Game Suggestions:

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

PKH
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:26 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by PKH »

A couple more things which would be nice:
- A popup at the beginning of a turn when new units/reinforcements have become controllable.
- Being able to drag the map around with f.ex. the middle mouse button.
randallw
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:28 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by randallw »

What does the turn by turn morale loss for the Axis, in the 1941 blizzard, supposed to represent? Is it a loss of fighting efficiency just from being cold, or a lack of supplies, or both?  Perhaps the morale loss can be smaller if the units have some 'preparation' for the blizzard, if it's not already in rules ( I know there have been blizzard rule changes along the way ).  I also know that any changes could have major consequences for the rest of the campaign.
Texasgrunt
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:47 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Texasgrunt »

I do like the idea of introducing the possibility of a strategic variable - +/- 10% or 15% on production for a quarter, +/- 1-4 weeks for the entry or withdrawal of a unit, etc.
Destroy the enemy's army, then you can do what you will with his land, cattle and women.
PKH
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:26 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by PKH »

A couple more suggestions
- Option to zoom on cursor instead of selection
- Ability to highlight units which will withdraw within the next few turns. Also info on this on the unit details
- Ability to highlight units out of range from their HQ
JamesM
Posts: 1024
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: QLD, Australia

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by JamesM »

A suggestion about Axis air attacks on Soviet airfields.

I know that Gary stopped the AI attacking Soviet airfield after turn one in an earlier patch.  Could I suggest that this now happens at the end of July or August 41 so as to reduce the effect of the VVS early on and to destroy older model aircraft.
randallw
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:28 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by randallw »

It would probably would have been a better idea to adjust the AI so it wouldn't be launching airfield attacks that are stupid.
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by michaelm75au »

It might be useful to have the option to show the main supply/fuel hubs.

I have trouble trying to (a) find easily which city hubs are supplying what units, (b) the extent of my rail link supplying which city hubs. Too often I think that a city hub is supplying my units, suddenly to realize that the rail link hasn't been completed yet to get the supplies there.

Turning on the show rail info button doesn't seem to persist. Soon as I click on another location/unit the rail indicators disappear and I have to try to get the toggle back on. Would nice if toggling it on, left it on forever no matter where you click. Then toggling off, would turn it off.
Michael
User avatar
Wild
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:09 am

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Wild »

Yes, That would definitely be a nice feature.
User avatar
Helpless
Posts: 15786
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:12 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Helpless »

It might be useful to have the option to show the main supply/fuel hubs.

So far city supply dumps are more or less virtual as they should switch to the new ones once the link is lost. Currently they mostly serve as "placeholders" for the improved supply system. It should also bring more details for the player. Of cause you may want to know which one are about to be lost. Some info is available in Commander's Reports
Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development
User avatar
von Beanie
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Oak Hills, S. California

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by von Beanie »

I have serious issues with PBEM as it exists. I just resigned a game because I determined (with a lot of angst) that I couldn't trust the reliability of my opponent's repeated outstanding moves (based on experience). Slitherine wasn't helpful, because they refused to tell me whether there was or wasn't a problem with the reloading of turns. Their method is to try and solve a possible problem from this point forward. I would have been willing to continue the game if everything was legitimate, but they would not confirm that.
 
To prevent reloading of turns, 2by3 should insist that a message be sent to the PBEM opponent if a game turn is reloaded a second time. I don't see any drawbacks to this suggestion, and it would immediately stop the easiest way to cheat. Isn't that the goal of playing the games on a server in the first place? I shouldn't have to feel ashamed for what I decided to do because this problem could be easily resolved by implementing this simple suggestion.
"Military operations are drastically affected by many considerations, one of the most important of which is the geography of the area" Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
Helpless
Posts: 15786
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:12 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Helpless »

Afaik, Slitherine tracks amount of reloads/saves (don't know much about the details). Providing it from the server game wouldn't be too difficult if such tracking exists. To implement it in classical PBEM in efficient way would be much more difficult.
Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development
randallw
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:28 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by randallw »

The Russian People's Militia divisions begin with an experience level at about 30, the same as any other freshly built rifle divisions.  I thought the PM personnel were just part of the basic populace taken from the local big city.  Does this mean the other rifle divisions are drawing from just the basic populace, with no training before going into the units?

