventually be used, but that requiring the motorized spearheads to be already operating hundreds of kilometers away from the railheads). This resulted in games being right at the "macro" level - that is, frontlines resembling somewhat historical lines by September 1941, but a complete dog and pony show at the micro level (the Red Army abandoning Kiev, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov or Smolensk without virtually trying to defend those key cities). In WITW there's a very satisfying number of "soft" victory conditions that should mould player's behavior into more "plausible" behavior.
- A more detailed (and logical) weather system - The weather in WitE was very binary, huge swathes of land were rendered "inoperable" - or "lethal" in the case of the Blizzard during the First Winter - for extended periods of time with no variability.
- "The Winner Takes it All" and the "Middle Earth" vibe in Ground Combat - Ground combat in WitE was resolved in two stages. In the first one, elements composing attacking and defending units fire at each other. After all the "firing" is resolved, then combat strength factors are derived for attacker and defender. If the attacker/defender "final" odds ratio goes above 2:1, the defender retreats, incurring possibly in much more losses than during the "firing phase". This sounds quite good, but 1) practical limitations of frontage and density were taken half-heartedly taken into account, so if you attack with say, 9 divisions a given hex it is basically the case that the elements of the 9 divisions fire "simultaneously" at the defender's and 2) if the attack fails, the attacker incurs in similar casualty rates as it retreats. It beggars belief that 9 divisions (or 27 divisions, with the Soviets ability to stack up to 9 division equivalents per hex) can effectively apply their firepower over such a limited area. And in the latter, it also was very questionable that an infantry division was as effective as a panzer division in pursuit, or that a panzer division retreating from a failed attack incurred in massive losses due to a pursuing Soviet Rifle division. Most aggravating was that this "Retreat Casualties" depended - alone - on the level of Experience of the units, in such a way that a difference in 5 points experience could result in a 50% variability in casualty rates, and that above certain Experience levels, retreat casualties were close to nil. I am not sure to what degree Gary has addressed the aberrations on this aspect of the engine.
I played WitE pretty much 8 or 10 hours a week all over 2011... maybe I played it too much, but I know the thing as the lines in the palms of my hands. I have great hopes for WitW, as it seems that most of the feedback generated by the community has been considered and actioned upon. My only concern is about how the Italian front is going to play out.
Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on October 19, 2014, 08:16:08 PM
WitW addresses a number of "limitations" in the original WitE.
Which was and is a very fine game, especially for the shorter scenarios. These limitations became more important in campaign games (in my opinion). I don't think there's a better Eastern game at the divisional level at the scenario level (scenarios can be indeed almost as big as the Grand Campaign). I never quite understood why people obviated the excellent scenarios: some of the ones featured in the expansions by Trey Marshall (the poster Great Ajax in this thread, I presume) are excellent and I duly recommend them to everyone.
Where WitE design kind of broke down a bit was in the Grand Campaign - which probably is the modality that most people played. Over the years it has become apparent that there were a number of major bugs plaguing the engine, and that, for whatever the reason, some systems and mechanics were devised as "workarounds" on those bugs. That's my reading of the extensive and very detailed patch notes that Morvael has been putting out since he took charge of WitE development. This latest "community patch" - see the humongous patch notes below
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3717730
That features a number of items that is obvious have been hanging out in the engine since December 2010. It is interesting to see that it has taken the participation of core group of expert players (like Pelton and MichaelT, renowned for knowing how to use the quite broken logistics mechanics to great effect), former beta testers (Flaviusx), along with someone working on his spare time on the code, to set the monumental game that WitE was into perhaps the best Eastern Front game ever (until the advent of WitE 2.0 built on top of the WitW engine, an upgrade and extension of WitE engine).
Regarding stacking - actually it makes a lot of sense. I think that people miss the following fundamental point: there's a difference between the amount of people and vehicles you can cram in a given area, and the area a unit occupies when conducting normal operations. The stacking limit makes all the sense in the world when units are divisions. But it is very hard to justify convincingly, with units smaller than that, more so when an ancient engine like TOAW solved "high density troop concentrations" in a very elegant and functional way. It is funny though, that in early versions of WITE the AI waved through the stacking limitation quite often to the dismay and chagrin of people playing against the computer...
I am not sure if will get into WitW right away, but here's my list of stuff that quite never worked in WitE and WitW seems to be setting straight:
- Road network abstraction - In WitE roads were abstracted away, and in such away that the Soviet road network was rated in equal terms as the Polish or the German. In WitW there's at least country-based modifiers that address the difference between a road network relying on all-weather roads and one that doesn't.
- "HQ Buildup mechanics" - This was totally broken in WitE up to the soon to be released 1.08 patch. It was meant to model the capacity - at the operational level - of prioritizing resupply and refitting of forces earmarked for major offensives. Unfortunately, it rather was a massive hole in the supply system that allowed to keep units deep in enemy territory supplied at a level that defied reason. It seems that the implementation of the mechanic basically teleported supply over hundreds or thousands of kilometers, walking over the modeled limitations in lift capacity - both rail and "truck" based. In WitW this is going to be modeled by a player controlled system based on setting up depots, so units nearby these depots have higher chances of getting fully resupplied, introducing the necessity to actually "plan" your offensives carefully.
- Killer TOE upgrades and refitting mechanics - WitE features a very detailed TOE system that does give a lot character to units. Unfortunately, there lots of bugs in the upgrade mechanics - which is understandable, given the massive number of 'elements' contemplated - and weapons sometime "upgraded" downwards. Also important is that the logistical and combat echelon of units were modeled explicitly, and both had equal priority when receiving replacements. For nations which are hard pressed to cover 'gaps' - as Germany from 1943 onwards - the lack of control - or intelligence by the AI controlling this - contributed to a great degree to the Wehrmacht disintegrating at a faster way than historical.
- Irrelevance of the Air game - to be honest, the air war system in WitE was totally broken (Soviets organizing large scale air offensives involving hundreds of planes). This made attacking with Axis panzer forces all but suicidal from 1943 onwards. This improved significantly with constant patching, but I always found a mystery why sometimes aircraft flew on support of ground ops and when it didn't. Interdiction never felt right and had no effect on the supply system.
- Excessive abstraction of the "other" front - the shifting requirements of the OKW were modeled as a system of inflexible reinforcements and withdrawals. For instance, it could well happen that key panzer formations "disappeared" from the order of battle without player intervention in the middle of a major operation. This is kind of historical, but since the schedule of operations isn't - the players' dictate that - these fixed schedules could well spoil a very successful offensive. I doubt that if the Kursk offensive would actually managed to break into the Soviet operational depths, Hitler would have been so retarded as to withdraw those units in the middle of a success with major strategic implications. Now the player has the chance to control the trade-off between the necessities of both active fronts.
- Meaningless Campaign Victory Conditions - For reasons I can't really understand (according to 2by3, limitations in the AI) the scenarios featured victory conditions more flexible than those of the campaign. For instance, taking into account casualties rather than just physically occupying certain locations on the map. The campaign VC's were such that an Axis player more successful than his historical counterparts would be damned to an ignominous defeat if the Soviet player could turn the tables as the playing field got rigged by the - hardcoded - increasingly favourable strategic elements. Much worse, it didn't reward the Soviet player trying to actually defend his territory - the standard way of playing the 1941 GC campaign for the Soviets was to minimize losses due to encirclement, abandoning huge tracts of the Soviet Union for the Axis to conquer, until the Axis was stopped by the logistic limitations (the build up mechanic above couldn't eventually be used, but that requiring the motorized spearheads to be already operating hundreds of kilometers away from the railheads). This resulted in games being right at the "macro" level - that is, frontlines resembling somewhat historical lines by September 1941, but a complete dog and pony show at the micro level (the Red Army abandoning Kiev, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov or Smolensk without virtually trying to defend those key cities). In WITW there's a very satisfying number of "soft" victory conditions that should mould player's behavior into more "plausible" behavior.
- A more detailed (and logical) weather system - The weather in WitE was very binary, huge swathes of land were rendered "inoperable" - or "lethal" in the case of the Blizzard during the First Winter - for extended periods of time with no variability.
- "The Winner Takes it All" and the "Middle Earth" vibe in Ground Combat - Ground combat in WitE was resolved in two stages. In the first one, elements composing attacking and defending units fire at each other. After all the "firing" is resolved, then combat strength factors are derived for attacker and defender. If the attacker/defender "final" odds ratio goes above 2:1, the defender retreats, incurring possibly in much more losses than during the "firing phase". This sounds quite good, but 1) practical limitations of frontage and density were taken half-heartedly taken into account, so if you attack with say, 9 divisions a given hex it is basically the case that the elements of the 9 divisions fire "simultaneously" at the defender's and 2) if the attack fails, the attacker incurs in similar casualty rates as it retreats. It beggars belief that 9 divisions (or 27 divisions, with the Soviets ability to stack up to 9 division equivalents per hex) can effectively apply their firepower over such a limited area. And in the latter, it also was very questionable that an infantry division was as effective as a panzer division in pursuit, or that a panzer division retreating from a failed attack incurred in massive losses due to a pursuing Soviet Rifle division. Most aggravating was that this "Retreat Casualties" depended - alone - on the level of Experience of the units, in such a way that a difference in 5 points experience could result in a 50% variability in casualty rates, and that above certain Experience levels, retreat casualties were close to nil. I am not sure to what degree Gary has addressed the aberrations on this aspect of the engine.
I played WitE pretty much 8 or 10 hours a week all over 2011... maybe I played it too much, but I know the thing as the lines in the palms of my hands. I have great hopes for WitW, as it seems that most of the feedback generated by the community has been considered and actioned upon. My only concern is about how the Italian front is going to play out.
Fantastic post BG!
