Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)

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

User avatar
Tarhunnas
Posts: 2900
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:19 am
Location: Hex X37, Y15

RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)

Post by Tarhunnas »

ORIGINAL: map66

Part of the problem is that the game doesn't model that the Germans were not as well prepared in the south as they were in the center and the north, especially logistically, due to the diversions necessary for the Balkan campaign. In game terms, obviously, one rail head can be used be used to support an unlimited number of panzers--- something that sounds like it will be modeled better in WiTW, but for now allows a rather a-historical diversion of forces south and the resulting Lvov pocket.

One possible solution would be to have the turn 1 surprise rules not be in effect south of certain line--- i.e. German units that operate south of there pay normal movement and attack costs. This might do a decent job of modelling the relative German un-preparedness in the south and the relatively higher performance of the Soviet units in that area. Obviously, any units from Army Group Center moved south of the line would start to pay the higher movement costs, and my suspicion is that this might eliminate the Lvov pocket as an option, or make its implementation much more of a trade off then it is now.

Sounds like a good idea! Worth exploring.
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
vicberg
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:29 am

RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)

Post by vicberg »

No....Germans don't win against Soviet run away strategy. Someone show me wrong, and I'll be happy to recant. First turn is not the game. LVOV pocket, plus all the other additional pockets that may be formed now first turn do not mean automatic victory. If the Soviets withdrawl correctly, it's still very much in Soviet hands. You want a completely one-sided game. Fine. Keep going and no one will play it. Have fun against the AI. Don't build this game on the results of a 2 German players. Even then, I'd like to see someone play against Pelton or Michaelt with the ability to fully withdrawl and no mules, and see if these two players can recreate the same results. I doubt they will.

I'm sorry, but have been on this forum for a while, I get the strong feeling that if the Germans even have a chance at victory, that's wrong. Sorry, it's a game, with two players, and both having a chance for victory. Any other option, and one side is wasting their time.
User avatar
Rufus T. Firefly
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:03 am
Location: Chicago, IL

RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)

Post by Rufus T. Firefly »

If there was a logistical problem in the south then maybe a cleaner more accurate fix would be to give AGS units somewhat less than full supply on turn 1. A fuel shortage would have the effect of taking away movement points as Tarhunnas has suggested, but this gives it a rationale rather than being arbitrary. An ammo shortage would limit the number of attacks.

I think this is better than taking away the suprise rule which to my mind quite properly makes German attacks more deadly on the first turn.
Rufus T. Firefly: Do you realize our army is facing disastrous defeat? What do you intend to do about it?
Chicolini: I've done it already. I've changed to the other side.
Firefly: What are you doing over here?
Chicolini: Well, the food is better
notenome
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:07 pm

RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)

Post by notenome »

With 20/20 hindsight or a million/million hindsight the Germans wouldn't have been able to form the Lvov pocket. Firstly, the Lvov pocket was pretty much what OKH wanted to do, trap the Soviets vs the Romanian border. The problem was the incredibly large number of Soviet mechanized forces that attacked the Germans in what became a series of meeting engagements (including the largest tank battle of all time at Dubno) combined with Soviet resistance in the swamps which created an elongated right flank.

To Joel:

I agree with the first turn rules except its only three days! By the end of turn 1 (again, 3 days) the Germans hadn't created the large pockets or reached the Dvina in the north. That took a week. Not 3 days. That's the sticking point for me, to advance 200, 250 miles in 3 days was impossible at that time (and still very hard in this day and age). The only commander to do so was Rommel, because he rufueled his puppies at civilian gas stations. Also, what about the unit isolation idea?
kg_1007
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:45 am

RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)

Post by kg_1007 »

ORIGINAL: notenome

With 20/20 hindsight or a million/million hindsight the Germans wouldn't have been able to form the Lvov pocket. Firstly, the Lvov pocket was pretty much what OKH wanted to do, trap the Soviets vs the Romanian border. The problem was the incredibly large number of Soviet mechanized forces that attacked the Germans in what became a series of meeting engagements (including the largest tank battle of all time at Dubno) combined with Soviet resistance in the swamps which created an elongated right flank.