It also seems weird that some units deployed in the field before the invasion would have an experience level under 30.
User avatar
Helpless
Posts: 15786
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:12 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Helpless »

I thought the PM personnel were just part of the basic populace taken from the local big city. Does this mean the other rifle divisions are drawing from just the basic populace, with no training before going into the units?

I some cases PM units were even more experienced and in fact they were not much different from the "normal" divisions as all officer stuff were taken from cadre army. Later they all have been converted to usual army units.

Random Soviet morale levels in June 1941 is different issue.
Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development
Guru
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:18 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Guru »

I think the problem with the strategic side of the game is that the German can squeeze 20% improvement (over historical distance covered and losses Germany suffers) out of the freedom enabled by the game in 1941, whereas the Soviet Side can squeeze about 50% improvement (speaking to losses, saved industry, and army/air force organizational efficiency improvements) out of the freedom in 1941.

Thus, to me, WitE hands Germany a net 30% disadvantage over history in 1941, and that will be leveraged into further disadvantage in subsequent years. It is a recipe for me for an unenjoyable game, and for now at least, I've started my last game. I won't play Soviet because it's still too easy. I won't play Germany again because it's just not worth the time investment for the frustrating impotence you are handcuffed with, forced to deal with watching the Soviet scurry eastward just fast enough that you can't do anything meaningful (like damage factories or capture manpower) about it.


(sorry for the poor english I'm not a native english-speaker)
I couldn't agree more: I have identified precisely the same problem

However, although I am no "german fanboy" or anything like that, I believe the "margin of improvement" to be of a very different nature for Germans and Russians. If, for the Wehrmacht, the improvement lies in strategic and operational issues, ultimately a question of decisions, for the Red Army the improvement actually implies a radically different doctrine : in other words, if playing better, as the German, consists in making better strategic and operational decisions, which is not historically implausible, and therefore fits in a simulation model, playing better as the Russian consists in mastering the principle of elastic and in-depth defence from the very beginning of the campaign, which is, according to me, historically implausible to say the least.
Indeed, the Red Army was conceived as an offensive army. Its physiognomy was determined by its offensive doctrine, that had been honed since its birth
back in the early days of the Revolution, and had know significant theoretical developemnt in the early 30's. This offensive doctrine impregnated the training of every officer, from the General Staff downwards to the platoon commander.
So I believe that the offensive disposition of the Red Army, and therefore its incapacity to implement the sort of optimum strategy that WITE players favour, is a sort of in-built, inherent, characteristic. And in the same way WITE as a simulation respects the material characteristics of the equipment and all - Sturmgeschützen don't fly - the Red Army should not be allowed to do something it was intrinsically incapable of doing: it took one full-year of experiencing disastrous counter-attacks, forced retreats and routs, and being bashed to bits before the Red Army started to integrate the principle and value of retreat as a deliberate element of its operational doctrine.
Now, all this could be splitting hairs, but I think this could provide us with a consistent reason to narrow this "margin of improvemnt" of the Red Army, that, obviously, hurts the game a little.
Indeed, I believe, and this is the only reason why I mention this, that if the German could inflict closer to reality 1941 casualties, probably by creating the large historical pockets such as are never seen in a game with a half-competent Russian player, the game would be a lot more tense, including , and maybe especially in 1942.
Now, how to constrain the strategic and operational freedom of the Red Army in game-terms?
Some have suggested fewer movemnt points (preferably a randomized reduction) and that isn't a bad idea, but it wouldn't invite to much counter-attacking anyway.
What I thought of is something like, randomly assigning (maybe modified by the pol rating of the leader) some sectors/HQ's/a mixture of both to the AI at the very beginning of the Russian turn (with the AI set on "aggressive mode"). This would account for the silly counter-attack and no-retreat orders, whose implementation, and ensuing failure, were a necessary step in the maturation of the Red Army. This would still create interesting dilemmas, such as abandoning the units that counter-attacked to their fate, or somehow try and protect them from being encircled, at the risk of suffering more. We could also include a "disobedience" sub-game, where the leader rolls his political rating in order to be freed from the obligation (failure would implie removal/execution). This, of course, could be applicable to the Germans later in the war (how else would precious leaders such as Guderian and Manstein be disposed of in a normal WITE game?)
Obviously, this "overtaking by the AI" would gradually diminish with time. But I think that allowing some premature wasting of Soviet offensive potential à la Kharkov offensive would also be beneficial to the game and to how long it can remain a tense and interesting challenge. Indeed, that fact that it seems more or less admitted (am I right?) that the best Soviet strategy is the general withdrawal without ever initiating combat, and then hoarding forces until in a position to launch an unstoppable juggernaut poses a real problem in terms of intensity and interactivity, and leads to justified comments and loss of interest such as the one I quoted
Anyway, that was just brainstorming, awaiting for the enlightened judgement of the Community...