Clearly they are limiting for another reason if my argument re number of troops in a hex doesn't hold water - which it doesn't if the limit is there for Regiments as well as Divisions (and Corps can have the same number as Divisions)
So yeah - the limit seems to be something else...and I thought I was being clever :(
As with WITP, I play WITE where its strongest...scenarios, not campaigns.
In scenarios, I find the complexity in WITP/WITE a plus. In the campaigns, the complexity just seems to make the system collapse under its own weight. There are just too many variables. They fix one thing and another thing goes to pot. Scenarios seem to reduce that issue somewhat.
Unfortunately, the game seems to be driven by rivet counters looking for the holy grail of replaying entire the war in Russia at the squad level.
I find it disappointing (although not too surprising) that WITW has done nothing, apparently, to improve on WITE's horrifically bad UI. I understand a game of this complexity has a ton of information to keep track of and present, but WITE did next to nothing to make key information easily accessible or appealing to the eye. WitP:AE's UI, while no great shakes, was still miles beyond what WITE gave you -- and now WITW following suit.
I agree about WitE and you could probably put WitP:AE in there too...walls of text to relay information which basically just gets lost as noise.
I have to be honest - given how little I played WitE and given the price tag, it's unlikely Matrix will get my money for this one...unlikely...never say never :P
It's stuff like this that makes WITE unplayable to me -- I know 'visuals' are not meant to be a premium feature of these types of games, but FFS... couldn't they do something to make this a little more engaging?
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmatrixgames.com%2Ffiles%2Fgames%2F507%2F20130904030045.jpg&hash=be386effd97d9ad31f1fa832ae64f7648ed187ff)
Quote from: RyanE on October 20, 2014, 09:09:28 AM
As with WITP, I play WITE where its strongest...scenarios, not campaigns.
In scenarios, I find the complexity in WITP/WITE a plus. In the campaigns, the complexity just seems to make the system collapse under its own weight. There are just too many variables. They fix one thing and another thing goes to pot. Scenarios seem to reduce that issue somewhat.
Unfortunately, the game seems to be driven by rivet counters looking for the holy grail of replaying entire the war in Russia at the squad level.
I'd start counting rivets at the Army level for the Russians and the Corps level for the Germans. Given my riveting needs, I just can't face the whole campaign in Russia these days. There are nice operational games out there (the Roads series of GMT boardgames for example) and they tend to paint a very different war from what you usually get in East Front games. For the Western Front, the rivet-counting has always been a good possibility and there are plenty of boardgames and the Operational games like Battles from the Bulge that do very well.
Anyway, back to my rivets.
Quote from: sandman2575 on October 20, 2014, 12:49:23 PM
I find it disappointing (although not too surprising) that WITW has done nothing, apparently, to improve on WITE's horrifically bad UI. I understand a game of this complexity has a ton of information to keep track of and present, but WITE did next to nothing to make key information easily accessible or appealing to the eye. WitP:AE's UI, while no great shakes, was still miles beyond what WITE gave you -- and now WITW following suit.
This is a very valid concern about the series. When I was playing head-to-head (and keeping AAR's etc.) it was really, really hard to make sense and navigate the vast amount of data describing turn resolution. I eventually resorted to make my own spreadsheets and extract that data
manually so I could then
analyze it, transforming it into
information. This allowed me to answer myself questions like "Am I setting refitting priorities right so the units I need to receive enough replacements and materiel", "Are my troops receiving enough supply", "Are my tactics working", etc.
GG's games basically provide you with a "data dump", no more no less. It's not something I like much, and requires one to be a bit of a masochist. Of that, I am guilty as charged ;D
I eventually gave up on the GC - I play it hotseat and I have great fun.
Quote from: RyanE
Unfortunately, the game seems to be driven by rivet counters looking for the holy grail of replaying entire the war in Russia at the squad level.
More than rivet counters, the thing is the allure of the Grand Campaign, either playing with the Soviet Union and the Axis. There's a huge proportion of players who sought to be "smarter" than either side historically was - it's very much the same kind of reason that drives people playing with Japan in WITP even if the odds are outrageously uneven - the hope of changing history in some major or minor way.
A great deal of the discussions - with varying degrees of civility - on the WITE forums didn't really revolve on whether the game got right or not German tanks' optics (that's a Combat Mission classic), but rather, whether the game mechanics enabled the Axis to achieve victory (until campaigns with "Sudden Death" victory conditions appeared, the short answer was "no, no way"), or for the Soviet player to ameliorate the almost unspeakable material and human disaster than the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union was (other than by having the Red Army running for the Urals, and also the short answer was "no").
Another thing to appreciate in WitW is that 2by3 have procured that the campaigns there go less "on rails", but still providing meaningful and plausible constraints, making "Wolfenstein: The New Order" kind of scenarios very unlikely.
I'm going to buy this game and WitE someday and then find the time to learn how to play them.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 20, 2014, 07:28:04 AM
Clearly they are limiting for another reason if my argument re number of troops in a hex doesn't hold water - which it doesn't if the limit is there for Regiments as well as Divisions (and Corps can have the same number as Divisions)
So yeah - the limit seems to be something else...and I thought I was being clever :(
You had a point JD: the stacking limitation wasn't very well explained, and under closer scrutiny, was somewhat inconsistent. I do remember very well the discussions regarding that, which raged for a few months, especially when it became apparent that the AI could do stuff the player's couldn't. That was one of the several tricks the AI had in its top hat, that became apparent over months, as people got to see more and more of the game.
Let's say that GG's games attract a level of attention - and yes, sometimes definitely anal attitudes by players - that very few war games out there receive. The community had a massive influence in the way the game engine evolved over the years until 2by3 switched full time to develop WitW, and also, indirectly, had a lot to do with some of the major features in WitW. You rarely see such a vibrant and generally speaking, civilized and constructive, community around a war game. WITP is another example of an outstanding community.
I do remember that I gave up on DC: Case Blue when I discovered that elite German formations - like GrossDeutschland - were rated as having the same training/experience as your average Soviet Rifle Division. I modded them, did some tests and approached the community there telling them 'hey guys, I found this digging into the game data, what do you reckon', and I was aghast to discover that nobody actually cared. That's not "rivet counting" is more like having tanks with square wheels, or planes modeled as bricks with wings.
Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on October 20, 2014, 08:51:00 PM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 20, 2014, 07:28:04 AM
Clearly they are limiting for another reason if my argument re number of troops in a hex doesn't hold water - which it doesn't if the limit is there for Regiments as well as Divisions (and Corps can have the same number as Divisions)
So yeah - the limit seems to be something else...and I thought I was being clever :(
You had a point JD: the stacking limitation wasn't very well explained, and under closer scrutiny, was somewhat inconsistent. I do remember very well the discussions regarding that, which raged for a few months, especially when it became apparent that the AI could do stuff the player's couldn't. That was one of the several tricks the AI had in its top hat, that became apparent over months, as people got to see more and more of the game.
I could never get a good explanation of stacking either. In the end, I figured it was some sort of playability issue....a UI issue...a system capacity issue..or maybe it is just something as simple as they could never get the AI to stack correctly, so they put an artificial limit on it. Maybe a combination of all those things as well as others.
But I hope they will implement something like TOAW's stacking limitations in the new game.
Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on October 20, 2014, 08:36:27 PM
GG's games basically provide you with a "data dump", no more no less. It's not something I like much, and requires one to be a bit of a masochist. Of that, I am guilty as charged ;D
To me, this is a fundamental failure in game design. It made WITP very difficult for me to play much beyond the initial months of the pacific war (in the GC) -- I found it simply impossible without the help of '3rd party' applications like WITP-Tracker, or good ol' pencil and paper.
I've really come to believe that no game should force you to resort to pen and paper -- it's a red-flag that the UI is missing some very basic and necessary functionality. I find the GG "War in the X" games particularly bad when it comes to not building these basic elements into the UI. It diminishes the enjoyment factor a lot. They become a chore to play.
Quote from: sandman2575 on October 21, 2014, 11:05:27 AM
Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on October 20, 2014, 08:36:27 PM
GG's games basically provide you with a "data dump", no more no less. It's not something I like much, and requires one to be a bit of a masochist. Of that, I am guilty as charged ;D
To me, this is a fundamental failure in game design. It made WITP very difficult for me to play much beyond the initial months of the pacific war (in the GC) -- I found it simply impossible without the help of '3rd party' applications like WITP-Tracker, or good ol' pencil and paper.
I've really come to believe that no game should force you to resort to pen and paper -- it's a red-flag that the UI is missing some very basic and necessary functionality. I find the GG "War in the X" games particularly bad when it comes to not building these basic elements into the UI. It diminishes the enjoyment factor a lot. They become a chore to play.
Indeed, this aspect isn't a priority of 2by3. I remarked my concerns regarding the UI on the public forums back in the day.
But it doesn't "break" the game for me. Yet certainly, if somebody comes up with a game with the same scope and depth, and on top of that, a UI with a clean design that actually shows you information rather than data, and customize data views so I can zero on the stuff I am actually interested in, it would probably be very hard for me to go back to WitW/WitE.
During WW2, the generals do not have spreadsheets, fancy charts and pivot tables.
They do not have stats of their units in the form that we see in games.
They "play the game" with imperfect information and resorted to pen and paper tracking.
This is the problem with games that present too much detail to the player.
They tend to want to look at these little things that otherwise can actually be ignored.
But of course the counter argument is that the little things will make you win the game more than basic knowledge on conducting warfare.
Having a grasp of these details will give you an edge against your opponent.
This detail infatuation leads to gaming the system.
Quote from: jomni on October 21, 2014, 07:03:34 PM
During WW2, the generals do not have spreadsheets, fancy charts and pivot tables.
