War in the East Q&A

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

jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

When units consume more supplies than their supply requirements they must be re-supplied. Units draw supplies from their HQs or directly from a rail head if it is closer. Units can draw supplies up to 5 hexes (or 20 motorized movement points) from an HQ or rail head. HQs can draw supply up to 25 hexes (or 100 motorized movement points) from a rail head. The combined rail head to HQ to unit supply line cannot exceed 100 motorized movement points. HQs cannot supply other HQs.

what the parent HQs ?

LI Korps/6th Army/Army Group South ?


Most units are attached to either a corps HQ or (Soviet) army HQ. Supply goes straight from rail head to the HQ. There is no movement of supply between HQs. In your example above LI corps supplies the divisions attached to it. Although 6th Army and Army Group South draw supply, they would only supply divisions directly attached to them.

kind of strange thinking then, since the parent HQ is where most of the Log support would be at ?, Korps would have just the basic set up to pass the supplies on, the supplies would come from the parent

Think about what you just wrote from a game system point of view. You would be having supply go from the rail head to the army, from the army to the corps, and from the corps to the division. In this chain either the army or the corps is redundant and the system is more flexible and less subject to abuse by removing the army step.

Army Groups and Armies are important in the game but not for supply purposes.
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Currently there is no anti-partisan bonus for being SS. From a practical point of view unless you're referring to the really crappy SS Grenadier divisions, no player in his right mind would every waste a "real" SS division hunting partisans.

you do have sec Troops which are better at hunting the Partisans, use them for Garrison and to hunt

Yes there are security divisons but it's not that they're better at hunting partisans than any other unit (they're not), it's just that they're not much good for anything else. The non-Finnish Axis Allies are also best hunting partisans since if they're destroyed in combat they won't come back.

okay, you say so, guess we were misinformed then

You were not misinformed; the "quality" SS divisions often conducted anti-partisan operations as part of their "rest & refitting" that in a game only makes sense if your a Nazis. I just assume most players aren't.
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: Lascar

Will there be restrictions on units of different nationalities from cooperating with one another? For example, will the Romanians and Hungarians be prohibited from stacking together or even being adjacent with one another (i.e. Italian 8th army deployed between Hungarian 2nd and Romanian 3rd armies)

I keep nagging Gary to put such restrictions in but he hasn't done it yet. When I'm playing the Axis I never stack them together on principle.
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by Hard Sarge »

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: jaw




Yes there are security divisons but it's not that they're better at hunting partisans than any other unit (they're not), it's just that they're not much good for anything else. The non-Finnish Axis Allies are also best hunting partisans since if they're destroyed in combat they won't come back.

okay, you say so, guess we were misinformed then

You were not misinformed; the "quality" SS divisions often conducted anti-partisan operations as part of their "rest & refitting" that in a game only makes sense if your a Nazis. I just assume most players aren't.

what does that have to do with being told Sec Troops were better then normal Inf Troops at combating Partisans ?

I'll drop it there, not sure what I am allowed to say and what I am not


Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by Hard Sarge »

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: jaw




Most units are attached to either a corps HQ or (Soviet) army HQ. Supply goes straight from rail head to the HQ. There is no movement of supply between HQs. In your example above LI corps supplies the divisions attached to it. Although 6th Army and Army Group South draw supply, they would only supply divisions directly attached to them.

kind of strange thinking then, since the parent HQ is where most of the Log support would be at ?, Korps would have just the basic set up to pass the supplies on, the supplies would come from the parent

Think about what you just wrote from a game system point of view. You would be having supply go from the rail head to the army, from the army to the corps, and from the corps to the division. In this chain either the army or the corps is redundant and the system is more flexible and less subject to abuse by removing the army step.

