Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

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

vicberg
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:29 am

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by vicberg »

Doesn't matter if the red army can be built to historical or not. The game can be effectively over by 42 and an exercise in mouse clicks until 43, maybe 44. The german army is also not historical after the first blizzard. The Soviet ability to NOT stand and fight is not historical. History has nothing to do with this.

Japanese can effectively "win" WITPAE. Though there is no time limit on the game, a 46 victory by the Allies is considered a victory by the Japanese. There's a couple of AARs going on where it's looking like the Allies won't be able to come anywhere close to historical in 45. In part because of multiple bloody noses over the course of the war.

I think the key is that the underdogs have been given a greater ability to influence the course of the war in WITPAE. Soviets have more control (to a debatable degree) in WITE.
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by janh »

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
Doesn't this imply that the historical Red Army isn't "optimal" in the context of WITE?

Was it "optimal" in its original context? Or is this just a matter of hindsight again?

This is a good discussion. I would more or less agree with anything Numdydar said. And would hope that the devs will bring (back) some of the features that make WitP-AE such an intriguing game despite its monstrosity (or some of the same things that were already in G&G WiR).

In my opinion, were not the AI of WitE so much better than that in AE, the replay value of AE was (and perhaps even is) a lot higher. Just because you can make early adjustments to production, R&D or strategy and defensive deployments and hold tight until the later years, hoping that any change will effect at least a little something.
On the one hand, if the AI were dynamically scripted/able and a a bit better, I would rather wish they adapt that monster to the European context, but on the other, playing Europe at that detail level with 1 day turns... whoah, never going to finish -- they are right that's over the top. Maybe 4 days turns would be best, 10mile hexes, and preferably we-go instead of i-go-u-go. Let's see where they head for with WiEurope...
gradenko2k
Posts: 930
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:08 am

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by gradenko2k »

What I was getting at was that while the structure and composition may have worked in terms of IRL, maybe it wasn't the best possible structure and composition in terms of how WITE specifically works, and so being unable to re-create it in WITE isn't exactly something that we should be aiming for in the first place.
misesfan
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:13 am

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by misesfan »

Are people stating that the Soviets ability to create SU's and/or whole formations (let alone their ability to combine divisions into corps level single counter units) are functionally underwhelming? Well, in my opinion, it definitely makes one side more 'fun' to play than the other. Using a plethora of AP's to shuffle around support units or to create a few forts or to tweak leader placement is not really fun for the Germans - more like an exercise in futility. The fact that he Soviets can add Support Units, or create new formations, and heaven help us, combine divisions into extremely hard-hitting corps level units is fun. Corps level cavalry in Dec is the tip of the iceberg in which each hex of an attack will be able to hold army size groups of men an material quickly grinding the Wehrmacht to dust.

And no, being on the receiving end of this is not fun. Like most people, I play the Soviets now pretty exclusively, it is funner side to play (even in 1941....)
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by Flaviusx »

ORIGINAL: pwieland

Are people stating that the Soviets ability to create SU's and/or whole formations (let alone their ability to combine divisions into corps level single counter units) are functionally underwhelming?

That's exactly what I'm stating. You just don't have the APs to be very creative here. In the end, you're scrambling to be as cost effective as possible with them and this severely limits your choices.

In the end, I'd rather have a a historical reinforcement schedule and full operational freedom the way the Axis does. The Axis is many times more cost effective than the Soviet Union is in terms of APs, because it gets 5/6 the amount of APs the Soviets do per turn and only has to do a limited number of things with them.

I'm also doubting that APs as a game currency make any sense at all once they assume too many disparate functions. Force creation ought to have nothing at all to do with command and control. It should have its own distinct model and not be lumped together with everything else.
WitE Alpha Tester
misesfan
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:13 am

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by misesfan »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


That's exactly what I'm stating. You just don't have the APs to be very creative here. In the end, you're scrambling to be as cost effective as possible with them and this severely limits your choices.