They do not have stats of their units in the form that we see in games.
They "play the game" with imperfect information and resorted to pen and paper tracking.
This is the problem with games that present too much detail to the player.
They tend to want to look at these little things that otherwise can actually be ignored.
But of course the counter argument is that the little things will make you win the game more than basic knowledge on conducting warfare.
Having a grasp of these details will give you an edge against your opponent.
This detail infatuation leads to gaming the system.
During WW2 generals had staffs, specializing in dealing with the minutiae and presenting comprehensive reports on readiness and capabilities, in a "hierarchical" fashion. Yes, Rommel didn't bother much about spreadsheets, but did care about the report his IA officer would make on the basis of the "spreadsheets" - the
gliederungen - the I-A officer of every major combat unit in the Afrika Korps kept updated on a regular basis.
I don't think that going the extra mile to make sense out of the data spewed by WitE was "gaming" the system. Such an statement is a bit like that a hypothetical flight sim player, who doesn't bother with complex engine management and leaves it to the AI, makes when complaining that MP play is "unbalanced" because, players who bother about it have an "edge", since they "exploit" the simulation. One thing is to take advantage of bugs, say that certain mixtures made an aircraft relying on propellers for propulsion to reach Mach 2, and another thing taking advantage of skills one develops while interacting with the game.
In WitE I indeed found I had a bit of an edge by deriving my own heuristics to assess the chances of a stack being supported by nearby stacks in reserve. Especially in a IGO UGO system, with massive week-long turns where units had really long legs, getting the most out of typically limited mechanisms to react during the phasing player turn is critical, and it is as "gamey" as "abstract" is the way the game approximates reality, where stuff happens simultaneously all the time. Another edge was to be aware of when combat units are actually at their prime fighting ability - you have the Combat Factors displayed on the counters but 1) there's a ton of counters, 2) the map is big and 3) those combat factors are approximations or "forecasts" of actual capability, which sometimes are wide off the mark. This "fighting ability" is a - in a game like WitE - a multi-dimensional affair, which doesn't quite fit the notion of "counter" borrowed from board games.
Besides - we're not in WWII :P
Seriously though - a UI will help or hinder...and it should help. This is 2014...not the start of the computing age. Sometimes you need to "think out the box". As much as I hate "marketing" BS like that - it does stand the test here.
For example - I should be able to look at that screen and know what each section is telling me. But I don't. I have no clue what anything on that screenie is telling me. And, further, if I can't look at the screenie and immediately know what it's referring to, I should be able to hover over the item and get context sensitive help. This help should give me an idea of what the figures are...not necessarily explain in detail. On top of that, another plus would be to reference the section in the manual that refers to that part.
I'll put a pound to every penny that he's not going to do any of that.
It's not the minutiae that's being displayed that's the problem. It's the lack of reference and seeming prevention of understanding the data presented to the user that's the problem.
Programmers are inherently bad at displaying meaningful info to users (games or business software) because they know how the software works - so it isn't apparent to them that they have to make that information available to the user and not only do they need to make it available, but it has to be written in a way where you're audience will get it.
My god - I've seen games out there where they have tool tips but when you hover over an item, it tells you EXACTLY what you are hovering over tells you.
It's either laziness or a lack of understanding of people not getting what your on about even though you do and, more, you believe it makes total sense.
Either way - it's a bad show in the computing age that in 2014 users are left looking blankly at a screen, fumbling through manuals and going online for help for sometimes the most basic of things.
Present your game in a fashion that engages rather than pushes away. Explain things is detail within the game and where you can't, refer to the part in the manual with more information. Do that and you'll open up your audience. Do it not, and you'll keep your core user base.
Rant over (I HATE bad interfaces). :knuppel2:
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 22, 2014, 01:04:31 AM
Present your game in a fashion that engages rather than pushes away. Explain things is detail within the game and where you can't, refer to the part in the manual with more information. Do that and you'll open up your audience. Do it not, and you'll keep your core user base.
Rant over (I HATE bad interfaces). :knuppel2:
Not a rant. I reckon that if one has to choose to allocate developing time, the above has a significant priority over other additional features beyond the core of the game one wants to make.
The thing is that UI - or graphics - development can be very, very, very unfun, JD. Capn Darwin was complaining recently and loudly about Windows being a pain in the arse with their thing of "if you don't do fonts in a way that basically only works for Windows 8 guaranteed, expect that font scaling is going to break your game, and badly". That's not fun. The messages of the users protesting loudly about your game looking crap on their crazy settings (settings they're fully entitled to have) is not fun. Redesigning the layout of a carefully crafted UI for higher resolutions or from 4:3 to 16:9 aspect is not fun. Figuring out why the ancient DirectDraw code you used now looks shit, or crashes at random in newer cards, is not fun.
Most war game devs out there are into the business mainly because of the fun, not the money. And when I say "the fun" I mean "the fun they have crafting the game".
Incidentally, it a bad UI "laziness" in the case of monster Gary Grigsby games? How many people does he have for working on things like that, compared to how large the game is?
A bad UI is certainly still a problem; I just want to know how justified the ethical charge of laziness is. :-\
Quote from: JasonPratt on October 22, 2014, 07:24:53 AM
Incidentally, it a bad UI "laziness" in the case of monster Gary Grigsby games? How many people does he have for working on things like that, compared to how large the game is?
A bad UI is certainly still a problem; I just want to know how justified the ethical charge of laziness is. :-\
Mate fight with yourself - I can't be arsed. "ethical charge" Geez. ::)
Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on October 22, 2014, 06:59:04 AM
The thing is that UI - or graphics - development can be very, very, very unfun, JD. Capn Darwin was complaining recently and loudly about Windows being a pain in the arse with their thing of "if you don't do fonts in a way that basically only works for Windows 8 guaranteed, expect that font scaling is going to break your game, and badly". That's not fun. The messages of the users protesting loudly about your game looking crap on their crazy settings (settings they're fully entitled to have) is not fun. Redesigning the layout of a carefully crafted UI for higher resolutions or from 4:3 to 16:9 aspect is not fun. Figuring out why the ancient DirectDraw code you used now looks shit, or crashes at random in newer cards, is not fun.
Most war game devs out there are into the business mainly because of the fun, not the money. And when I say "the fun" I mean "the fun they have crafting the game".
I'm sure it is a drag for the programmers, but a well-functioning UI has got to be a major priority for any game developer. It's the very means by which the player interacts with the game!
I can't for the life of me fathom why so much effort would be put into designing the intricacies of (for ex.) combat mechanics and outcomes in WITE *without* a comparable effort to make sure this essential information is conveyed in a streamlined, visually engaging way to the player. Go ahead, anyone, load up WITE and initiate a combat, and soak in the 'experience.' Is there anyone who thinks WITE's presentation of combat is
clear, much less
engaging? Half the time information is cut-off in a 'display box' that is obviously way too small to present the data. It's simply awful. I can't put it any more plainly than that.
2by3 should take a page out of AGEOD's play-book, and see how they have, over time, improved their interface. In recent games like Civil War II, they've done a lot to improve things like the battle-outcome screen, which used to be pretty hard to decipher in games like Napoleon's Campaigns. It's not perfect now, but it's much better: a cleaner, clearer presentation of what happened in the battle and why it resolved the way it did. Again, it's not perfect, but it's an improvement.
I realize 2by3's resources are very limited and that none of this is 'easy' for them to do. But a game has got to be as fun for the end-user to play as it is for the devs/programmers to design, and by not putting much thought or effort into the UI, they're falling well short of that standard.
Another point of contrast by a game from a very small developer: Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue. Again, it's UI is far from perfect. But it is a much better, more satisfying experience for the player than WITE. I've poured many happy hours into Case Blue. I initially poured hours into WITE when it came out, and then came to the conclusion that I'd rather enjoy playing a game than constantly fighting against its horrific UI.
What is wrong with WITE UI? As far as I can remember it is pretty streamlined and it is just a simple matter of counter pushing (thousands of counters a turn).
It doesn't get more spread-sheety than the EU series and Paradox clearly understood the criticisms that are justly being raised here. Witness the nigh night-and-day improvement, at least by my lights, in the tooltips between EUII and EUIV. It gives one hope for HOIIV!
As I say, there's a part of my head that will always think I should like games like WiTE, but I guarantee I've played DC more...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: jomni on October 22, 2014, 06:46:38 PM
What is wrong with WITE UI? As far as I can remember it is pretty streamlined and it is just a simple matter of counter pushing (thousands of counters a turn).
Without looking at the manual, can you tell me what everything (anything?) on the screenie above means? What relevance it has and why, as a player, I want to know about it?
Just as some quick, basic feedback to that question - you should be able to look at the screen and at least have an understanding of what it's telling you. From there, you should be able to see tooltips that explain the items in slightly more detail - giving you a
basic understanding of the item being viewed. And finally, for more information, it should refer you to the section of the manual that will explain the feature
in detailIt could also be tarted up to make it look less sterile...that's the "engaging" aspect Sandman mentioned. But I would put that as a secondary consideration to actually making the screen mean something to the user without having to run to the manual.
As someone suffering from memory issues manuals are pretty freakin useless to me except when actually going to look up at the moment of needing to know. So these are my own personal views on interface...I need the games to tell me what I'm seeing and why it's important and that information, presented on screen, should be enough for me to play the game with a degree of competence. If I want to master said game, links to the sections in the manual would greatly benefit me.
Note that this isn't dumbing down. It's helping the user to get into the game - a game they've spent thousands of hours on. Why would you NOT want your user base to enjoy that experience? As sandman said - why would you want to model all those numbers in game and not want to present them in a fashion that the user will understand and find engaging.