Djouk
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:49 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Djouk »

Is this threat will be used by conceptors of this game ?
Why not apply soft factor on fourth corners of counters in applying what i said about fortitication marker.
A soft factor with fatigue may be usefull.
TAIL_GUNNER
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 1:33 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by TAIL_GUNNER »

not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but the only thing I'd like to see is more element slots for the combat units.

Panzer Divisions in particular can easily get filled to the max in the early game...and it only gets worse from their. Many pieces of equipment are not included at all.

Double or even triple the amount would be awesome.
AKA "Juggalo"
EastWarHistorian
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:10 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by EastWarHistorian »

I'd like to see an Early Barbarossa Scenario, starting about 22 May 1941.  As of now, the editor will not allow the start date of Barbarossa to be changed to a date prior to 22 June 1941. 

This scenario would assume the anti-Axis coup in Yugoslavia in March 1941 never took place.  The coup forced the Germans to divert several important divisions to put down the coup during March-April 1941, thus delaying the start of Barbarossa.  
User avatar
delatbabel
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:37 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by delatbabel »

ORIGINAL: Guru
Indeed, I believe, and this is the only reason why I mention this, that if the German could inflict closer to reality 1941 casualties, probably by creating the large historical pockets such as are never seen in a game with a half-competent Russian player, the game would be a lot more tense, including , and maybe especially in 1942.

I think you are perhaps playing an older version of the game.

In the current 1.05.53 version 1942 is already very hard for the Russians. Any competent German player can take Moscow, Leningrad, Rostov, and seriously threaten Stalingrad and beyond. Already in the AARs we are seeing massive gains by German players in 1942, and any attempt to stop these just results in huge encirclements, from which the Russian players can't recover even into 1944 and 1945.

I think if you want to make it even easier for the Germans in 1942, say make it that most German players can push the Russians back to the Urals and Baku by the end of 1942, then you have a less interesting game.

To reply to another earlier message, are the developers still reading this thread or is best to post elsewhere?
--
Del
Tentpeg
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:42 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Tentpeg »

Ditto on what Tail_Gunner said. Certain units can not be edited with accuracy because the space is not available.
Zort
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:33 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Zort »

I would like to see more effects of politics on the overall decisions that the commander has to manage. Simply put I could envision a popup choice with ie, defend a certain city, counterattack with units in a certain area etc.

The reprecussions of not doing the political choice fully would result in loss of the leader(s) near the area concern. That leader will not be available to the player for x period of time and the replacement leader will be a political leader that can't be removed for x number of turns.

Something like this could be used for both sides.
Post Reply

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