In the end, I'd rather have a a historical reinforcement schedule and full operational freedom the way the Axis does. The Axis is many times more cost effective than the Soviet Union is in terms of APs, because it gets 5/6 the amount of APs the Soviets do per turn and only has to do a limited number of things with them.

I'm also doubting that APs as a game currency make any sense at all once they assume too many disparate functions. Force creation ought to have nothing at all to do with command and control. It should have its own distinct model and not be lumped together with everything else.

So basically you are saying that Germany's inability to customize its formations is an advantage because of the amount of AP's it does receive in comparison to the SU. When you are playing the Axis in 1942 getting steamrolled by three mechanized corps per hex, but still have 400 AP's to spend, I dont think its much of an issue.

You may be right about everything you are asserting, but in the end - its more fun to play the Soviets than it is to play the Germans, at least to me. The ability to customize their forces as the need arises is one big reason why.

User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by Flaviusx »

I'm guessing you aren't doing PBEM, Pwieland.

In the single player game, the Soviet Union probably has more replayability and may be more fun. The AI doesn't stress your APs the way a human opponent does.

In PBEM, force construction is just a headache.

The Soviet AI cheats so far as APs go, btw. It's not anywhere near as constrained as a human is and can spam units. You're not going to get steamrolled by zounds of mechanized corps in 1942 in PBEM. These things are serious AP hogs and take a long time to get up to speed. A single Mech corps costs 35 APs to build, not including attachments. (15 APs for the three brigades, and 20 more to flip them over.) The per turn Soviet budget is 60 APs.

WitE Alpha Tester
misesfan
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:13 am

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by misesfan »

Heh - I have noticed people on these forums always ask whether someone is doing PBM when making a critique on balance or some other aspect of the game. I have played PBM - almost exclusively on the German side. Hopefully that answers your question. Whether its applicable or not, well - I havent played PBM for a bit, and really have no inclination to play PBM in this game nowadays. I still like the game, playing as the SU, but my time is worth more than committing myself to a game that is fundamentally unbalanced when playing PvP.

You state that the AI doesnt stretch the ability of a human player to use AP in a realistic manner. That may be true. But its also irrelevant. Germany lacks the flexibility to do anything with the APs they are given beyond 1941 when HQ buildups can be used during the big offensive operations. The Soviet Union not only has the same set of functions the Germans do - but they can create new units, create new SU's, and combine units into larger formations. On a gaming level - having more options is fun.

I have been purposely avoiding the realism debate, because thats a slippery slope of what if's and conjecture. I would say that simulating the Red Army by giving it a higher degree of flexibility into their force composition than the Wehrmacht is ahistorical. My two cents at least.

In gaming though, when one side is given more options within a system than the other, its inevitable that this side will be the favored one to play. Its inevitable.

User avatar
heliodorus04
Posts: 1653
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Nashville TN

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by heliodorus04 »

Flavius, as much as you've played the game, you have demonstrated absolutely zero ability to understand how a German player can improve his force by using APs. You are blind.

If the German AP cost to move a division to another HQ were costed the same as for the Soviets (who pay one fifth to one-seventh the cost to do the same function), that alone would improve the German ability to have fun. I know, I've done it, I've seen the results. You obviously have not, and I challenge you to play a game with Germany getting basically 200 AP a turn to see what you can do with your first year of the campaign.

I would gladly play anyone a game where the Soviet had to deal with a historic reinforcement schedule as does the German. You have no idea how the German game works, obviously.
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
E
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:14 am

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by E »

ORIGINAL: Mike13z50
ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
ORIGINAL: Numdydar
You are correct and a very good point. WitPAE is, as you point out, version 2.0 of the original WitP. But is not this WitE version 2.0 of the original WitE?
Not quite. To make a comparison:

Pacific War -> War in the Pacific -> War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition
War in Russia -> War in the East -> We're-not-here-yet
Missed a couple there:
War in Russia (1984)==>Second Front (1990)==>Gary Grigsby's War in Russia (1993)==>Gary Grigsby's War in the East (2010)
That's okay, he also missed War in the South Pacific (1986)
"Lose" is the opposite of "win." "Loose" is the opposite of "tight."

