The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

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
76mm
Posts: 4765
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: Walloc
While i cant disagree in adding optional rules at all. Still see above, i cant see any one wanting to play with all of the hard work going into the game being decided by a arbitrary die roll.
I guess I'm the exception [:D]. The problem with this game, as with many wargames, is that the VP are fully known and do not change, and players know exactly what to do and to avoid doing to win. For instance right now I know what will happen if Lgrad and Moscow fall--absolutely nothing (I know, I know, manpower blah blah). The same problem applies to any sudden-death VP that people come up with--players will soon determine the max strategy to achieve SD (or find out that it is generally not possible).

For me it is much more interesting to wonder what would happen if Moscow falls...I'll probably be OK, but maybe my regime will collapse? What might happen if the Germans take Kiev and Kharkov too quickly? While a Sov collapse was a very remote possibility, I think including such a possiblity in the game is the best way to achieve more realistic behavior by both sides.
timmyab
Posts: 2046
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:48 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by timmyab »

Here's an idea for house rules to stop the Lvov pocket and at the same time rebalance the game.
Stopping the pocket should be easy enough I suppose.Just disallow any movement South of Tarnopol on turn one would probably do the trick.
To rebalance the game and enforce a Soviet forward defense I'd suggest allocating points to cities.At the start of each Axis turn the total controlled by the Axis player is added up and if the points total is greater than the turn number then the Axis player is awarded a certain number of VPs per point above the turn number which would remain for the duration of the game and count towards the sudden death total of 290 (or 260).
So the Soviet player gets to keep his Lvov armies but is forced to defend forward in the Summer of 41.It could also be used to give the German player an incentive to go after places like Tallinn and Sevastopol and also to push hard with a snow offensive.
Obviously this would need play testing to work out the exact allocation of points and to which cities.It would also mean a small amount of book keeping although nothing compared to the old cardboard days.
Schmart
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Canada

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Schmart »

ORIGINAL: Marquo
The main frustration and paradox of this and perhaps every other East Front game is that if one plays like a Russian one loses. As an aside, this is why I really enjoy GMT's East Front Series as the VPs degrade over time, forcing the Soviet player to defend certain cities while imposing a timeline on the Axis player - and it is on the edge.

I agree. Fighting forward and launching counter-attacks results in swift and massive encirclements and irreplaceable losses for the Russians. I scratch my head when wargames like this often actively DISCOURAGE historical behaviours. There should be legitimate options and trade-offs between historical and alternate strategies, but to fight as the Russians historically did will basically result in slaughter. To add to that, the Russian player cannot in fact actually fight like they did historically, with stand fast orders etc. Perhaps it could in some way be tied to production: Fight more or less like the Russians did historically and get historical production. Run away (or even a fighting withdrawl) to preserve your forces and you get less than historical production. Basically, a Russian player would be choosing between a larger but lower quality army or a smaller and higher quality army.

Much of the unhistorical fighting in WitE has to do with HQ build up and the unlimited logistics. It still boggles the mind that the Axis in WitE have a continual SURPLUS of trucks, when every book I've read suggests just the opposite. Perhaps the truck penalties for a build up should be significantly increased (in truck losses, supply used, and AP cost), so that the player actually has to think carefully about when to use it, rather than simply managing APs.
There is also the concept of mandated attacks; i.e. a certain amount of offensive activity has to occur or the Soviet player loses even more VPs.

I've thought about that too. There should be some negative effect for the Russians not carrying out attacks like they did historically. It shouldn't cripple them but some kind of trade-off to make a player think carefully about which strategy (historical attacks or preservation of forces) to pursue. Perhaps even tie the decline in national morale to the fall of cities, so that there is incentive and in-game benifits (NM) to fighting harder as the Russians, in 1941 especially.