To Joel:

I agree with the first turn rules except its only three days! By the end of turn 1 (again, 3 days) the Germans hadn't created the large pockets or reached the Dvina in the north. That took a week. Not 3 days. That's the sticking point for me, to advance 200, 250 miles in 3 days was impossible at that time (and still very hard in this day and age). The only commander to do so was Rommel, because he rufueled his puppies at civilian gas stations. Also, what about the unit isolation idea?
It is difficult, but not impossible. The 7th Panzer Division advanced between 0305 hrs on 22June, 1941, and 2300 Hrs on 25June..just 4 days, ...390km, and cut the highway between Minsk and Moscow..in that 4 days, 1 day was spent halted at Vilna allowing the flanks some hours to close.
User avatar
Rufus T. Firefly
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:03 am
Location: Chicago, IL

RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)

Post by Rufus T. Firefly »

Wouldn't the simple solution to the 3 day first turn issue simply be to make all turns including the first turn 7 days and forget about trying to conform to the calendar?

In game turns this means that using random weather there would be a significantly increased progbability of mud arriving 1 turn sooner for example' turn 16 now starts 4 days later) than at present, which will make it harder for the Germans to take Moscow, which is a more historical result.
Rufus T. Firefly: Do you realize our army is facing disastrous defeat? What do you intend to do about it?
Chicolini: I've done it already. I've changed to the other side.
Firefly: What are you doing over here?
Chicolini: Well, the food is better
kg_1007
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:45 am

RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)

Post by kg_1007 »

Rufus, you have a good head on your shoulders, as they say. I have wondered this myself often.
notenome
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:07 pm

RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)

Post by notenome »

I agree with that as well, it would solve the Dvina and Minsk issue. Still leaves the Lvov pocket in the open, unfortunately. As for comforming to the calendar, just make the first mud turn 3 days long, nothing happens on that turn anyways so you wouldn't have to deal with the whole 3 day advance thing.

One solution to the Lvov Pocket would be to make some of the first turn rules not apply to the South. This would be historically correct as Kirponos disobeyed Stalin's order and began alerting and moving his forces to the front a few days before the invasion.
User avatar
Tarhunnas
Posts: 2900
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:19 am
Location: Hex X37, Y15

RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)

Post by Tarhunnas »

A problem with isolation is that it is so digital. Either you are isolated and very weak and susceptible to surrender, or you are not and units are much stronger and will not surrender. That invites things like the para-pocket-relief.
 
IMHO Isolation should be much more gradual, with poor morale units more likely to surrender and long supply lines or low supply status increasing the risk.
 
Pardrops are ok to block someone elses supply IMHO, but having them drop to reopen supply lines is unrealistic. A good way woul be to make a hex converted by airdrop "neutral" so that no side could trace supply through it. But I guess that would be complicated to implement.
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
Cavalry Corp
Posts: 3637
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:28 pm
Location: Sampford Spiney Devon UK

RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)

Post by Cavalry Corp »

I agree and high morale units like Guards TK Corps etc and Pz/ SS units did not surrender as a rule only when instructed. For certain it would be good to have units surrender on a roll based on current morale and supply. Conversely low morale units adjusted by fatigue and supply and non mobile units ( that know they cannot easily get out) would surrender more easily as a rule.

Its a week long turn and Cav/ mobile / armoured units would react and could easily break out of a weak encirclement before it got stronger. If they got orders to do so.

Cav
User avatar
Great_Ajax
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)

Post by Great_Ajax »

I have found in my reading that air support is a key ingredient to how well an isolated force can fight. Surrounded forces without air support tend to fold rather quickly. There are many examples where the Soviets fought very well while surrounded until the Luftwaffe was unleashed on them. Constant aerial unhindered ground attacks from the air have a remarkable effect on morale of the ground forces.

Trey
"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer
Cavalry Corp
Posts: 3637
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:28 pm
Location: Sampford Spiney Devon UK

RE: Two suggestions (turn 1 and isolated units)

Post by Cavalry Corp »

Agreed, as I said mbile units that remain mobile could break out and because they know that they are less deomralised. But if say heavily interdicted and unabe to move would realise their fate maybe sealed.
Post Reply

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