Friends Don't Let Friends Facebook.

Twitter is for... (wait for it!) ...Twits!
johnnyvagas
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:29 pm

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by johnnyvagas »

ORIGINAL: E

ORIGINAL: Mike13z50
ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000


Not quite. To make a comparison:

Pacific War -> War in the Pacific -> War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition
War in Russia -> War in the East -> We're-not-here-yet
Missed a couple there:
War in Russia (1984)==>Second Front (1990)==>Gary Grigsby's War in Russia (1993)==>Gary Grigsby's War in the East (2010)
That's okay, he also missed War in the South Pacific (1986)

...And South Pacific (1958)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgzvTHsOxSQ
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Japan will never ever conquer the continental US. And that's where the astronomical quantity of materiel and manpower comes from [;)]

Once this materiel and men are gathered, nothing -repeat- nothing can stop the US. Not to mention the A-bomb, which is available to drop a) at certain date, and b) if you are at x hexes from Japan.

You don't expect to defeat the allies. Sink as many CVs as you can... the allies only have to get to the Marianas Islands or the Kurils though: A-bomb dropped, game over...

Therefore an utter Japanese victory is a pipe dream. Period.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Oh, and yes, the Japanese have lots of toys (industry). This does not make any difference LOL

So if you think being able to play with German industry should allow you to achieve an utter victory... er, I see where you're heading [:D]

In WitP AE only one thing can save the Japanese: Charly the Clown in charge of the mighty allied land, air, naval hordes...
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
misesfan
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:13 am

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by misesfan »

I dont think the OP was talking about balance. It was about which side was more fun to play (at least how I read it). In its current form, Germany is not as fun to play as the Soviets. The Soviets have many more choices and more flexibility with their OOB than the Germans. Thus, the preferred side playing WITE is the Red Army. I think its fairly obvious, but perhaps I am mistaken.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by Flaviusx »

ORIGINAL: pwieland

The Soviets have many more choices and more flexibility with their OOB than the Germans.

They really don't. It only looks that way.

Here's a simple exercise: sit down at the end of a game and compare your custom made Red Army to the one in the 1944 scenario. The stock Red Army might actually be better. (Its command and control will be a mess, mind you, but that's because the scenario was designed before the nerfs to Soviet command limits. But so far as actual formations go, it may well be better than yours.)

A lot of folks struggle to build a Red Army as good as that stock one (and it's a pretty good blueprint of what you should shoot for.) Especially in PBEM.

WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
AFV
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:12 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by AFV »

I fail to see how anyone can argue that getting reinforcements on a set timetable is more fun than building your own army.
Screw which one is better, that is irrelevent to this discussion. The OP was referring to the fun factor.

There is a reason why more people prefer playing the Soviet side in this game. We may all have slightly different reasons, but they basically boil down to enjoyment, or, the fun factor.

Its a game. The current game has very little replayability value, because very few options are offered up. WITPAE has a much greater replayability value, but then again, its a much more mature game and comparing WITE to it, at this stage, is not fair.

I also have an issue with many people here regarding the "what if" factor. In every other wargame I have ever played, the whole effin point of the game was a "what if"- what if one side had done this, or that, would it have changed the outcome? Can I do something better, can I outsmart my opponent, etc. Discussions regarding this game come down to if  one side suggests anything that does not strengthen the odds of a Soviet steamroller in 1944 then its heresy, and they need to be burned at the cross.

Again, years from now, when this game consists of 90% of us playing the Soviet side vs the AI, and a dead forum, no one wanting to play the Axis side, do not be surprised. But, you can look at the 1944 Soviet steamroller and say "yeah, but we got that".
hfarrish
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:52 pm

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by hfarrish »

ORIGINAL: AFV

I fail to see how anyone can argue that getting reinforcements on a set timetable is more fun than building your own army.
Screw which one is better, that is irrelevent to this discussion. The OP was referring to the fun factor.


