Winter Idea......Comment

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21

Post Reply
User avatar
2ndACR
Posts: 5524
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:32 am
Location: Irving,Tx

Winter Idea......Comment

Post by 2ndACR »

We have all heard and read the blizzard screams. I do not want to start another, looking for serious input only.

I have seen fort level arguments offered as a possible solution. But I feel the below is the best way to offer "balance".

Allow the German player to "winterize" a division with a 20 AP point cost IF:

The unit is on a repaired rail line.
Has not moved for 4 turns.
Cannot be in enemy ZOC
Limited to 50 Divisions (since that is the amount of historical winter gear)

This will allow the German player to be rewarded for "winter prep" by sacrificing offensive operations. If a unit is "winterized" (marked just like the "motorized") then said unit will suffer 50% less attrition loss as a non "winterized" unit, will not suffer the immediate slashing of combat power during blizzard turns (the attrition will take of that all on it's own but much slower). Hence the unit will act like a baby mountain div, but will still suffer attrition loss (not well trained as mountain troops for cold).

Now before the screaming starts, remember, I just took a division "out of play" for a month game time. So my offensive power is diminished while the conditions are met. We can go further by not allowing panzer or motorized div to be "winterized" since no one could predict the massive vehicle issues faced. Limited offensive ops mean not nearly the amount of ammo and fuel need to be sent forward.

The "not in enemy ZOC" means that the German will HAVE to pull a unit off the line to "winterize" it. Even further off line if "on repaired rail" has to also be met. So he cannot just halt on say turn 20 and winterize 50 units. With a 20 AP cost, he will have to prepare well in advance to meet the 50 division number anyway.

So, now the German is being rewarded for proper planning, but the Russian is not seriously injured by this either, since he faces less combat power overall during the summer offensives.

"Winterize" will end in say April. Now the German must spend those AP's all over again each winter.

And I am not even sure how hard this would be to code in. But really feel this would benefit the "balance" versus the "history" arguments.

Please, serious comments only.
NinetyNine
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:54 pm

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by NinetyNine »

I like any solution that trades campaigning time for winter survivability, it avoids being left totally vulnerable during the first winter while not allowing you to continue advancing right up until snowfall.
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by Jim D Burns »

This is probably too convoluted of a rule to ever be implemented into an already programmed game. Besides, it’s no big deal for the Germans to sit still for four turns during mud, so other than the AP cost, I see nothing that changes the power dynamic in game to penalize the axis for the benefit gained.

A better solution would be to reduce the winter effects German units suffer by 5% for each fort level they are sitting in. So level 5 forts would give a 25% reduction to winter penalties and creating that level of a fort requires enough of a lead time that the Germans will have to stop attacking pretty early to gain such a benefit.

Jim
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by Klydon »

To be honest, I don't like the idea the Germans can "winterize" units.

The issue right now is the Russians are far too successful with most any half baked attack (see Q-Ball's AAR where the Russians were successful 63 out of 76 attacks) and the Germans have no real ability to counter attack except against very weak brigades in most cases. The Germans lost a lot of ground in December, but not much after that. Granted there were some Russian offensives in the AGN area and AGS, but the Germans were able to counter attack most of those effectively. Right now, I don't think its possible for the Germans to make a stand at say Rzhev like they did historically.

There are some core issues here. The Germans are likely to be unable to create the losses the Russians actually suffered because the Russians did so badly in 1941 and it is very easy to do better for the vast majority of games. (not saying there are not exceptions to the rule, but most games follow this pattern). I do not believe there is a fix for this nor should there be. The second core issue is the blizzard effects need to be reworked. The Germans are simply too easy to not only push around but to outright slaughter in the winter. Part of this is because the Russians have more to work with, but not to the point where I can use a single Russian division to make a hasty attack on most German infantry divisions and the result is a win. The Germans had to give ground and got pushed back, but they were able to stabilize a front at some point in January where there was severe fighting in the center; where German counter attacks were possible. The German CV's are simply too low to consider any of that, fortified or not.