Army Groups and Armies are important in the game but not for supply purposes.

well, to be honest, if you want to do it correctly, you would have the rail heads controlled by the Army Group, Army, and then the Army feeds the Corps, which is how it works in real life

game wise, Army Group is going to be sitting on or near the railhead, the Armies are going to be half way to the front line, with the Corps Commands in front of them

they are already in place as they should be (if the player is doing what they should) so use them as they were in real life, AGC doesn't sit in Warsaw the entire game

the opening phase is hectic and confusing, which is why the higher commands work the supply
Image
User avatar
Lascar
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2000 8:00 am

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by Lascar »

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Lascar

Will there be restrictions on units of different nationalities from cooperating with one another? For example, will the Romanians and Hungarians be prohibited from stacking together or even being adjacent with one another (i.e. Italian 8th army deployed between Hungarian 2nd and Romanian 3rd armies)

I keep nagging Gary to put such restrictions in but he hasn't done it yet. When I'm playing the Axis I never stack them together on principle.
I also do that with Russian campaign games that don't have such a rule hard coded.

If there are not stacking restriction are there at least combat penalties when various axis nationalities attack together i.e. Romanians and Germans or other such combinations?
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by Hard Sarge »

I would say the penalties are in the troops themselfs, you will have trouble getting "planned" attacks to work as it is with mixed forces, hasty attacks will work (one stack)

LOL, to be honest, not sure you are going to want too many mixed stacks on the front line as it is
Image
User avatar
Jeffrey H.
Posts: 3154
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:39 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca.

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by Jeffrey H. »

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

ORIGINAL: jaw




Supply in WitE is a very complicated and involved process that would take pages to describe in detail so I will just give you the gist of it here.

There are three kinds of supply in WitE, fuel, ammo & general supply. Every unit in the game has particular requirements for each of these supply types. Units consume fuel when the move (or planes fly), ammo when they fight and general supply for a variety of purposes including the obvious rations.

When units consume more supplies than their supply requirements they must be re-supplied. Units draw supplies from their HQs or directly from a rail head if it is closer. Units can draw supplies up to 5 hexes (or 20 motorized movement points) from an HQ or rail head. HQs can draw supply up to 25 hexes (or 100 motorized movement points) from a rail head. The combined rail head to HQ to unit supply line cannot exceed 100 motorized movement points. HQs cannot supply other HQs.

Units within 6 hexes of a supply source get the full amount of available supply. Beyond that range supply is progressively deceased. Units low on supply have reduced movement ability (ground units) and are less combat effective (all units). Units beyond supply range or isolated are severely effected in both movement and combat.

Partisans can "interdict" supplies by damaging rail lines and supplies can be destroyed by bombing the HQ but in general the Eastern Front is just too big a place for either of these methods to be terribly effective.

Ok, so the capacity of the individual supply sources and/or the ultimate "National" supply capacity is infinite ?

The interdiction role of airpower was something that is in the current MWiR but I never really understood how it worked. Are you saying that there is no possibility of interdiction by using airpower in this game ?

No, supply is not infinite. The production system produces a set amount of supplies each turn and your usage can exceed that amount. If demand exceeds production, units make do with what they get. Supply is obviously a much bigger problem for the Axis than it is for the Russians. The lure to go south after those production resources, especially oil, will be irresistable.

Air units can interdict the movement of ground units (including HQs) but supply has no "physical presence" on the map so you can't interdict it directly.



...ahhh you said "production system".........

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson
User avatar
Jeffrey H.
Posts: 3154
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:39 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca.

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by Jeffrey H. »

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: jaw




Yes there are security divisons but it's not that they're better at hunting partisans than any other unit (they're not), it's just that they're not much good for anything else. The non-Finnish Axis Allies are also best hunting partisans since if they're destroyed in combat they won't come back.

okay, you say so, guess we were misinformed then

You were not misinformed; the "quality" SS divisions often conducted anti-partisan operations as part of their "rest & refitting" that in a game only makes sense if your a Nazis. I just assume most players aren't.