I think generally the game needs more options and trade-offs for varying strategies. There shouldn't be more or less optimal strategies for either side to take.
Schmart
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Canada

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Schmart »

ORIGINAL: Klydon
The issue with a manditory take out of Sevastopol with both sides knowing the Germans have to take it in 1941 (especially in the face of fact it didn't fall until mid 1942) means some potential "gamey" reactions, especially the way the game is modeled. The Russians could put 12 infantry divisions down there digging from the start of the game and the Germans would be faced with a wall of forts 3 deep and that was after trying to get into the Crimea in the first place. The Germans are hard pressed in the far south to start with and I don't think 11th Army is capable of the task should the Russians dig in like that.

Then VPs could be randomized to an extent at the start of the game. The game would self-generate a list of objective cities for the Axis to take, but this list is only known to the Axis player. You could have variable VPs awarded for those cities should they fall earlier or later than required. A similar but different list of cities would be generated for the Russian player. A new list would be generated for both sides each year, shaping each's strategy without the other overtly knowing right away.

There would be a lot more guess work trying to figure out your opponents objectives, as well as faints and trickery to throw the other guy off. There would also be cases as happened historically, like how the Russians massively fortified and reinforced the Moscow sector anticipating a renewed German attack there, only to have the Axis push into the Caucasus...
Schmart
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Canada

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Schmart »

ORIGINAL: janh

I just noticed your "Enhance SW Front" mod. Strange I have not noticed that thread before... Oh well, it seems definitely one way to go.

Perhaps it would even be best not to mod the Axis MPs or freeze some of them for one turn, but maybe much better to reposition the Soviet units so that Axis will have fight several engagements before breaking thru to Tarnopol. If necessary, split a few divisions into brigades to create more "obstacles". Then, if the dice gods are happy, we can still succeed in closing off Lvov, although probably in leakier fashion than in stock. Even that would make it more plausible, and get some more live out of the units instead of their usual "near-fightless" surrender. If the dice gods would be unhappy and a lot of (tank) units committed to reserve actions, Kleist would have to bully his way East at a cost. This way, a historical course would be added to the possibilities in the South, and neither end would be a given.

Perhaps another option is to code the Russian Tank and Motorized Divisions for having a much better chance of activating as defensive reserves for the period Jun-Jul 1941. This might create much more of the meeting engangements that occured historically, and also slow the German advance a bit in the south. This enhanced reserve activation could maybe be even more pronounced in the first 2 turns, giving the Russian player a semi-reactive turn capability.

With enhanced Russians reserve activation, it would also prevent turn 1 optimization for the Axis, as the reserve activation would give too much unpredictability as to Russian defensive strengths and positioning.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Flaviusx »

Klydon, the Moscow panic was put down immediately. It had no effect at all on the fighting at the front. It was totally inconsequential. The surprising thing here isn't the panic, but how rapidly it ended and how little it mattered.

There is no, zero, el zippo evidence of an army strike or mutiny in 1941. There is no there there and comparing the situation to that of France in WWI is preposterous. Despite the staggering losses, the Red Army soldiered on. Not many people or armies could have withstood such losses, but then, death and slavery will concentrate the mind. No Frenchman in WWI (or even WWII) was facing the kind of annihilation that the Russians were in WW2. Excepting perhaps the Jewish ones.







WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Klydon »

Flav, the time period I am mentioning there were issues with the Red army itself was in 1942 when the German offensive opened in the Rostov area. Units did not follow orders, did not hold and there were a lot of surrenders. A lot of these units were non-Russian units and there were even issues with Russian units. Vlasov should also serve notice that even tho Stalin/Moscow ordered things to take place, they always did not have total control.

My point is that while Stalin may have decided he was going to fight to the end, events and other issues could have overtaken what he desired to do and what actually may have happen. I am sure Assad intends to fight to the bitter end and is employing every means he can to ensure he remains in power and in control of Syria. My guess is he won't be successful, but a lot of people are going to die before he gets knocked out.

Hitler also intended to remain in power until the end and he did. However, there were several attempts on him and it would have been interesting to see what would have happen had he been removed. My guess it could have ranged from little change to Germany deciding to quit the war.

*edit* Asaid = Assad.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Flaviusx »

Vlasov is an interesting case. But ultimately he was a non factor because the Nazis were Nazis. They just couldn't help themselves. Their entire eastern policy was at odds with Vlasov's and in the end, he got very little support from them. Two divisions were raised.