In my test game, I think I am half way through January and the German army is pretty much toast. I think I have destroyed close to 100 Axis formations so far and losses have been running 4 Axis for 1 Russian a turn for the last several turns. Both sides have suffered over 2 million casualties at this point and while I have lost more as the Russian, by the end of winter, I expect to have the Axis with more casualties than the Russians. The Germans currently have less than 2 million in the field right now. I switched over to version 5 right at the start of December, so this is after most of the fixes. The settings I am playing with are Axis 110% and Russian 100%. The vast majority of German infantry are 1 cv. I have seen a couple 4's, but I think they are re-enforcements sent to the front. Panzers are 1-3 CV. They all suck compared to a lot of my infantry that is 5+ CV each.

Until things get figured out, I think the grand campaign game starting in 1941 is going to end in frustration for the Germans far more often than not. A 1942 start may have to be the norm until the blizzard stuff gets sorted out.
User avatar
2ndACR
Posts: 5524
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:32 am
Location: Irving,Tx

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by 2ndACR »

Yes, but the auto slashing of your CV will not offset the attrition savings. A 4 CV division in a level 4 fort will, if lucky, hold for 1 attack, 2 if you are lucky. And then you are toast. Period. My biggie is the huge double whammy the German gets popped with right off the get go.


And also, if you see above the no ZOC rule and repaired rail. No way is he going to just be able to halt during mud.
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
Yes, but the auto slashing of your CV will not offset the attrition savings. A 4 CV division in a level 4 fort will, if lucky, hold for 1 attack, 2 if you are lucky. And then you are toast. Period. My biggie is the huge double whammy the German gets popped with right off the get go.


And also, if you see above the no ZOC rule and repaired rail. No way is he going to just be able to halt during mud.

A 5% reduction to winter penalties per fort level implies all penalties, so attrition too would be positively affected by such a rule. So even if the axis only averages staying behind level 2 forts for most of the winter, that’ll save him 10% of the current level of attrition losses he would have otherwise suffered. That coupled with a 10% reduction in the auto halving of the CV would make the Blizzards less brutal but still expose the axis to a concentrated Soviet push.

And more importantly, the rule is simple enough that it may actually have a chance of being implemented.

Jim
Zort
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:33 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by Zort »

I kinda agree but has anyone seen the effects of beta 5 yet?  I agree with the double wammie the germans get, they should be able to stabilize their lines in Jan, just got out of blizzard but was pushed back lots (beta 3 upgraded to beta 5).  I think it is good to have this discussion but I want to see if beta 5 is a good fix first.  Wonder what the devs are thinking is my next question.
User avatar
heliodorus04
Posts: 1653
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Nashville TN

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by heliodorus04 »

There are things I like in both Klydon's comments and 2ndACR's.  (At first I thought Klydon was going to say "suq it Wehrmacht!" but it turns out that was an over-reaction on my part ;)

What I like about 2ACR's approach is that it has a cost-benefit tradeoff.  YOu have to acquire AP (which is a big sacrifice), and you have a limit of 50 divisions (historical).  Armor should be able to be winterized from manpower losses, if not vehicle losses, though.  And motorized units have an inherent advantage at staying warm in that they have lots of engines to stay warm around (as I'm sure you remember from your days in the Cavalry in winter on the Ostfront ;) )

What I don't like is the combination of 4-week no move, plus 0-damage rail, plus no enemy ZOC restrictions.
I can live with some of this, but not all of it.  If you're talking 4 weeks of 0 MP expenditures, you're really talking about 5 weeks, because there's one turn where you'll have to move to railhead.  This is the one I think ought to be removed.  Give it 2 weeks, and "within 10 hexes/25 MP of a railhead".  That aligns better (IMO) to the supply model we see in the game.  And in fact, winterization should be a percentage basis each turn, the same way forts are completed by percentage each turn.  And the enemy ZOC thing has got to go.  The last thing you'll want to see is the Soviets advancing up next to you the last turn before you winterize, essentially burning all your winter clothes just by showing up next to you. 

But generally speaking, it's a fine basic approach that I could easily support.