I tend to think of building divisions and artillery brigades and managing the APs to do so as a chore, not "fun." I guess we all have different definitions, however.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: AFV

Again, years from now, when this game consists of 90% of us playing the Soviet side vs the AI, and a dead forum, no one wanting to play the Axis side, do not be surprised.

Yep. Just like WitP/WiTP-AE.

Oh...... wait. People actually do still play either PBEM.

And that forum isn't dead. Or have people giving grief because the Allies can't do their production like the Japanese can.

Then again, last time I played WiTP, I couldn't build those dozen Yamato class battleships I wanted. Or convert them. Or build more than 1 Taiho class carrier either. Planes, sure.

And the person I played *wanted* to play the Allies. Go figure.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
User avatar
heliodorus04
Posts: 1653
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Nashville TN

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by heliodorus04 »

ORIGINAL: AFV

I fail to see how anyone can argue that getting reinforcements on a set timetable is more fun than building your own army.
Screw which one is better, that is irrelevent to this discussion. The OP was referring to the fun factor.

There is a reason why more people prefer playing the Soviet side in this game. We may all have slightly different reasons, but they basically boil down to enjoyment, or, the fun factor.

Its a game. The current game has very little replayability value, because very few options are offered up. WITPAE has a much greater replayability value, but then again, its a much more mature game and comparing WITE to it, at this stage, is not fair.

I also have an issue with many people here regarding the "what if" factor. In every other wargame I have ever played, the whole effin point of the game was a "what if"- what if one side had done this, or that, would it have changed the outcome? Can I do something better, can I outsmart my opponent, etc. Discussions regarding this game come down to if  one side suggests anything that does not strengthen the odds of a Soviet steamroller in 1944 then its heresy, and they need to be burned at the cross.

Again, years from now, when this game consists of 90% of us playing the Soviet side vs the AI, and a dead forum, no one wanting to play the Axis side, do not be surprised. But, you can look at the 1944 Soviet steamroller and say "yeah, but we got that".

Playing the German versus the AI can still be fun, if you overlook the problems with the air war, and tweak both sides settings to taste.

"Fun" alone would be giving the German the ability to create its own SUs.
Among the many things Sovie-o-phile players overlook is that they can tailor make their army for the right kinds of odds shift in this combat engine.

Giving Germany the ability to avoid crap SUs, and channel your armaments where the engine gives you advantages - that's both fun and advantageous to the side that has the ability, and suq/disadvantaging to the side that doesn't. And when the engine changes to make one SU less good, and another one better, you can adapt. Only the Soviet has this capacity in this game. It is moronic to ignore both the fun, and the advantage, that this conveys to that side.

And there's a lot of 'moronic' to go around for the apologists of this design. It will live to haunt the next title.
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
misesfan
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:13 am

RE: Japan in WitPAE versus Germany in WitE

Post by misesfan »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

They really don't. It only looks that way.

Here's a simple exercise: sit down at the end of a game and compare your custom made Red Army to the one in the 1944 scenario. The stock Red Army might actually be better. (Its command and control will be a mess, mind you, but that's because the scenario was designed before the nerfs to Soviet command limits. But so far as actual formations go, it may well be better than yours.)

A lot of folks struggle to build a Red Army as good as that stock one (and it's a pretty good blueprint of what you should shoot for.) Especially in PBEM.


You are comparing the Red Army (game) to Red Army (actual). That's not what is being argued, unless I am missing the point entirely. The point is, the Wehrmacht does not possess the ability to have this kind of flexibility which the Red Army enjoys throughout the game.

I mean really, do you think that the Germans are as much to fun to play as the Russians - even given the challenging aspect of the contest?
Post Reply

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