And this is by no means solely linked to GG games.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on October 22, 2014, 08:00:33 AM
Quote from: JasonPratt on October 22, 2014, 07:24:53 AM
Incidentally, it a bad UI "laziness" in the case of monster Gary Grigsby games? How many people does he have for working on things like that, compared to how large the game is?
A bad UI is certainly still a problem; I just want to know how justified the ethical charge of laziness is. :-\
Mate fight with yourself - I can't be arsed. "ethical charge" Geez. ::)
Wasn't trying to start a fight; it's a serious question. I was nodding in agreement until I realized I might be blaming someone working nearly by themselves on this and some other superlarge games (with some degree of overlap on development and support between them) with
laziness. I didn't want to be unfair to GG; but if he had a team of several people working on the UI, or the money to feasibly hire them and didn't, and we ended up with, well, what we have, then maybe laziness was the problem.
Blaming someone for laziness when there's actual evidence of laziness is fine -- I'm a lazy person in several regards myself. >:D Which often leads to problems! But designing, programming, expanding, and supporting (to at least some extent) ginormous games like this doesn't
seem on the face of it like the actions of a lazy person (or small team thereof).
Since I'm too lazy :)) to look up the answer myself, despite having a pdf of the WITE instructions less than twenty seconds away on this very computer (where I could check the dev team in the manual credits), I thought I'd ask if you already knew.
Which laziness of mine caused a problem. :uglystupid2: O:-)
(Deciding to be slightly less lazy I went to my folder, and discovered I didn't have a pdf of the WITE instructions there after all. I feel reasonably confident they're in a folder of my Kindle, 30 feet away in the door-pocket of my car, butzzzzzzzz.... :P )
Quote from: jomni on October 22, 2014, 06:46:38 PM
What is wrong with WITE UI? As far as I can remember it is pretty streamlined and it is just a simple matter of counter pushing (thousands of counters a turn).
I don't mind pushing the counters. :) ;)
I don't see a problem at all with the UI either.
On another note it looks like they've made big improvements to using parachute units. Have to be happy with that. I'm counting the days I can buy this puppy. :)
Oh god! Another hardcover book from Matrix.
Looks like this will cost a bomb like World in Flames. More than $100? Hope it is optional.
I don't like printed manuals for these games because I only read them once.
Rules can drastically change based on user comments and may become outdated (just look at WITE).
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t31.0-8/10649096_823723610981858_4687525518847590507_o.jpg)
Quote from: jomni on November 07, 2014, 06:18:08 PM
Oh god! Another hardcover book from Matrix.
Looks like this will cost a bomb like World in Flames. More than $100? Hope it is optional.
Shipping + Taxes :knuppel2:
I put all my manuals on my ipad. Actually makes them more worthwhile as I can now look up information without having to alt tab between screens
Con
They like to throw in the hard cover crap to make pretend it's worth the 'premium' price! :crazy2:
I learned my lesson with world in flames...never again
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on November 07, 2014, 07:13:02 PM
I learned my lesson with world in flames...never again
I hear ya...
By the way have you ever managed to play a game of MWIF without crashes or bugs galore?
Article states it is optional
Quote from: Asid on November 07, 2014, 07:27:36 PM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on November 07, 2014, 07:13:02 PM
I learned my lesson with world in flames...never again
I hear ya...
By the way have you ever managed to play a game of MWIF without crashes or bugs galore?
Really never got far.....seems to be under constant state of updates with no clear end in sight......biggest waste of money I have ever made on any given game, at least for me.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on November 07, 2014, 07:39:33 PM
Really never got far.....seems to be under constant state of updates with no clear end in sight......biggest waste of money I have ever made on any given game, at least for me.
Not good :(
Quote from: Asid on November 07, 2014, 07:48:27 PM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on November 07, 2014, 07:39:33 PM
Really never got far.....seems to be under constant state of updates with no clear end in sight......biggest waste of money I have ever made on any given game, at least for me.
Not good :(
I finished the tutorial / Barbarossa scenario of WIF. :) But that doesn't really show all the features.
Quote from: jomni on November 07, 2014, 07:51:39 PM
I finished the tutorial / Barbarossa scenario of WIF. :) But that doesn't really show all the features.
You tried a netplay ever? if so how far you get?
You play solitaire?
Quote from: jomni on November 07, 2014, 07:50:34 PM
Quote from: challerain on November 07, 2014, 07:38:13 PM
Article states it is optional
Good
Until I see pricing, I'm not convinced it is optional, per se. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean you don't pay the same price as the boxed version for the download version.. see World in Flame and what they ended up doing there. I can't imagine getting this manual. It will be out of date so fast. Unlike WIF, which is based on a boardgame, so they really don't have to change the rules to balance it, just fix bugs. So the manual doesn't really go out of date so much.
Quote from: Asid on November 07, 2014, 08:10:25 PM
Quote from: jomni on November 07, 2014, 07:51:39 PM
I finished the tutorial / Barbarossa scenario of WIF. :) But that doesn't really show all the features.
You tried a netplay ever? if so how far you get?
You play solitaire?
Netplay still doesn't work. Almost a year since release and it still doesn't freakin work. Plus, they can't even start the AI programming until all the bugs are fixed and netplay is working. So, at this rate it'll get an AI about 2023.
From the Matrix forums: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3735281
Quote from: smittyohio on November 07, 2014, 08:12:01 PM
Quote from: jomni on November 07, 2014, 07:50:34 PM
Quote from: challerain on November 07, 2014, 07:38:13 PM
Article states it is optional
Good
Until I see pricing, I'm not convinced it is optional, per se. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean you don't pay the same price as the boxed version for the download version.. see World in Flame and what they ended up doing there. I can't imagine getting this manual. It will be out of date so fast. Unlike WIF, which is based on a boardgame, so they really don't have to change the rules to balance it, just fix bugs. So the manual doesn't really go out of date so much.
True...but at that point Matrix was trying to solve a specific problem (shipping to Europe) without pissing off people that already bought and paid for it.
Quote from: challerain on November 07, 2014, 08:20:06 PM
Quote from: smittyohio on November 07, 2014, 08:12:01 PM
Quote from: jomni on November 07, 2014, 07:50:34 PM
Quote from: challerain on November 07, 2014, 07:38:13 PM
Article states it is optional
Good
Until I see pricing, I'm not convinced it is optional, per se. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean you don't pay the same price as the boxed version for the download version.. see World in Flame and what they ended up doing there. I can't imagine getting this manual. It will be out of date so fast. Unlike WIF, which is based on a boardgame, so they really don't have to change the rules to balance it, just fix bugs. So the manual doesn't really go out of date so much.
True...but at that point Matrix was trying to solve a specific problem (shipping to Europe) without pissing off people that already bought and paid for it.
I'll keep my fingers crossed. I get that it's going to be a "premium" product, and while I don't play them enough to justify the pricetag, I do want them to keep making them. ;-) I just don't want to be gouged for the cost of a manual I do *not* want. I'm still pissed as anything about how badly WiF has turned out, but I do love the books....
Quote from: Asid on November 07, 2014, 08:10:25 PM
Quote from: jomni on November 07, 2014, 07:51:39 PM
I finished the tutorial / Barbarossa scenario of WIF. :) But that doesn't really show all the features.
You tried a netplay ever? if so how far you get?
You play solitaire?
I play with myself. I know net play is broken. All in all i also consider it a waste of money.
Quote from: jomni on November 07, 2014, 09:00:05 PM
I play with myself. I know net play is broken. All in all i also consider it a waste of money.
:-[
Quote from: smittyohio on November 07, 2014, 08:54:17 PM
I just don't want to be gouged for the cost of a manual I do *not* want.
Don't be hating on the manuals....they are lovely... >:D
AAR to hype things up. ;) And the haters come. ::)
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3739504
To be fair, I don't think you'll be able to simulate a Historical Battle of the Bulge in this scale. At most it can just give you the historical deployment but the front is larger and the player has the choice to do many other things all around. Results will surely be off.
Quote from: jomni on November 12, 2014, 05:06:31 PM
AAR to hype things up. ;) And the haters come. ::)
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3739504
To be fair, I don't think you'll be able to simulate a Historical Battle of the Bulge in this scale. At most it can just give you the historical deployment but the front is larger and the player has the choice to do many other things all around. Results will surely be off.
Speaking of haters, I know I'll hate myself for a bit after I buy it, try reading the manual, fall asleep, push some counters around, and put it off to the magical "when I have more time to learn it" time. ;-)
I will almost certainly be buying this so this is just an observation. I read the AAR and wasn't aware the game used week long turns. On this scale and with this much detail in the game I was expecting a 'War in the Pacific' day-long turn.
It's an operational-level game on a strategic scale. Wouldn't it be better to have operational-level turns, like War in the Pacific. Or better, the option to have interruption sub-phases during a turn? Would daily turns be unworkable or boring?
Quote from: Ian C on November 13, 2014, 04:48:25 AM
I will almost certainly be buying this so this is just an observation. I read the AAR and wasn't aware the game used week long turns. On this scale and with this much detail in the game I was expecting a 'War in the Pacific' day-long turn.
It's an operational-level game on a strategic scale. Wouldn't it be better to have operational-level turns, like War in the Pacific. Or better, the option to have interruption sub-phases during a turn? Would daily turns be unworkable or boring?
War in the East has week-long turns. Actually War in the Pacific is the one that is odd. It tries to be both tactical and operational at the same time.
Isn't it that the larger the scale, the less detailed you need to be?
I actually really like WITP in the smaller scenarios where the scale works very well. The Grand Campaign plays out almost in real time. Its pushing individual ships and sometimes planes around while also running a country's entire industrial production. I have always thought in the Grand Campaign, you were working with mis-matched scales.
