atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

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
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by Peltonx »

Back in the day when a few of us GHC nuts were running amuck and camping out in Moscow on turn 12/Leningrad turn 4 and rostov turn 7 2by3 patched in higher then normal german loses for just moving tanks ect.

Can this get patched out seeing you guys have finally figured out how we were making you all look silly?

As can be seen in AAR after AAR after 1.06.13 went into effect, taking Moscow is impossible/ taking Rostov is hard and taking Leningrad will be impossible vs a good SHC player.

And with the blizzard being based on historical weather from The Lord of The Rings (Middle Earth) and not historocal weather from planet earth, most games now (all things being equal) will be are over in 1944.

So nerf the nerf 2by3 installed or nerf the Middle Earth 41/42 winter.

Both are based on nothing to do with WW2 eastern front historical records.
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
delatbabel
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:37 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by delatbabel »

"As can be seen in AAR after AAR after 1.06.13 went into effect, taking Moscow is impossible/ taking Rostov is hard and taking Leningrad will be impossible vs a good SHC player."

Actually that's only been seen in one AAR so far, one in which you appear to be playing deliberately badly in order to make your point. Most AARs show Leningrad falling fairly early and Moscow falling in 1941 in about 50% of them.

The 1941/42 winter as portrayed in the game is quite accurate in accordance with the historical records.
--
Del
User avatar
whollaborg
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:57 pm

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by whollaborg »

Is Pelton not winning again? We all remember he was just recently claiming that less panzers is actually good for him for those eat less fuel. Why chancing hes mind so rapidly again?
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
The 1941/42 winter as portrayed in the game is quite accurate in accordance with the historical records.

In fact it is not. And this coming from an only-Soviet player [:)] You can basically push & trash the Germans & Co. from the Baltic to the Black Seas. And this is (historically speaking) an aberration: when the original counter-offensive was expanded it showed the poor coordination between the Soviet Fronts (this was aknowledged by the Soviets themselves).

Big Anorak's winter rule is still a must on my book. Problem is I can't see how the current engine could limit this counter-offensive.

Cheers
"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: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Not to mention that you actually CAN destroy German units during this counter-offensive using er... some tricks... And the cold fact remains that the Germans tried to hold ground (Hitler's famous orders) and yet the Red Army did NOT destroy enemy divisions... which proves we are necessarily using tricks to do what the historical counterparts couldn't achieve. So... [;)]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
mevstedt
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:58 pm

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by mevstedt »

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Not to mention that you actually CAN destroy German units during this counter-offensive using er... some tricks... And the cold fact remains that the Germans tried to hold ground (Hitler's famous orders) and yet the Red Army did NOT destroy enemy divisions... which proves we are necessarily using tricks to do what the historical counterparts couldn't achieve. So... [;)]

I concur. I was writing up a pretty large post to prove how ahistorical the blizzard rule is (unfortunately I haven't been active on the forum long enough to be allowed to post links to my sources so the post ended up scrapped despite "Go back to post" and hoping I could have edited them out [:(]).

Anyways, as you sum up, the russians did not destroy a large amount of axis/german divisions during this winter. In fact, there isn't even a large spike in actual losses in the months of dec 41 to mar 42 in comparison to the earlier months of operation barbarossa or the months after, where as in the game I end up taking as much as +100% more losses by attrition alone!!

I am unfamiliar with what Big Anoraks winter rule contains but imo all the morale affecting stuff should be scrapped as well as the increased attrition rate while keeping the artificial cut on axis combat values (so as to allow the soviets to actually be able to push the axis back) as well as the reduced replacement/supply rates that are in effect as they seem to reflect the low overall level of preparedness for winter warfare and overstretched supply lines of the german army. The damage on equipment/vehicles also seem to be in accordance with actual history.

Anyways, historically the germans were surprised by the sudden and vicious soviet counteroffensive but they did however recover. The way the rule is written now, any axis player attempting to hold the line is looking at a situation worse than the 42/43 winter and in worst cases they may end up with an army that can't recover. Historical? I think not.

I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubble gum!
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Big Anorak's rule tried to simulate a more "historical" offensive. A maximum of 3 fronts could attack per turn. But then x front could only attack 2 turns in a row. It had to rest on the third one.

Then I think in some turns (february?) only 2 fronts could attack.

It was still way too much LOL But, ok, I'm an extremist. Still I had used this winter rule on my second game so in theory I know what I am talking about ie the Germans were trashed the same. And yes, all over the place.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by morvael »

In order to achieve historical flow of the game the rules that nerf and buff opposing sides are too harsh IMO and always have been. The starting advantage of Axis over Soviet is too big, but the German power declines very fast, while the Soviet increases very fast as well. Reducing this start and end gap would make for a more enjoyable game.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
The 1941/42 winter as portrayed in the game is quite accurate in accordance with the historical records.

In fact it is not. And this coming from an only-Soviet player [:)] You can basically push & trash the Germans & Co. from the Baltic to the Black Seas. And this is (historically speaking) an aberration: when the original counter-offensive was expanded it showed the poor coordination between the Soviet Fronts (this was aknowledged by the Soviets themselves).