I was waiting for that one. I thought we were dealing with a historical simulation here ? What does a players political attitude have to do with it ? Or are we making a politically correct modern newspeak version of events here ?

I think non waffen SS units were intended for partisan suppression and death camp administration and loads of other tasks that are, (rightly) completely unsavory to modern palates.

I was just going by the books I've read, (autobiographies) and other games I've played, (Avalon Hill stuff ever heard of them ?). So I thought there was some historical basis for it. But I don't care really, I just don't appreciate your insinuation.




History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson
SGT Rice
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 3:05 pm

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by SGT Rice »

I've seen air recon discussed in another thread ... are there any other forms of intelligence; i.e., signals intercepts?

Can you say a little more about the important uses of 'administrative points' that were alluded to earlier in this thread?

Thanks.
GG A World Divided Playtester
User avatar
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
Posts: 785
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:00 pm

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by Iñaki Harrizabalagatar »

1) Would fuel in motor units drop to zero, so that they are inmobilized?

2) Would low morale prevent units attacking?

3) How will large changes in TOEs being handled, like for instance the shift to type 44 German inf div?

4) What are the statistics of the generals? could you give as some examples?
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge




okay, you say so, guess we were misinformed then

You were not misinformed; the "quality" SS divisions often conducted anti-partisan operations as part of their "rest & refitting" that in a game only makes sense if your a Nazis. I just assume most players aren't.

what does that have to do with being told Sec Troops were better then normal Inf Troops at combating Partisans ?

I'll drop it there, not sure what I am allowed to say and what I am not



Excuse me, I thought you were still referring to the SS. Security divisions were regimental size units with a correspondingly reduced complement of heavy weapons and generally manned by second line troops (over aged or with slight infirmaties that made them unfit for front line combat). They're primary purpose was guarding not hunting partisans. They obviously weren't too effect in anti-partisan operations because whenever the Germans got really serious about dealing with partisans they pulled regular divisions off the line to do the job.
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: Lascar

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Lascar

Will there be restrictions on units of different nationalities from cooperating with one another? For example, will the Romanians and Hungarians be prohibited from stacking together or even being adjacent with one another (i.e. Italian 8th army deployed between Hungarian 2nd and Romanian 3rd armies)

I keep nagging Gary to put such restrictions in but he hasn't done it yet. When I'm playing the Axis I never stack them together on principle.
I also do that with Russian campaign games that don't have such a rule hard coded.

If there are not stacking restriction are there at least combat penalties when various axis nationalities attack together i.e. Romanians and Germans or other such combinations?

There are combat penalties whenever units of different corps attack together but no penalty per se for being a different nationality at present.
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge




okay, you say so, guess we were misinformed then

You were not misinformed; the "quality" SS divisions often conducted anti-partisan operations as part of their "rest & refitting" that in a game only makes sense if your a Nazis. I just assume most players aren't.

I was waiting for that one. I thought we were dealing with a historical simulation here ? What does a players political attitude have to do with it ? Or are we making a politically correct modern newspeak version of events here ?

I think non waffen SS units were intended for partisan suppression and death camp administration and loads of other tasks that are, (rightly) completely unsavory to modern palates.

I was just going by the books I've read, (autobiographies) and other games I've played, (Avalon Hill stuff ever heard of them ?). So I thought there was some historical basis for it. But I don't care really, I just don't appreciate your insinuation.





I apologize for editorializing and I'm sorry I did not communicated clearly what I meant.

In a game players follow the most rational course of action when it comes to the utilization of their forces. Even if the Germans historically hunted partisans with elite SS divisions, players are not likely to do that because it is not an efficient use of resources. In the game a rational player will use the least combat capable units he has for anti-partisan operations because they're just as effective in that role as using Das Reich. This conduct has nothing to do with political correctness; it's just what I would call "game sense".
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice

I've seen air recon discussed in another thread ... are there any other forms of intelligence; i.e., signals intercepts?