Did you guys hear the part about this game combining with war in the east map to make a mega WWII game. Gary will have to program a friendly AI to assist you with that or it will be an unplayable nightmare. Think friendly AI like command ops to put certain sectors on auto pilot or a tac AI that handles the low level decisions. If they don't do this, no one will ever finish a game in a normal lifetime.
I hadn't heard that, but it would explain the apparently useless giant Eastern Front portions of the WITW map... ???
I actually just finished the entire 1943-45 campaign by PBEM. Game ended in late February when the Russians captured Berlin. But the Germans had enough VPs -- or the Western Allies had too few -- so Germany won a minor victory.
Michael
preview of the manual....
http://www.matrixgames.com/news/1566/War.in.the.West.Manual.preview
I'll be buying this regardless and as my posts will testify I support Matrix Games but the one aspect I don't enjoy of their customer service is the secrecy on pricing. I understand a guestimate has already been released but why can't they tell us a few days in advance what the price will be?
Needless to say it will be worth it for my gaming dollar but that end of customer service could be improved plus a discount for peeps who already bought a game in the series would be kind. IMO. :)
Quote from: BigBlueFleet on December 03, 2014, 09:06:57 AM
I'll be buying this regardless and as my posts will testify I support Matrix Games but the one aspect I don't enjoy of their customer service is the secrecy on pricing. I understand a guestimate has already been released but why can't they tell us a few days in advance what the price will be?
Needless to say it will be worth it for my gaming dollar but that end of customer service could be improved plus a discount for peeps who already bought a game in the series would be kind. IMO. :)
Some of their releases lately have had early adopter-type discounts, so maybe they'll do that here. I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure I'll get it also, though my backlog could probably fill up the next 10 years of my life.
Quote from: BigBlueFleet on December 03, 2014, 09:06:57 AM
I'll be buying this regardless and as my posts will testify I support Matrix Games but the one aspect I don't enjoy of their customer service is the secrecy on pricing. I understand a guestimate has already been released but why can't they tell us a few days in advance what the price will be?
Needless to say it will be worth it for my gaming dollar but that end of customer service could be improved plus a discount for peeps who already bought a game in the series would be kind. IMO. :)
Magic Eight Ball says regular price $79.99.
;)
Damn that's steep. The war didn't cost that much.
Quote from: Nefaro on December 03, 2014, 12:45:38 PM
Quote from: BigBlueFleet on December 03, 2014, 09:06:57 AM
I'll be buying this regardless and as my posts will testify I support Matrix Games but the one aspect I don't enjoy of their customer service is the secrecy on pricing. I understand a guestimate has already been released but why can't they tell us a few days in advance what the price will be?
Needless to say it will be worth it for my gaming dollar but that end of customer service could be improved plus a discount for peeps who already bought a game in the series would be kind. IMO. :)
Magic Eight Ball says regular price $79.99.
;)
In yer dreams - I'm going for $100.
WitE was £60.99 which in todays money is $96
I'm not getting it...I'm not getting it...I'm not getting it O:-)
Quote from: Sir Slash on December 03, 2014, 12:55:21 PM
Damn that's steep. The war didn't cost that much.
Britain is almost about to finally pay off it's WWI debt...war DOES cost that much - and more. :idiot2:
A country that pays it's debts? What is wrong with you Brits? Must be the Kidney Pie.
But it's a 'premium' game!
Fell for that once with WITE.. easy to resist now..
Quote from: Tuna on December 03, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Fell for that once with WITE.. easy to resist now..
Ditto.
Still, it wouldn't surprise me if WitW releases around the price-point Nefaro indicated -- below the $95-100-spot that WitE set us back, more around $75/80.
I'm taking a the "wait and see" approach to WitW that I should've taken with WitE. Plus, I won't buy anything until someone mods that god-awful map. I thought WitE's map was a little bland but overall, OK (in fact the only OK graphics aspect of the whole game). I can't believe how hideous WitW's map is. Jeez.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 03, 2014, 12:55:54 PM
I'm not getting it...I'm not getting it...I'm not getting it O:-)
Have you got it yet?? >:D
Quote from: Asid on December 03, 2014, 03:29:20 PM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 03, 2014, 12:55:54 PM
I'm not getting it...I'm not getting it...I'm not getting it O:-)
Have you got it yet?? >:D
Give him a couple hours.
It's just a matter of time.
>:D
well....I did resist on Civilisation Beyond Earth.
I also (mostly) didn't buy anything in the sale...so I think my resolve is getting better.
Though I did notice a new Rugby Management game on Steam (NOT the Cynide one)...but I can't find reviews...and it's literally just popped on there, so I am very dubious about it's release. :-\
Quote from: Asid on December 03, 2014, 03:29:20 PM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 03, 2014, 12:55:54 PM
I'm not getting it...I'm not getting it...I'm not getting it O:-)
Have you got it yet?? >:D
Silly - it's not released until tomorrow
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 03, 2014, 03:52:20 PM
well....I did resist on Civilisation Beyond Earth.
I also (mostly) didn't buy anything in the sale...so I think my resolve is getting better.
Though I did notice a new Rugby Management game on Steam (NOT the Cynide one)...but I can't find reviews...and it's literally just popped on there, so I am very dubious about it's release. :-\
Did you succeed in resisting WiF? I know you were in the beginning..
hmmm....
I bought it second hand :-[
I took to wondering about the manual.
IIRC the printed manual for WitE was NOT the manual, but a cut down version - most likely with specific sections...but it wasn't the full manual. That, I believe, might be a European restriction on the size of boxes and therefore you can't get the full manual in the box.
I wonder if it's the same for WitW? Full printed bound manual? Or cut down version?
Quote from: sandman2575 on December 03, 2014, 02:11:41 PM
Quote from: Tuna on December 03, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Fell for that once with WITE.. easy to resist now..
Ditto.
Still, it wouldn't surprise me if WitW releases around the price-point Nefaro indicated -- below the $95-100-spot that WitE set us back, more around $75/80.
I'm taking a the "wait and see" approach to WitW that I should've taken with WitE. Plus, I won't buy anything until someone mods that god-awful map. I thought WitE's map was a little bland but overall, OK (in fact the only OK graphics aspect of the whole game). I can't believe how hideous WitW's map is. Jeez.
Have you seen the manual for it? :o
It's the whole thing! We could not have fit the full manual into the normal box, which is part of the reason why we went with the larger hardbound manual format, so that we could print the full manual and it would also be much nicer and easier to read.
It does look nice - and I do like printed manuals - but what will the price be Erik? Any chance you can give us a heads up? :-*
It's out bhoys....and coming in at a cool...
£54.99+tax for the DD version ($87)
and....
£64.99+tax for the physical version ($103) PLUS shipping
Include 20% VAT on those bad boys and it's
£65.99 ($104)
and £77.99 ($123) - PLUS shipping
Who's going to be the first to cave (not me at that price) :'(
Hmmmmm..... $97 CAD for download....... Schwerpunkt's WWII Europe is ~ $56 CAD.....
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 04, 2014, 11:28:15 AM
It's out bhoys....and coming in at a cool...
£54.99+tax for the DD version ($87)
and....
£64.99+tax for the physical version ($103) PLUS shipping
Include 20% VAT on those bad boys and it's
£65.99 ($104)
and £77.99 ($123) - PLUS shipping
Who's going to be the first to cave (not me at that price) :'(
Well I went through the buying phase to check final price and shipping is only £1.97 (bloody good given the book involved) and no VAT seemed to be charged ???
So cost of the physical copy is only £66.96 O0
Has Matrix finally managed to get a store that shows the price inclusive of local tax rates? Why no VAT further on?
mmmmm........................................................ :-\
That's the number one reason why I beta tested, so I could check out the game and not pay a hundred bucks. No way is this thing worth that much to me, but if your into pushing counters around, it might be worth it.
The air ware is greatly inproved, lots of man hours went into the game, so I guess that's why they have the hefty price.
As far as I remember for some reason Matrix never has charged VAT on physical versions, though the postage used to be c£10 plus the additional c£10 for the physical version made it still a pretty expensive option.
Now postage included we only have to pay c£12 additional for the physical version it makes the physical version, particularly on the more expensive (i.e. c£60+ where we would be paying the same addition in VAT) Matrix releases the best option and if you happen to be buying in the Euro zone it can actually be the cheaper version!
its 82.10 Euro digital download ???
i am tempted to just buy the printed manual alone, for studies :P ...is that possible ?
(and it should ship from a depot in Europe. probably Slitherine HQ in GB)
LOL, thanks a lot. I got my WitE for 5€...bought the German version a couple months ago, downloaded the latest patch for the English version - et voila! Will wait again ;)
Hi everyone,
For those who are interested... Gary's latest game, War in the West, has just released and we have a lot of information to answer your questions about it.
