WiTE Update SHAMES All Other Updates!

[RyanE]

Looking at the history of complaints about WITE, I would say its no better than the DC games.  And that is with all that detail to back it up.

[dinsdale]

Many designers and many, many bad designs equate complexity to either opacity of information, volume of information or number of units. Sadly Grigsby's designs use all 3

[GibbyG]

A lot of good opinions on GG games in this thread, but there are people out there who like them.  I'd have to think that if they keep making them it is because people are buying them.

[jomni]

A lot of good opinions on GG games in this thread, but there are people out there who like them.  I'd have to think that if they keep making them it is because people are buying them.

These are people who like to earn a "PhD is historical wargaming".  Including myself (but fail). WITP is the toughest but if you master it with your own spreadsheets, logistical models and grand plans... it can be a great achievement.

In real life problems, not all data is presented to you at once. You need to test out, observe,  create your own databases, do your own calculations and risk assessment. But I guess it is too much work for "mere mortals" and not actually fun.  GG games software feel like work and there are people who like to work rather than merely play games.

[panzerde]

In real life problems, not all data is presented to you at once. You need to test out, observe,  create your own databases, do your own calculations and risk assessment. But I guess it is too much work for "mere mortals" and not actually fun.  GG games software feel like work and there are people who like to work rather than merely play games.

I think this is a good assessment. WitE and it's siblings are sort of the SAP of wargaming software. I own it and WitPAE and while I've pulled both out and studied them, I've not actually played much of them. Just like when I've worked at companies that use SAP every time I look at the software I feel like there's just a ridiculous amount there, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what an awful lot of it is actually for.

DC:CB does, as Jomni suggests, sacrifice some historical accuracy.  DC:CB does fall down a bit by not being particularly accurate in it's depiction of specific units, but I think it can be forgiven that by all but the most narrowly focused of grogs.It does that though in the name of playability, and man, is it playable. Because it is, I'd suggest that you can often get a better sense of what happened during that phase of the Russo-German War than you can playing WitE. You simply aren't as distracted by minutiae that an actual theatre commander wouldn't be distracted by, because he has a staff. I think DC 3 will be even better at this since the engine seems specifically designed to reflect this reality.

Which does make me wonder what one of the GG games might be like if it were to be played by a team rather than an individual. What if you actually had an Air Chief that really had a great understanding of all of the airpower rules, and handled only that part of the game, and someone just focused on logistics, etc.? I suspect it'd still be a PITA to play, but it would probably be an interesting exercise in learning a lot about the realities of strategic level General Staff command...

[sandman2575]

These are people who like to earn a "PhD is historical wargaming".  Including myself (but fail). WITP is the toughest but if you master it with your own spreadsheets, logistical models and grand plans... it can be a great achievement.

In real life problems, not all data is presented to you at once. You need to test out, observe,  create your own databases, do your own calculations and risk assessment. But I guess it is too much work for "mere mortals" and not actually fun.  GG games software feel like work and there are people who like to work rather than merely play games.

You put your finger on what I view as the greatest failing of WitP and WitE:  the insufficiency of the UI to help you manage the games' fantastic complexity.

I stopped playing WitP:AE when it became clear to me there was no way to play the Grand Campaign without 2nd party apps like WITP Tracker and more humble implements like pencil and notebook.  The more I got into WitP, the more frustrated I became by constant recourse to tools *external to the game* to manage it. This is a fundamental game-design flaw, one that I find especially egregious in Grigsby's games.

The problem is not that "In real life problems, not all data is presented to you at once."  That's true, but it's not the 'fog of war' or imperfection of intelligence that drives me crazy in WitP / WitE. It's that the games do too little to help you cope with *either* information *or* gaps in information effectively. Case in point in WitP: the SigInt and Operations reports. You get an ambiguous report of a "surface contact at Hex 36,108" (or whatever). Does the report hyperlink you to the map coordinates to show you where the hell that is? Nope. Does it 'flag' the map coordinates? Sometimes, but just as often not, depending on the strength/reliability of the report. Do I now have to spend minutes hunting for that particular hex, in order to locate that contact (which is, to boot, one of dozens of contact reports from that day alone)? Yes. Is this how I want to spend my limited gaming time? No.

Bottom line -- GG's games expend way too much effort obsessing over differences in armor width and the climbing performance of the Martlet Mk. III between 15,000-20,000 ft. than they do on figuring out ways to design a UI that actually lets a player manage a game of such huge scope. Not saying that is an easy problem to solve. Am saying it's a problem that doesn't seem to concern the devs very much.

[dinsdale]

In real life problems, not all data is presented to you at once. You need to test out, observe,  create your own databases, do your own calculations and risk assessment.

A great game could certainly incorporate uncertainty with great affect, in fact some boardgames have experimented with combat strength being unknown until combat begins, but I don't think that's what Grigsby's games do. They are, IMHO, adding false complexity and reducing strategic choice by overwhelming the player with information irrelevant to the scale of the game. Rather than using the computer to free the player to make strategic/operational choices, the player is reduced to the role of a quartermaster or logician in ways which do not IMHO add to the game experience.

But I guess it is too much work for "mere mortals" and not actually fun.  GG games software feel like work and there are people who like to work rather than merely play games.

Making a 1mm armor choice to a tank years after release is absurd. If balancing or realism a game which covers the entire eastern front is dependent upon tank armor then there are serious problems of design and prioritization.

There are plenty of complex games, there are plenty of simple games with complex choices, but you're right, I don't like to play games which are 'work.' I would like to delegate the work somewhere else while I pretend to play the role of a commander of whatever scale the game is attempting to portray. That can still be complex, but it should not require me to scrub toilets and launder uniforms :)

Let me provide an example of a game which can never; Napoleon's Austerlitz campaign is

[Sir Slash]

DC Case Blue is a complex game that I love but sometimes too complex for my likes. I can only play when I'm really feeling the "Monster" need. Otherwise it's just too much for me, but I appreciate the scope of the game and the size doesn't work against it. DC WtP was more fun for me as it was a bit less huge and complex.

[RyanE]

I would hate hear what you think of WitE...

[Great Ajax]

I think there is a misunderstanding in how some of these updates work over the years.  Gary Grigsby doesn't sit around and tweak 1mm armor thickness.  He is working big picture programming, AI and design.  There is quite a bit of specialization within the design teams that include volunteers that like tweaking some of this data stuff for enjoyment.  We have one guy, Dennis, that strictly works on aircraft and vehicles stats.  Myself and a few others work on scenario design and unit research.  After a certain amount of time, 2by3 and Matrix allow interested volunteers to take over the updates if they are interested and have been vetted by the design team.  Gary has been minimally involved in the WiTE updates for several years.  The last several years of WitE updates have been done by volunteers who just really enjoy the game.  Dominik (Morvael) pretty much runs the WitE updates on his own with Dennis' help.  Joel will help coordinate as needed.    This has become common when the 2by3 team switches completely to its next project.  I can't think of any other companies that allow their projects to continue like this.     

The micro-management can be a bit cumbersome if you let it.  I enjoy these games just fine even if I don't dig into the nitty-gritty details.  The data is provided for those that want to get into that much information but it isn't necessary to enjoy the game.  I will say that if you plan on playing a competitive PBEM game, then you probably will have to master those details.  There are also numerous scenarios that are smaller in scope than the campaign games.  Most people talk about the 1941 Campaign game 90% of the time but my favorite scenarios are the Army Group level ones that last about two dozen turns. 

Trey   

[Sir Slash]

I wish WitE was a perfect game. If not for me then anyone else. It's just my few functioning brain cells left would be on overload.