If the Germans had put themselves at the head of a genuine war of liberation, then the USSR might have cracked. Pick apart the nationalities, use Vlasov and other like minded rebels for real, and who knows? But then, they wouldn't be Nazis now, would they. Lebensraum and liberation just don't mix.

The German policy in WWI towards Russia was far more realistic and sophisticated and got dramatically better results.
WitE Alpha Tester
Rosseau
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:20 am

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Rosseau »

Good book for $5 if you guys haven't read it already: The Moscow Option:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/ ... ition=used

Sorry to interrupt...great discussion.
Sorta
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:59 pm

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Sorta »

This seems a very realistic suggestion - I'm having a very enjoyable GC pbem game but having some variability in the first turn would be an improvement.

How tricky is it to mod the start?

ORIGINAL: janh

I just noticed your "Enhance SW Front" mod. Strange I have not noticed that thread before... Oh well, it seems definitely one way to go.

Perhaps it would even be best not to mod the Axis MPs or freeze some of them for one turn, but maybe much better to reposition the Soviet units so that Axis will have fight several engagements before breaking thru to Tarnopol. If necessary, split a few divisions into brigades to create more "obstacles". Then, if the dice gods are happy, we can still succeed in closing off Lvov, although probably in leakier fashion than in stock. Even that would make it more plausible, and get some more live out of the units instead of their usual "near-fightless" surrender. If the dice gods would be unhappy and a lot of (tank) units committed to reserve actions, Kleist would have to bully his way East at a cost. This way, a historical course would be added to the possibilities in the South, and neither end would be a given.




User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4458
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: janh
ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Interesting carlkay58. Would you say that a GC with a 50% level reduction to each side does really constrain players in a significant way? Or is it just a relatively minor nuisance?

Yes, great to see you back here in the forums! It has been an interesting time, imagine that some of those formerly convinced of the rumored pro-Soviet bias have meanwhile switched sides and now are getting roughly handled... seems to be an eye-opener as well. Discussion here have gotten a lot more constructive and unbiased of late.

Thank you [:)] I have noticed that last part about constructiveness, hence that I felt it was about time to jump in again.
ORIGINAL: janh
Interesting thought, you mean to half HI for both sides? What do you plan to achieve with that? Make HI more of a factor in the GC, to be evacuated more often (i.e. an alternative history scenario?)? Not sure that HI is underestimated already as Pelton pointed out elsewhere. The second aim here could be getting the logistics rates down, i.e. the forward delivery, so that at times of increased consumption parts of your frontline will run dry and require a pause. If you manipulate anything that corresponds to the global pools instead, I think what you will get is a shortage across the whole front?

I don't have the manual with me, so I am speaking from memory. As far as I recall, Logistic level affects both production of supplies and the efficiency of its distribution. The basic idea - to have the game pace to resemble actual historical operations - is to reduce the production of Supplies and also make them harder to reach front line units. The problem is that it would have a global effect and the player doesn't have the tools to prioritize certain commands to receive supplies, fuel and replacements (as we could do with supplies in V4V/WAW).
ORIGINAL: janh
One thing to look at would be either the manpower pool or manpower centers, and possibly adding a number of empty shells to boost reinforcements from August to say November or so (I believe it was Klydon's suggestion). I think the recent reduction of the manpower multiplier was a bit too much. The best counter might be adding a constant of say 1M to the pools, or adding more "big" centers west of the Leningrad-Moscow-Rostov stop-line so that pretty much only the summer campaign is affected (however, even the destroyed centers could come back haunting Axis in 44/45). It would be fun to throw the kitchen sink at any Axis player, if you knew you'd loose most of those poor guys and yet increase your chances to win with that rather than too lose, as now.