First, we had a livestream yesterday showing the game being played. We also have a new Trailer and we've uploaded the tutorial videos. Here are some links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72hLRWGO9Hw&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72hLRWGO9Hw&feature=youtu.be)
http://www.twitch.tv/slitherinegroup/c/5611773 (http://www.twitch.tv/slitherinegroup/c/5611773)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLk5K-IfEIqTvoRt4w91xz5rnAUOXFVlba (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLk5K-IfEIqTvoRt4w91xz5rnAUOXFVlba)
Next week we're also having an "Ask me Anything" on Reddit with Joel and Gary:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3751635 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3751635)
Next, we have several great After Action Reports:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3747844 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3747844)
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3724100 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3724100)
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3739504 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3739504)
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3744968 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3744968)
Here's an interview with Gary and Joel
http://www.wargamer.com/article/3738/interview-gary-grigsbys-war-in-the-west (http://www.wargamer.com/article/3738/interview-gary-grigsbys-war-in-the-west)
Finally, here are some threads with general information about the new engine and what it can do, including a preview of the manual and the Player's Handbook:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3752183 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3752183)
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3748231 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3748231)
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3735067 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3735067)
-----
What's New Part 1: Air Bases
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3716106 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3716106)
What's New Part 2: The Air Phase
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3716618 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3716618)
What's New Part 3: Air Directives:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3717186 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3717186)
What's New Part 4: Overview of Logistics
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3717829 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3717829)
What's New Part 5: Strategic Movement
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3721380 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3721380)
What's New Part 6: Airborne Assault
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3721880 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3721880)
What's New Part 7: Amphibious Ops
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3723079 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3723079)
What's New Part 8: Weather
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3730452 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3730452)
What's New Part 9: Garrisons and Partisans
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3731315 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3731315)
What's New Part 10: The East Front Box
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3731787 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3731787)
-----
Thank you in advance for taking a look - if you enjoyed War in the East, this should knock your socks off. :-)
Regards,
- Erik
I don't suppose theres a discount of any sort for those of us who stumped up for the War in the East original?
Quote from: spelk on December 04, 2014, 03:17:52 PM
I don't suppose theres a discount of any sort for those of us who stumped up for the War in the East original?
Not sure I see a reason why there would be a discount ? Different game - different front.
Anyhow - stumped up ... my god this is a complex game. Just the air war alone will require huge study.
Still - at the moment if feels like I have my moneys worth
And here is the press release - just received...
Matrix Press Announcement
For Immediate Release
Touring Europe with an Army!
The new definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now!
Arlington, VT, December 04, 2014
"The enemy must be annihilated before he reaches our main battlefield...We must stop him in the water...destroying all his equipment while it is still afloat." (Erwin Rommel – German Field Marshal)
4 years after the release of War in the East, Gary Grigsby is moving the action to the Western Front with his new grand operational/strategy masterpiece: War in the West! In this monster wargame, players will take command of both Allied and Axis forces and relive the biggest operations in Italy, France, The Netherlands, and the other main battlefields that took the Allies to the gates of Berlin.
Renowned developer 2by3 Games has used all its talent and experience to create a deep historical simulation with an incredible level of realism. Order of Battle, logistics, air war, weather, terrain features... all of the ingredients that made this front unique are included in this wargame, and players can dig into all the details to make their plans come together. To help you get up to speed, five video tutorials and a Player's Handbook along with introductory scenarios complement the full game manual and grand campaigns. Defeating the German army or defending the Atlantic Wall is a very challenging task, and both players and AI have multiple assets and possibilities to rewrite history... forever!
"It has always been a pleasure and an honor to work together with Gary and Joel and the entire 2by3 Games team. They have surpassed themselves with War in the West, which gives wargamers what is by far the best rendition to date of the entire Western Front from 1943 on, with all the strategic decisions that entails for either side. This is a game that rich with history, deep in strategy, keeps both sides guessing and never plays the same way twice!", said Erik Rutins, Director of Product Development at Matrix Games.
The game features 3 main campaigns and 7 smaller scenarios for a comprehensive coverage of combat in Western Europe between July 1943 and mid 1945:
1943 Campaign - 109 turns
1944 Campaign (May Start) – 64 turns
1944 Campaign (D-Day Start) – 62 turns
Air Campaign – 4 turns
Operation Husky – 7 turns
Salerno to Rome 43-44 (starting with Operation Avalanche)– 42 turns/multiplayer only
Battleground Italy – 95 turns
Breakout and Pursuit (starting with Operation Cobra) – 11 turns
Westwall (starting with Operation Market Garden) – 12 turns
Bulge to the Rhine (starting with The Battle of the Bulge) –12 turns
Today we are very excited to announced that the game is finally available on the Matrix Games Online Store! Such a game deserved a special treatment in terms of packaging so connoisseurs of beautiful objects will be pleased to know that the physical edition of the game comes with an impressive hardbound color printed manual of more than 300 pages!
For holiday shoppers, please note that we expect the physical copies to start shipping out on December 16th.
Get more information on Gary Grigsby's War West from its launch trailer http://youtu.be/72hLRWGO9Hw and its official product page http://matrixgames.com/products/507/details/Gary.Grigsby's.War.in.the.West as well as the many after action reports in the official forum http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1434&p=1&tmode=1&smode=1 .
Matrix Games is part of the Slitherine Group
About the Slitherine Group
The Slitherine Group is the world's leading producer and publisher of digital wargames and strategy games. Under the Slitherine (www.slitherine.com), Matrix Games (www.matrixgames.com) and Ageod (www.ageod.com) brands it has published literally hundreds of games, with many award-winning titles in its portfolio and spanning all digital platforms, from home consoles to modern Smartphone's and Tablets. Slitherine is also involved with book publishing, board gaming and works with a wide array of key licensing partners, such as HISTORY®, MILITARY HISTORY®, Horrible Histories™, Showtime, BBC, Osprey, Scholastic, Buzz Aldrin Enterprises and many others to deliver the best blend of historical accuracy in an exciting and entertaining way. Together the Group companies form the world's largest organization specializing in this important and vibrant niche. The Slitherine Group's mission over the coming years is to lead the way in innovation and growth in an ever expanding segment of the entertainment industry.
Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 04, 2014, 04:06:51 PM
Not sure I see a reason why there would be a discount ? Different game - different front.
I suppose if its a totally different game, but if its more an extension of the original, perhaps it would warrant some sort of loyalty bonus, for paying out for quite an expensive title?
A number of followups in Matrix games series have had small discounts.
Too expensive. I'll wait for next year's holidays. :D
So has any of the regulars here fired this up? I played WiTE a bit so I get the concept. I am really interested in how well strategic bombing works as well as amphibious landings and airborne drops. Do they seem to work ok? I think that adds an element that is missing from a lot of games.
I haven't bought (yet).
It has to be said though, after watching the Twitch video, I'm kind of less likely to buy and I am totally aware that my experience is contrary to what the video did for most people.
Quote from: mikeck on December 04, 2014, 11:03:54 PM
So has any of the regulars here fired this up? I played WiTE a bit so I get the concept. I am really interested in how well strategic bombing works as well as amphibious landings and airborne drops. Do they seem to work ok? I think that adds an element that is missing from a lot of games.
Jeez - its going to take me a couple of weeks just to read enough to understand how they work.
This is a VERY complex game.
Quote from: mikeck on December 04, 2014, 11:03:54 PM
So has any of the regulars here fired this up? I played WiTE a bit so I get the concept. I am really interested in how well strategic bombing works as well as amphibious landings and airborne drops. Do they seem to work ok? I think that adds an element that is missing from a lot of games.
Actually the twitch video Erik listed shows the amphibious and para drop aspects of the game. It also dealt with the strategic air layer *though I don't really know to what level as I didn't watch it all)
I wonder how the game handles non-historical moves?
Delay the invasion? Early invasion? Land elsewhere aside from Normandy? Don't go to Aftica? No strategic bombing?
What more if you are the German player? Can the AI do sneaky stuff that you don't expect or will it just follow a historical timeline?
Quote from: spelk on December 04, 2014, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 04, 2014, 04:06:51 PM
Not sure I see a reason why there would be a discount ? Different game - different front.
I suppose if its a totally different game, but if its more an extension of the original, perhaps it would warrant some sort of loyalty bonus, for paying out for quite an expensive title?
But it isn't an extension. Yet. The original game is not included (yet).
Whenifever they get around to importing the WitE material into the new system, which the map already apparently exists for,
then I would expect a loyalty discount (and I should hope a steep one) for anyone who bought the original. Similarly, there was a loyalty discount for importing
Highway to the Reich and (half of)
Conquest of the Aegean into the new version of the engine, but I don't recall there being a loyalty discount for the whole new game about the Bulge.
Just picked up game with hard cover manual and going through player handbook now :)
A little steeper price tag than I thought it would be but waded into the deep end of the pool and plunged. :) :)
For $100, I would think they could have thrown a couple more years into the scope of the game. Starting with the invasion of Poland would be great, but at least have the battle for France in there...
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 05, 2014, 07:53:18 PM
For $100, I would think they could have thrown a couple more years into the scope of the game. Starting with the invasion of Poland would be great, but at least have the battle for France in there...
When does it start? Kanalkampf?
Quote from: Staggerwing on December 05, 2014, 10:07:27 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 05, 2014, 07:53:18 PM
For $100, I would think they could have thrown a couple more years into the scope of the game. Starting with the invasion of Poland would be great, but at least have the battle for France in there...
When does it start? Kanalkampf?
41 would have been a reasonable starting point, as well. Nope. Game doesn't start until 1943. operation Husky.
Luckily so far this game really doesn't interest me, saving me from another $100 purchase....even if this is proclaimed to be "easier" and more friendly than war in the east, its still a monster game that I would have no idea how to wrap my head around, especially pushing around 100's of counters. I wish I could get into it since it "sounds" good, but I know if I were to purchase it likely will get even less use than all the other games I purchase.
Now that Schwerpunkt released their new WWII game for 1/2 the cost of this game, been taking a look at that to see if it might be a little more my speed, but I fear the same with it. I'll keep an eye on both in case my mind gets changed, especially with xmas right around the corner:)
The money isn't really the thing for me...it's the obtuseness of it all.
I have WITE and WITP:AE...purchased on sale...but sometimes wonder if I didn't buy them both because they're the sorts of games grogs are supposed to own. Neither are bad games -- far from it -- although it's be REALLY nice if they could patch fullscreen into the former. Still, WITE was never able to displace the Tiller PzC games for me and I am having way too good a time punching at Vance in NW France to think I need a game of this cost. Given that, at current cost, it's three PzCs for one WITW, I am not motivated...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 06, 2014, 07:09:55 AM
Quote from: Staggerwing on December 05, 2014, 10:07:27 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 05, 2014, 07:53:18 PM
For $100, I would think they could have thrown a couple more years into the scope of the game. Starting with the invasion of Poland would be great, but at least have the battle for France in there...