With regard to what Klydon said, he also has a point that the ridiculous double-whammy the Germans face between attrition & loss of CV, combined with the unjustifiable (IMO) 1-to-1 combat odds bonus that Soviets get - it's overkill on the historicity side of the game.

But I don't think that removing the combat odds bonus that Soviets get actually improves the problems the Axis face right now in winter.

From what I read elsewhere, the consensus of WitE players regarding the issue of historical Soviet Command and Control limitations is 'suq it Axis'.  From a gameplay standpoint, I understand the rationale.  Soviets are already dull enough to play in 1941 without taking a lot more control away from the human Soviet player.

But without compensation to the German side regarding winter preparations, or attack efficiency, or supply, or SOMEthing... we have a game that Soviets can win pretty easily in 1943 with average play, and where Germany is only fun to play for about 17 turns.  I am sounding the clarion call to WitE developers that if you keep it this way, the fun factor of this lopsided approach is going to kill the game.
Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
User avatar
2ndACR
Posts: 5524
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:32 am
Location: Irving,Tx

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by 2ndACR »

I am almost to the winter in PBEM started under Beta 3 and upgraded to Beta 5. Turn 19 right now.

Q-Ball is using beta 5 in his game upgraded.

This was started to just see if it was even feasible to offer up.

I am open to a lower limit on turns. I came up with these to try and keep the screaming to a minimum. I am 90% sure that I could meet each of those conditions and be happy though. Doubt I will get to 50 div though.

2 week sounds okay to me, but I want the ZOC rule. Now you HAVE to pull that unit off the line and rotate the units to get the benefit. No mass upgrade can be done.
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by Q-Ball »

I want to play it out more before making final judgements, but I am with Klydon on this one.

2ACR, your idea is a good one, but in the end I think too complicated to implement, and kinda convoluted.

Klydon is right, the Germans get pushed around far too easily in Winter. The only real ground the Reds took was near Moscow, where the Germans were dangerously overextended, and had no prepared positions. Under those conditions in WITE, the result would be even worse than historical.

The Soviet player needs to be rewarded for making even bad attacks, which hopefully the morale rules still capture. I actually have no issue with the Axis attrition losses, they should be bad, and are.

I am very concerned that 1942 operations will lose fluidity. There is no reason the Soviet player cannot have several layers of size-3 forts available by June, manned by better units than in 1941, and attacked by depleted Germans. Can't tell until we get there, but the odds of several-hundred mile advance are slim. It will look alot more like Citadel, just in 1942.

The REDS are going to be stronger in the '41 Winter than historical, because the REd player isn't doomed to make the same mistakes as historical. The problem is the Axis player IS doomed; no matter how much you prepare, you won't be ready.

I would like to see consideration to a couple rule changes around:

1. Better German CV in First Winter
2. How about FORTS disappearing if you don't keep a unit in them? Though the Reds probably can afford better to keep units "manning" forts

Not sure what some fixes are yet, but historically, the Soviets did not attack successfully all along the front, and did not push Germans back on 80% of attacks
mikemcmann
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:22 pm

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by mikemcmann »

Forts do degrade if units don't occupy them...

I have only played the ai, but without the betas I still faired the winter fine.

I think more playing is required before "fixing" anything.

Also, people seem to think the "sky is falling" and the war is over if they can't capture Moscow or Leningrad. The game and vps are designed so Germany can still "lose" the war, but win compared to history.

I'd say it might need fixing when every grand campaign reaches turn 224 with a soviet decisive victory......until then, play on...

Mike
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by Redmarkus5 »

I agree with Q-Ball, but I think the problem actually lies in the concept of the 'Blizzard' and the lack of granularity in the weather model. I understand what it's meant to represent, but there wasn't actually a true blizzard all across the SU from December to February, was there?

I think that the winter effects should be broken down a bit to reflect some historical factors. This would allow the Axis to recover gradually, and would also allow for some management decisioning to be added that could affect the impact of the weather.

Here are some examples of what I mean, just as discussion points:

1. The Axis believed they would win before winter, so winter clothing was not ordered/issued in sufficient quantities - so, add an Axis option to invest in winter equipment at the cost of AP and/or supply.