Can you say a little more about the important uses of 'administrative points' that were alluded to earlier in this thread?

Thanks.

Currently, beyond physical contact with enemy units, air recon is the only method for getting intelligence on enemy dispositions. You could consider this one of the drawbacks of a IGUO system where there are no plotting moves to "intercept".

Administrative points are an optional (but in my opinion necessary) feature of the game designed to restrict the amount actions a player can take in a turn. Both sides begin with a reserve of admin points and get more each turn. They spend admin points to do things like change the attachment of units to HQs, replace leaders, and (if you Russian) build new units. Not using the administrative point option benefits the Russian more than the Axis because more Russian actions are tied to them so using or not using them is one way to play balance the game when one opponent is a weaker player than the other.
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

1) Would fuel in motor units drop to zero, so that they are inmobilized?

2) Would low morale prevent units attacking?

3) How will large changes in TOEs being handled, like for instance the shift to type 44 German inf div?

4) What are the statistics of the generals? could you give as some examples?

1) They would have to be isolated for that to happen.

2) No but obviously the lower the morale the less effect a unit is in combat.

3) There are hundreds of TOEs in the game with most major formations (divisions) having practically one for every year of the War. The TOEs change to reflect changes in organization and equipment based on a set date. When a unit's TOE changes the unit will begin conforming to the new TOE when it receives replacements. Old equipment will be retained in a unit if that class of equipment is still used by the unit. If the new TOE eliminates a particular class of equipment in the unit then that equipment will be returned to the replacement pool. Only when sufficient production of new equipment is available will old equipment of the same class be swapped out of a unit.

4) Here are the areas that leaders are rated in:

Rank, Political standing (in the eyes of Hitler or Stalin), Morale, Initiative, Land (ground combat in general), Armor (expertise with tank units), air (air unit commanders only), & Admin (how good at staff work).

Guderian, in the order of above, is a 12 (General), 5, 7, 9, 7, 9, 1, 6
User avatar
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
Posts: 785
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:00 pm

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by Iñaki Harrizabalagatar »

And what is "political standing" used in the game for?
Also what about Manstein or Zhukov statistics? just for some comparison
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by Hard Sarge »


Excuse me, I thought you were still referring to the SS. Security divisions were regimental size units with a correspondingly reduced complement of heavy weapons and generally manned by second line troops (over aged or with slight infirmaties that made them unfit for front line combat). They're primary purpose was guarding not hunting partisans. They obviously weren't too effect in anti-partisan operations because whenever the Germans got really serious about dealing with partisans they pulled regular divisions off the line to do the job.


that was you and somebody else talking about the SS

we were told that for Partisan Combat, Security Troops were better then normal troops (but things change and this may be one of them)



Image
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

And what is "political standing" used in the game for?
Also what about Manstein or Zhukov statistics? just for some comparison

The political rating effects the chance a leader will be dismissed due to poor combat performance and the chance a leader will get promoted. It can cost more administrative points to voluntarily dismiss a leader with a high political rating. It also costs additional administrative points (Axis only) to transfer units from one leader's command to another.

Here's your comparison:

Manstein: 12, 5, 6, 9, 8, 9, 1, 6

Zhukov: 28, 7, 6, 9, 9, 8, 1, 7

BTW, remember that Manstein begins the game as a corps commander. In later war scenarios he might be given different ratings.
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: War in the East Q&A

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge


we were told that for Partisan Combat, Security Troops were better then normal troops (but things change and this may be one of them)


Perhaps by better someone was actually meaning more effective use of force. Here's the procedure for combating partisans and you can decide what to deduce from it:

A combat unit moves adjacent to a partisan unit automatically "attacking" the partisan unit. The partisan unit is displaced to another hex not occupied or in a zone of control of an Axis unit within 12 hexes of its current location. Displacement will usually result in the partisan unit going inactive. That's it period.

Post Reply

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