When does it start? Kanalkampf?
41 would have been a reasonable starting point, as well. Nope. Game doesn't start until 1943. operation Husky.
I didn't pay much attention to the development of WitE...how likely is if that an expansion would add 1941-1942?
Quote from: mikeck on December 06, 2014, 09:04:50 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 06, 2014, 07:09:55 AM
Quote from: Staggerwing on December 05, 2014, 10:07:27 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 05, 2014, 07:53:18 PM
For $100, I would think they could have thrown a couple more years into the scope of the game. Starting with the invasion of Poland would be great, but at least have the battle for France in there...
When does it start? Kanalkampf?
41 would have been a reasonable starting point, as well. Nope. Game doesn't start until 1943. operation Husky.
I didn't pay much attention to the development of WitE...how likely is if that an expansion would add 1941-1942?
It would have to be a pretty significant expansion. There were one or two DLCs that were released for WitE, but I don't think it was anything that would be on the scale of including the Battle of Britain, or anything like that.
From a post by Joel Billings on Matrix site
Our next game will be War in the West 43-45 which will be the same scale as WitE and will include a more robust air game with the land campaigns and strategic bombing. After that we plan on War in the West 40 (which will include Norway, France, England and the Med, and add a new detailed naval system) and War in the West 41-42 which will focus on the Med. War in the West 43-45 will have campaigns that start in the summer of 43 and the summer of 44, as well as shorter scenarios. We have an alpha map for all of Europe (including the Soviet Union to east of the Urals), North Africa and the Middle East). We plan to use this map to eventually produce a WitE 2.0 which would fit in with the War in the West products and allow us to fill in a complete War in Europe. Of course, this will take many years.
Most of this information has been given out before in various forum posts, but I wanted to post this again to clear things up. I'm sure many of you have questions about the details, but I'd ask you hold those questions and let us focus on development. We'll give you more information in the future as we move along in development and you'll have plenty of time to ask questions.
And each of them at $100 a pop
One thing I always wondered, unless I have just missed it....how come we never hear directly from Gary Grigsby in the official forums or any articles/interviews to the best of my knowledge? If he is coding the game, I am sure he is busy, but to have zero time to interact with the audience at all, seems strange to me. Saw something mentioned in one of the official forum's thread indicating the testing group didn't even have discussions with him.
Is he really still coding the games himself or are people doing it on his behalf and just using his name for recognition? If he is still coding, did something happen in the past that keeps him away from people?
I'm guessing Gary's avoidance of forums and stuff is why Joel is the frontman. Gary is programming in his bunker basement when he's not cruising the Encinitas beach for babes. Don't worry 10 years from now he should be finished with the latest Steel Panthers.
He is still around. I got an email from him a couple of days ago on a reference but he does not like to chat. Joel Billings is the frontman of the operation and they have conference calls weekly. That is the way it has worked for years and what they are both good at.
Trey
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 06, 2014, 11:44:10 PM
One thing I always wondered, unless I have just missed it....how come we never hear directly from Gary Grigsby in the official forums or any articles/interviews to the best of my knowledge? If he is coding the game, I am sure he is busy, but to have zero time to interact with the audience at all, seems strange to me. Saw something mentioned in one of the official forum's thread indicating the testing group didn't even have discussions with him.
Is he really still coding the games himself or are people doing it on his behalf and just using his name for recognition? If he is still coding, did something happen in the past that keeps him away from people?
Thanks for the info....just seemed odd to me that you never hear from him, just wondered if he became a figure-head, but seems like he is still active. I did watch a gaming session yesterday where he was part of the chat group so that closes that question:)
I have to admit they seemed to have done a real nice job with helping make the game easier to understand by providing the tutorial videos and the twitch gaming session....it actually made sense to me and made it easier to understand where in the past I had no clue. Throwing in the big manual with it might actually make this a game I could eventually play. Stranger things have happened:)
Quote from: Cyrano on December 06, 2014, 05:58:48 PM
The money isn't really the thing for me...it's the obtuseness of it all.
I have WITE and WITP:AE...purchased on sale...but sometimes wonder if I didn't buy them both because they're the sorts of games grogs are supposed to own. Neither are bad games -- far from it -- although it's be REALLY nice if they could patch fullscreen into the former. Still, WITE was never able to displace the Tiller PzC games for me and I am having way too good a time punching at Vance in NW France to think I need a game of this cost. Given that, at current cost, it's three PzCs for one WITW, I am not motivated...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
I have to go along with Cyrano's comments on this. I had thought about getting WitE on sale and the new WitW also but after thinking about a bit more if I did buy them I'd probably install the game, read the rules, mess around with them a bit - then go back to the games I already know how to play. Coincidentally, these are J Tiller games also. Maybe someday, but not right now. :-\
Bloody bought it >:(
It is a Christmas pressie.
I liked WitE for what it was...though never played a campaign. But have never been drawn much to the Eastern front.
Maybe a western version will do the trick :coolsmiley:
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 07, 2014, 04:06:38 PM
Bloody bought it >:(
It is a Christmas pressie.
I liked WitE for what it was...though never played a campaign. But have never been drawn much to the Eastern front.
Maybe a western version will do the trick :coolsmiley:
:). With or without books?
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 07, 2014, 04:08:27 PM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 07, 2014, 04:06:38 PM
Bloody bought it >:(
It is a Christmas pressie.
I liked WitE for what it was...though never played a campaign. But have never been drawn much to the Eastern front.
Maybe a western version will do the trick :coolsmiley:
:). With or without books?
Hopefully he bought the books - there is a crazy thing at matrix that to buy the physical copy is only 96 pence more expensive than the digital download only - for some reason they charge VAT on the DD but not the physical product so the price comes out nearly the same.
It is a very good game, but it is much closer to WITP to WITE.
Especially if you play the Allies.
The only thing I would want added is a smaller scale for a Normandy of Bulge scenario, like Avalon Hill's Stalingrad.
There are smaller scenarios, but with the same map.
With the book
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 07, 2014, 04:06:38 PM
Bloody bought it >:(
It is a Christmas pressie.
I liked WitE for what it was...though never played a campaign. But have never been drawn much to the Eastern front.
Maybe a western version will do the trick :coolsmiley:
WITE is just a massive land battle. AT least in WITE, you get all sorts of operations.
Quote from: jomni on December 07, 2014, 07:39:18 PM
WITE is just a massive land battle. AT least in WITE, you get all sorts of operations.
Eh?
Witw. Sorry
Gary and Joe in a reddit Q&A. As usual, Gary is speaking through Joe.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2onv0r/hi_this_is_gary_grigsby_and_joel_billings_ask_me/
my feelings on these games are this:
just because you can doesn't mean you should.
back at the dawn of computer wargaming we wanted it all. well now we have it and its just to much.
a game that takes as long to play as the bloody war its based on is just stupid.
I want to relax with my wargame and have fun and drink a beer while I casually roll over the Eastern Front.
I dont want my fun to become a chore of minutiae and charts.
these are a game to far.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on December 08, 2014, 09:37:56 PM
my feelings on these games are this:
just because you can doesn't mean you should.
back at the dawn of computer wargaming we wanted it all. well now we have it and its just to much.
a game that takes as long to play as the bloody war its based on is just stupid.
I want to relax with my wargame and have fun and drink a beer while I casually roll over the Eastern Front.
I dont want my fun to become a chore of minutiae and charts.
these are a game to far.
Well every one has their own preferences. You have a choice not to patronize these sort of games. But those with PhD in WITP would think otherwise.
oh I get the allure of it and Im not patronizing it. I can remember spending days organizing my front before starting a game of War in Russia.
so dont patronize me because you think Im patronizing something else that Im not. ;)
Patronize seems to be the wrong word to use.
bitter might be a better term. if I was a teenager or just out of college I would have the time and attention span from these games. but Im not and I dont and I wish I did. because of that I want something no so complex.
^^ "A game too far", heh well put.
I really like this game. Reminds my of Avalon Hill's D-Day in scope...with Italy to boot! (pun intended). Although there is a learning curve, the way the game works makes sense...and results seem to flow naturally from the actions taken. I liked War in the East as well...right down my alley...
Quote from: rwenstrup on December 10, 2014, 01:48:17 PM
I really like this game. Reminds my of Avalon Hill's D-Day in scope...with Italy to boot! (pun intended). Although there is a learning curve, the way the game works makes sense...and results seem to flow naturally from the actions taken. I liked War in the East as well...right down my alley...
Welcome to Grogheads rwenstrup! But you are a sick, sick man.... ;D
Yes...I am afraid so...but thank you for the welcome!
Quote from: Cyrano on December 06, 2014, 05:58:48 PM
The money isn't really the thing for me...it's the obtuseness of it all.
I have WITE and WITP:AE...purchased on sale...but sometimes wonder if I didn't buy them both because they're the sorts of games grogs are supposed to own. Neither are bad games -- far from it -- although it's be REALLY nice if they could patch fullscreen into the former. Still, WITE was never able to displace the Tiller PzC games for me and I am having way too good a time punching at Vance in NW France to think I need a game of this cost. Given that, at current cost, it's three PzCs for one WITW, I am not motivated...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
For me WitPAE PBEM (against an ancient and willey foe) has become a tradition. But one monster game is more than enough in the monster game department. I would (of course) happily play a naval WWII Mediterranean game no matter how monsterous. So there are exceptions -- but things like WitE and WitW are not the exeptions for me at the moment.