2. The immediate effect of the cold on the Axis was not only frostbite but weapon and vehicle performance - therefore digging into a fortified line should reduce this as wood, the correct oils and lubricants etc. would be on hand.

3. The Soviet T34 tanks had better maneuverability across the snow due to their wider tracks - reduce Axis MP more than CV to reflect the fact that while less mobile, they were still dangerous if approached.

4. The greatest effects of the winter were felt at the outset while the Axis troops were shocked by the cold - reduce the winter effects more gradually over the period. I hate nothing more than seeing the Axis units bounce back from 2 CV to 8 CV in the space of one week at the end of winter!
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by Redmarkus5 »

ORIGINAL: mikemcmann

Also, people seem to think the "sky is falling" and the war is over if they can't capture Moscow or Leningrad. The game and vps are designed so Germany can still "lose" the war, but win compared to history.

Excellent point!
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
JR5555
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:16 am

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by JR5555 »

ORIGINAL: Klydon


The issue right now is the Russians are far too successful with most any half baked attack (see Q-Ball's AAR where the Russians were successful 63 out of 76 attacks)

How about maybe making the guaranteed +1 combat odds modifier for the Soviets random. This will increase their failed attack rate making it more historical.
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by Q-Ball »

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: mikemcmann

Also, people seem to think the "sky is falling" and the war is over if they can't capture Moscow or Leningrad. The game and vps are designed so Germany can still "lose" the war, but win compared to history.

Excellent point!

Actually, I respectfully disagree. The German VP requirements are impossible against a human. The best the German can hope for is a draw.

There are a great many moving parts to the simulation, so balancing everything is very difficult. I don't really know what levers to pull. The sky is not falling. But there are some serious balance issues. The latest patch addressed some.

Skanvak
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by Skanvak »

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I agree with Q-Ball, but I think the problem actually lies in the concept of the 'Blizzard' and the lack of granularity in the weather model. I understand what it's meant to represent, but there wasn't actually a true blizzard all across the SU from December to February, was there?

I think that the winter effects should be broken down a bit to reflect some historical factors. This would allow the Axis to recover gradually, and would also allow for some management decisioning to be added that could affect the impact of the weather.

Here are some examples of what I mean, just as discussion points:

1. The Axis believed they would win before winter, so winter clothing was not ordered/issued in sufficient quantities - so, add an Axis option to invest in winter equipment at the cost of AP and/or supply.

2. The immediate effect of the cold on the Axis was not only frostbite but weapon and vehicle performance - therefore digging into a fortified line should reduce this as wood, the correct oils and lubricants etc. would be on hand.

3. The Soviet T34 tanks had better maneuverability across the snow due to their wider tracks - reduce Axis MP more than CV to reflect the fact that while less mobile, they were still dangerous if approached.

4. The greatest effects of the winter were felt at the outset while the Axis troops were shocked by the cold - reduce the winter effects more gradually over the period. I hate nothing more than seeing the Axis units bounce back from 2 CV to 8 CV in the space of one week at the end of winter!

Though I globally agree, I have the following remark :

1/ this is a strategic option, which mean a what-if. Either it is a different scenario or something you buy at start of the campaign.

2/ ok, that is in line with the fact that the german did well when they stand and fight (the no retreat order).

3/ Not sure as the german tank fighting ability is strongly tied to their ability to move. Thought, AT gun will still be as effective.

4/ Indeed, I strongly feel that is very right here. Men tend to adapt so they will get used to that, and gradually receive their winter equipment(still to check) or steal it from prisonner (I have read about it).

Best regards

Skanvak
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by janh »

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
3. The Soviet T34 tanks had better maneuverability across the snow due to their wider tracks - reduce Axis MP more than CV to reflect the fact that while less mobile, they were still dangerous if approached.

4. The greatest effects of the winter were felt at the outset while the Axis troops were shocked by the cold - reduce the winter effects more gradually over the period. I hate nothing more than seeing the Axis units bounce back from 2 CV to 8 CV in the space of one week at the end of winter!

++ Good ideas along those lines.