Creating bogus brigade size 'cadres' with 0 MPs appearing on major Soviet population centers east of the Volga, that players can use by disbanding them (and spending AP's) might be something worth considering (and give something to do to those Military District HQs). Actually the Red Army training cadre unit organization was the Rifle Bde...
ORIGINAL: janh
With increased replacements, Lvov also may not be as serious anymore. Although any change that would turn it into a possibility, but not a given would be great. Someone suggested that initial MPs for the surprise turn can be modded.

Really? When I looked into it, I couldn't find any way of affecting surprise effects.
ORIGINAL: janh
Maybe reducing AGS Panzers MPs for the first turn by a bit ought to be one point, and may some Soviet counters should be repositioned to make a deep penetration less lightly/require more attacks -- even if it is not historically accurate, the result might be more plausible and fun still.

That's one possibility, indeed. However, the real problem would come after the first Soviet Logistics phase... after that SW units become useless crap and we can't tweak German armor MP's...
ORIGINAL: janh
The other thing I have no clue how it could be modded is the blizzard. How can you prevent a too huge disaster (assuming the other changes work, Soviets will likely be stronger commonly)?

That's gonna be the most difficult part. My take is that the only way to curb that is to impose severe constraints on the scope and - most critically - duration of Soviet offensive operations. Reducing Logistics levels somehow should keep the Red Army from engaging in simultaneous offensive operations from Leningrad to the Black Sea that go on for two months. That's just over the top.
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4458
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: janh
I just noticed your "Enhance SW Front" mod. Strange I have not noticed that thread before... Oh well, it seems definitely one way to go.

Perhaps it would even be best not to mod the Axis MPs or freeze some of them for one turn, but maybe much better to reposition the Soviet units so that Axis will have fight several engagements before breaking thru to Tarnopol. If necessary, split a few divisions into brigades to create more "obstacles". Then, if the dice gods are happy, we can still succeed in closing off Lvov, although probably in leakier fashion than in stock. Even that would make it more plausible, and get some more live out of the units instead of their usual "near-fightless" surrender. If the dice gods would be unhappy and a lot of (tank) units committed to reserve actions, Kleist would have to bully his way East at a cost. This way, a historical course would be added to the possibilities in the South, and neither end would be a given.

Your suggestions are duly noted, and are right on the spot. Freezing/reducing MP's is too much like hamstringing people... and there's quite a difference between 'constraining' and 'hamstringing'.

I think it would be better that you post these observations on that thread. So when I have time (and the will) to go over that mod again I'll remember (or if someone wants to take it up, that someone will be able to have this in mind).
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4458
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: Sorta

This seems a very realistic suggestion - I'm having a very enjoyable GC pbem game but having some variability in the first turn would be an improvement.

How tricky is it to mod the start?

ORIGINAL: janh

I just noticed your "Enhance SW Front" mod. Strange I have not noticed that thread before... Oh well, it seems definitely one way to go.

Perhaps it would even be best not to mod the Axis MPs or freeze some of them for one turn, but maybe much better to reposition the Soviet units so that Axis will have fight several engagements before breaking thru to Tarnopol. If necessary, split a few divisions into brigades to create more "obstacles". Then, if the dice gods are happy, we can still succeed in closing off Lvov, although probably in leakier fashion than in stock. Even that would make it more plausible, and get some more live out of the units instead of their usual "near-fightless" surrender. If the dice gods would be unhappy and a lot of (tank) units committed to reserve actions, Kleist would have to bully his way East at a cost. This way, a historical course would be added to the possibilities in the South, and neither end would be a given.

Modding is relatively easy. The hard part is to get something interesting with some lasting effect on the dynamics of the campaign.
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4458
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: Schmart
ORIGINAL: janh

I just noticed your "Enhance SW Front" mod. Strange I have not noticed that thread before... Oh well, it seems definitely one way to go.

Perhaps it would even be best not to mod the Axis MPs or freeze some of them for one turn, but maybe much better to reposition the Soviet units so that Axis will have fight several engagements before breaking thru to Tarnopol. If necessary, split a few divisions into brigades to create more "obstacles". Then, if the dice gods are happy, we can still succeed in closing off Lvov, although probably in leakier fashion than in stock. Even that would make it more plausible, and get some more live out of the units instead of their usual "near-fightless" surrender. If the dice gods would be unhappy and a lot of (tank) units committed to reserve actions, Kleist would have to bully his way East at a cost. This way, a historical course would be added to the possibilities in the South, and neither end would be a given.