I did like France '14 -- pretty monstrous. And Case Blau (sorta monsterous) and I would love some gritty army level East Front monstrousity (I mean say a Russian Front or two against an Axis army or two). But the whole Theater? Nope.
Quote from: jomni on December 08, 2014, 10:16:50 PM
Patronize seems to be the wrong word to use.
Nope, it's the right word if you mean "you have a choice not to (be a customer of) these sort of games".
I like the Air Directive mechanic O0
I rarely get more than one or two hours every few evenings to game. I still enjoy these types of complex games however... I might only be able to get one or two times in but over the course of a month or so, I might fight a full battle and I enjoy it. If I have some downtime during the day I might think about my current position in the game and work on a strategy something like that. No real point to my comment other than I don't think you really need to be able to play a complete game in a few hours to enjoy it...at least for me anyway.
I guess in example might be Civil War 2 by AGEOD. To play the full civil war scenario might take me three or four weeks and I may only get one or two times a night... but I love every bit of it
An article from the Rock/Paper/Shotgun site commenting on a few aspects of War in the West. I found it interesting and enticing....but I just flat out can't afford the cost of this monster game. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/12/12/the-flare-path-wages-war-in-the-west/
So what is the general concensus about this game. Boring? Fun? Buggy? Gamey?
lol - no idea.
It seems I just buy monster games - well, because. ;D
Quote from: JudgeDredd on January 12, 2015, 03:24:27 AM
lol - no idea.
It seems I just buy monster games - well, because. ;D
you must be loaded :)
Is that the same as wasteful? ;)
Loaded? No. Squanderer of money? Yes. ::)
So what are your impressions? None because you keep playing Elite?
Quote from: jomni on January 12, 2015, 04:30:41 AM
So what are your impressions? None because you keep playing Elite?
Mostly it seems
Well I have fired it up and had a look at the tutorial. I think someone said it before - the interface is, imo, incredibly bland. The colours used look like it's washed out. I personally think it could be doing with being jazzed up...counters...general graphics...map.
Of course that's a personal thing and other people may like the look as is and would be put off with it being jazzed up.
Of the manual I've read, I've enjoyed that more than the game time I spent on it.
But you really can't read much into that as I haven't played it much more than an hour or two at the most.
My initial impression is it
looks boring...though I'm sure the mechanics involved are probably not. But shouldn't a game grab you and drag you in with it's presentation? It's not everything, for sure...but I kind of liken it to buying a house. If you walk up to a house and it's a shit tip outside (or just a plain old block building with bland colours), then you're likely going to go get the next one which has a vibrant coloured garden, beautifully painted outside decorated with pot plants and a pond with a fountain and driveway lights.
Of course I knew what the game looked like before I bought it. But it was Christmas. I already had WitE and whilst I wasn't really enamored with it, I didn't dislike it. And I am far more into the Western Front than the Eastern Front.
Thanks. I'll wait for a sale. Don't have time for monster games anyway.
I actually was able to finish WITE grand campaign but it was months of counter pushing and nothing else. Wonder if I can still do that these days.
I have neither the time nor concentration to play this monster - and have a brand-new copy for sale.
As New: Pristine hardbound manual, unbroken sealed CD with serial still attached to manual, unregistered to a Matrix account.
Will sell for £40 / $60 (postage not included).
This won't be in a sale any time soon, so first come first served.
Got a little surprise from Matrix. Aparently I've been a member for 10 years and was rewarded with a 35% discount coupon.
I went ahead and bought WitW. :)
I found the air war aspect just to much. I get others will love it but for me I'd have preferred a more abstract air war component than it being a major part of the game.
Quote from: Yskonyn on November 17, 2015, 05:18:31 AM
Got a little surprise from Matrix. Aparently I've been a member for 10 years and was rewarded with a 35% discount coupon.
I went ahead and bought WitW. :)
Did you get an email? I've been on their forums since at least 2005 but have not heard anything.
Yeah - I never got anything and I've been registered since 2003. :'(
Quote from: Staggerwing on November 17, 2015, 06:37:30 AM
Quote from: Yskonyn on November 17, 2015, 05:18:31 AM
Got a little surprise from Matrix. Aparently I've been a member for 10 years and was rewarded with a 35% discount coupon.
I went ahead and bought WitW. :)
Did you get an email? I've been on their forums since at least 2015 but have not heard anything.
Do you mean 2005?
I wonder if being a member is measured by your forum sign up or maybe your store account sign up/first purchase.....
Quote from: TacticalWargames on November 17, 2015, 06:12:21 AM
I found the air war aspect just to much. I get others will love it but for me I'd have preferred a more abstract air war component than it being a major part of the game.
If I remember correctly...you can turn over the micro-management details of the air war to the AI?
Quote from: Yskonyn on November 17, 2015, 05:18:31 AM
Got a little surprise from Matrix. Aparently I've been a member for 10 years and was rewarded with a 35% discount coupon.
I went ahead and bought WitW. :)
Really? I have some posts there from 2004 and didn't get anything :knuppel2:
Quote from: PAK on November 17, 2015, 08:34:03 AM
Quote from: Yskonyn on November 17, 2015, 05:18:31 AM
Got a little surprise from Matrix. Aparently I've been a member for 10 years and was rewarded with a 35% discount coupon.
I went ahead and bought WitW. :)
Really? I have some posts there from 2004 and didn't get anything :knuppel2:
Ditto! :knuppel2:
I got an email. Let me quote:
Collect Your Reward!
Dear Yskonyn, did you know you've been with us for 10 Year/s!
We'd like to say thanks for your support and offer you a special reward.
And then a link to generate a store coupon. :smitten:
True..but I still found it abit of a drag as the resolution aspect took ages. Though maybe I missed a setting or two to help.
Quote from: Rayfer on November 17, 2015, 08:03:57 AM
Quote from: TacticalWargames on November 17, 2015, 06:12:21 AM
I found the air war aspect just to much. I get others will love it but for me I'd have preferred a more abstract air war component than it being a major part of the game.
If I remember correctly...you can turn over the micro-management details of the air war to the AI?
Quote from: Yskonyn on November 17, 2015, 09:47:31 AM
I got an email. Let me quote:
Collect Your Reward!
Dear Yskonyn, did you know you've been with us for 10 Year/s!
We'd like to say thanks for your support and offer you a special reward.
And then a link to generate a store coupon. :smitten:
Unless I mis-read the thread....you're the only one who posted they got this coupon, all the others who posted say they didn't. I didn't either. That begs the question....who else got one? Anyone?
Maybe it's people who've been buying things for 10 years rather than posting on the forums - or people who've bought a lot over the past 10 years.
Anyhoo I'm thinking WitW will be my Christmas present to myself...
Never posted anything on their forums. I registered my first game in june 2006 so i will find out in a few months i guess ...
I joined the Matrix forum in 2004, but it looks like I didn't buy anything until 2006 and I have not gotten one, unless my wife deleted it before I saw it. Maybe in April I'll get one.
I have no clear idea when I started buying from Matrix, but probably not ten years. So no surprise that I haven't gotten such an email.
I've sure bought a ton of their games in the past seven-or-however-many, though...
Quote from: JasonPratt on November 19, 2015, 09:42:18 AM
I have no clear idea when I started buying from Matrix, but probably not ten years. So no surprise that I haven't gotten such an email.
I've sure bought a ton of their games in the past seven-or-however-many, though...
The first order i find in my emails from them is 2006, but I know I have stuff from earlier. Did they used to sell some in stores? I bought the first Grigsby "A World at War" (2005), but maybe I got it in a store.... maybe...
How long have they been selling through the 'net?
I ordered Flashpoint Germany of them in April 2005
I haven't received any emails with wonderful discounts either :-[
Con
Guys! I'm just speculating! I've no idea really. Perhaps they're just going in reverse alphabetical order...
According to my email, my first Matrix Games purchase was in April 2005, "Supremacy: Four Paths to Power"
http://supremacygame.com/
Classy.
Then in July 2005, "Reach for the Stars".
Then in January 2006, "Star Chamber: The Harbinger Saga"
Then, in January 2006 again, my first proper wargame from them "Tin Soldiers: Julius Caesar"
Then, in January 2008! "Starshatter: The Gathering Storm"
Then, in December 2008, "Hired Guns"
Finally in April 2009, "Advanced Tactics: World War II"... a Matrix Games chit shuffler... ahhh, the rest is History...
I realise this is deathly tedious for anyone else, but its an interesting paper trail of a journey that brought me well and truly into wargaming, and subsequently here, with you guys. As you can see, my SciFi leanings had me dabble in Matrix, long before I was clutching to get my hands on an MP40 toting Stormtrooper!
Years before all of this, I'd gone through Age of Rifles, War College, Tillers Eastern/Western Front, Civil War General, and a bucket of Microprose titles.
Anyway, look how far we have come!? War in the East, Flashpoint Campaigns, Command: Modern Air and Naval Operations and Decisive Campaigns all on Steam available to the masses, if they fancy it. Being streamed on YouthTube and Twitch by youngsters and well know Internet Celebs! It's a new era, and hopefully more and more new blood will get the taste for wargaming and join in!
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3991006
Solves the riddle of the coupons.
cheers!
Hmmm according to my games when I registered them the first was Oct 2005. The mystery of the coupons is still alive for me ???
QuoteThe mystery of the coupons is still alive for me
.
Me too. Have been a member for over 10 years. I have no coupons and afaik never did have.
But then, I didn't know they existed until this subject.
According to Matrix, Matrix just now realized I've been with them for 11 year. Or years. One of those.
QuoteDear JasonPratt, did you know you've been with us for 11 Year/s!
New update released (version 1.01.20)
patchnotes and download : http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4064223&mpage=1&key=%EF%BF%BD