Although weapons functionality became a problem for the Germans in winter as well (the oil froze!) However, this was not only a problem for the German side, so both sides suffered lower effectiveness, though to different degrees.

One thing I don't quite understand is that I previously believed that the Soviet winter offensives were in large parts owed to transferring the Siberians over from the Vladivostok. In the AARs it seems that most of the Russian units are ready and in strength to counterattack when blizzard starts. Is this due to the Russian players mostly preserving them? Or the German not pushing hard enough?

Before the Siberians arrived, the Russian Army was even numerically basically even with Wehrmacht and its Allies due to incurred losses, right? The Siberians not only were fresh and could stall Typhoon, but they also had basic winter equipment and training (as simple as those wooden snow boots, no idea what exactly they are called). So the December winter offensive was only possible due to the freshly arrived divisions, and as such limited to them? My understanding was that not until early January had the Soviet forces in areas other than Moscow recovered sufficiently from their 41 beatings, that a reasonable offensive against the Germans was possible. And even that historically didn't go very far.

So is my understanding half way correct? Could the harshness of the blizzard have to do more with the Germans not pushing hard enough, or the Russians preserving too much force for blizzard, rather than with the blizzard rules?
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by Klydon »

Now people can say all they want about this not being against a human Axis player, but its still silly. Settings are 110% German, 100% Soviet. Turn is 15 Jan and I am not done yet as the Russian, although most of the turn is complete. Two of the armored divisions lost were the Hungarian and Rumanian, but the rest were German. I don't have a "success" attack rate, but it is very high and the amount of deliberate attacks I have made are very low, especially since I figured out I don't have to use them to win battles.

As I have mentioned before, I don't have the dog in the hunt on which side I play. I actually will be involved in playing both at some point. Right now, I would skip 1941 as a Axis player because no matter what you do against a good Soviet, you are toast come winter and you will absolutely struggle to do anything meaningful in 1942 in an offensive way. Only when there has been a total collapse of the Soviet position has an AAR gone the German way. None have seen the Germans do much of anything in 1942. I had high hopes for Q-Ball's game that incorporated a lot of things that were worked on in various threads for German play, especially the openings but I just don't see a competitive game in 1942 at this point and it may well end up being trench warfare again where the Germans feel they are too weak to make any major offensive effort and stand on the defensive, although I could be very wrong about that.



Image
Attachments
Axislosses.jpg
Axislosses.jpg (97.52 KiB) Viewed 636 times
User avatar
PeeDeeAitch
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:31 am
Location: Laramie, Wyoming

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by PeeDeeAitch »

I think a greater problem than the supper ineffectiveness of the the Germans (though I do agree that the "waking up" of the Germans on March 1st is a bit odd...) is that the Soviets can make coordinated, cohesive, and planned attacks. The real winter counter-offensive was devastating initially, and could have been far more of a home run had their been better control by the Soviets. The inability to wipe out the Rzhev salient (and losing large numbers of troops surrounded, the fate of the 2nd Shock Army, among others, points to not so much the inability of the Soviets to attack effectively, but more their inability to coordinate an offensive and react to counter-moves.

This is more the problem that Q-ball is seeing, a too-effective attacking in coordinated fashion soviet army.
"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester
User avatar
paullus99
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Winter Idea......Comment

Post by paullus99 »

We know that this is designed to be a fairly historically accurate representation of the fighting on the Eastern Front (OOBs, start lines, etc) but that history will diverge from day one, since we can use the knowledge that we have to not make the same mistakes our historical counterparts did.

So, the Red Army player can pull his troops back & prevent the major encirclements of history, and husband his troops for the inevitable counterattack during the historical blizzard.

Of course, due to the hard-coded blizzard effects, regardless of what the German player does to prepare (especially against a Sir Robinski strategy) he's going to get hammered during the winter anyway. This does seem, from a game balance standpoint, to be a little unfair - but on the flip side, I don't know what could be or should be done to correct it.

I would, if possible, like to see a trade-off made available (if the Russians run, the Germans can be more prepared for winter, etc).

Just a thought.
Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”