Perhaps another option is to code the Russian Tank and Motorized Divisions for having a much better chance of activating as defensive reserves for the period Jun-Jul 1941. This might create much more of the meeting engangements that occured historically, and also slow the German advance a bit in the south. This enhanced reserve activation could maybe be even more pronounced in the first 2 turns, giving the Russian player a semi-reactive turn capability.

With enhanced Russians reserve activation, it would also prevent turn 1 optimization for the Axis, as the reserve activation would give too much unpredictability as to Russian defensive strengths and positioning.

The most obvious way to achieve that would be to buff the Morale levels of the Tank Divisions... and hope that the Surprise effect removes that entirely. I think I actually did that for some selected units (the ones for which I found reports about good Division CO's marching to the sound of the guns fast according to pre-war contingency plans).
Schmart
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Canada

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Schmart »

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
The most obvious way to achieve that would be to buff the Morale levels of the Tank Divisions... and hope that the Surprise effect removes that entirely. I think I actually did that for some selected units (the ones for which I found reports about good Division CO's marching to the sound of the guns fast according to pre-war contingency plans).

A better permanent fix would require some coding by the devs to allow for greater reserve activation for specific types of units during a specific period of time.
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4458
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: Schmart
ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
The most obvious way to achieve that would be to buff the Morale levels of the Tank Divisions... and hope that the Surprise effect removes that entirely. I think I actually did that for some selected units (the ones for which I found reports about good Division CO's marching to the sound of the guns fast according to pre-war contingency plans).
A better permanent fix would require some coding by the devs to allow for greater reserve activation for specific types of units during a specific period of time.

I'm starting to think that one thing we could propose to Joel would be to try "crowdfund" a WitE 1.5 patch. I mean, in this thread we've been discussing quite a few things which would be only feasible - or easier and sounder - with relatively small tweaks on the engine. Maybe we could collect such a list and ask to 2by3 for a quote, and we try to raise the money.

One such possible list may include stuff like:

* Make Blizzard, 1:1 -> 2:1, 22nd June 41 Surprise rules to be optional (at game start)
* Allow to define logistics, admin and morale levels on a per year (or amount of X turns) basis
* Make room in the editor to specify temporary bonuses (or negative modifiers) to reserve and rout checks
* Introduce short scenario framework for VP tracking in GC scenarios(which would prevent from using the computer player, that is, only meant for H2H play)

What do you think guys?
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Michael T »

I would pay.
Farfarer61
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:29 pm

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Farfarer61 »

Hmm... Are you trying to make Soviet victory additionally available to catatonics as well?
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by janh »

I like the idea, and would gladly add my part. Maybe if they'd do that, some more "small options" would be in the cards (depending on the sum):

* Introduce a "zero-th" turn for both sides: Pay from a "setup-AP" pool to move a few selected units around. Either make it a very limited rule, maybe only be able to move up to 25 units by a max of 2 hexes or so ("10 AP per hex"), or a more flexible "what-if", allowing a total of 25x2 hexes displacement to be distributed to one or more units.

* Do something about the pockets, i.e. make their combat power decay slower (with supply state or so, not just the next turn).

I doubt G&G would be interested, though. If they want to develop a WitE2, and sell it successfully, they'll by now keeping a long list of improvements and new ideas to introduce there to make us want it...
Amusingly there was a discussion not long ago over at the AE forum, some brainstorming what a "new AE" could come up with that would make it a worthwhile idea to sell to G&G. With such monster games with a small auditory, maybe crowd-funding is a more viable way than hoping for sales?
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by mmarquo »

I noticed that the editor allows assigment of campaign or scenario VPS; the scenario VPs account for time of possession of VPs and causualties; is it possible to reedit a campaign to play with scnario VP conditions; if so, then many things could be changed for free.
Post Reply

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