Big Anorak's winter rule is still a must on my book. Problem is I can't see how the current engine could limit this counter-offensive.

Cheers


The first move of the game isn't in accordance with historical records either. Yet I can't recall any Axis player demanding it be fixed.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
mevstedt
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:58 pm

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by mevstedt »

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
The first move of the game isn't in accordance with historical records either. Yet I can't recall any Axis player demanding it be fixed.

So one ahistorical move = 12 turns of ahistorical countermoves?[8|]

I agree with Morvael though so take that comment with a grain of salt.

As a person who has played both sides, with the majority of the games as the axis though, I still believe the soviets are too weak overall during the early stages of the game/campaign compared to history. How this can be changed however is a big problem as simply boosting them would just make them too strong when a person employs the "run for the hills" type of strategy, ie the game needs an incentive for the russians to actually fight (as well as the strength to do so) where as the germans have incentive to hold the line during blizzard but are completely unable to do so by the current state of the blizzard rule.
I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubble gum!
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
The 1941/42 winter as portrayed in the game is quite accurate in accordance with the historical records.

In fact it is not. And this coming from an only-Soviet player [:)] You can basically push & trash the Germans & Co. from the Baltic to the Black Seas. And this is (historically speaking) an aberration: when the original counter-offensive was expanded it showed the poor coordination between the Soviet Fronts (this was aknowledged by the Soviets themselves).

Big Anorak's winter rule is still a must on my book. Problem is I can't see how the current engine could limit this counter-offensive.

Cheers


The first move of the game isn't in accordance with historical records either. Yet I can't recall any Axis player demanding it be fixed.

I know [:)] But in my opinion we have to criticize the bad things we see on our side (and only then, perhaps, what's wrong with the other side). Others may prefer to air first the bad things they see on the opponent's side [:D]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by Klydon »

On the tank attrition, I have to disagree with you on this one Pelton.

If anything, the attrition isn't quite high enough yet. Remember, the Germans had 165 operational tanks on the entire eastern front in March 42. Now, this number swelled to around 3000 by the time the German offensive jumped off. The game has not been able to replicate that as most games I have seen have tank strength down to around 1k at the lowest and upwards of close to 3k tanks by the summer.

Guderian states in his book his lead panzer division during the encirclement of Kiev was down to 11 operational tanks (and 7 of those were panzer II's). This was after both PG2 and PG3 had been rehabbed.

At the start of August, German tank strength was at around 44% of ToE available for deployment. 20% were disabled and 30% were deadlined for repair (no parts). (Book does not explain the other 6%). Start of September it was 47% available for deployment.

For the Moscow offensive, there is a note that says if the GHC had deployed all tanks at its disposal to the Moscow divisions, they could be brought up to 60.5% ToE. Trucks were at 77%, prime movers at 67.9%. The GHC did not move a lot of new tanks to the front because Hitler was intent on forming new panzer divisions. (The rail system may have played a role in that as well in terms of trying to get a pile of new tanks to the front).

Pelton, I don't disagree with you on the weather (I said something long ago and 2 by 3 mentioned there were no plans to change it, so I dropped it), but I think they have the tank attrition fairly accurate and if anything, it might be a little generous, but then I think most German commanders are a bit more careful with their panzers than their historical counterparts.
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by janh »

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Not to mention that you actually CAN destroy German units during this counter-offensive using er... some tricks... And the cold fact remains that the Germans tried to hold ground (Hitler's famous orders) and yet the Red Army did NOT destroy enemy divisions... which proves we are necessarily using tricks to do what the historical counterparts couldn't achieve. So... [;)]

Tullius is right on. In a game, where Axis has not overrun SHC beyond the average, and SHC has not outdone GHC in turn, SHC can punish Axis very badly if GHC doesn't give ground where it is weak to defend. If Axis holds forward a la a Stand-Fast order, or SHC fares too well in the previous summer, uuhh, blizzard is a major game changer. I suppose it was designed that way, though, to force a definite change of initiative and independent of pretty much all previous events, enable a SHC offensive to punish GHC and rebalance both sides for summer 42.

In an average game, it would seem the combat penalities are too severe while SHC can act better coordinated, with more hindsight (which in Axis terms would mean a retreat!), and logistics is another matter. I wonder how a game would work out, in which both side would be set up with historical positions and ToE for December 41, and slug is out following the same attack and holding pattern the contemporary counterparts followed -- I imagine it would be bad.

Ideally the prerequisite that allowed the SHC to conduct the successful (more or less) blizzard and late winter offensives ought to be the same in this game as in history: an badly-overextended, under-supplied and attrited Wehrmacht in a deadlock with SHC fronts. And a supply and weather situation, that deteriorated and hurt GHC more than SHC, which had more experience and better equipment for it. So if an Axis player should chose to conserve his forces better, avoid overextension, or managed to hurt SHC more than usual, SHC should not be able to push Axis around so badly as of yet. Just my two cents.
ORIGINAL: Klydon
If anything, the attrition isn't quite high enough yet. Remember, the Germans had 165 operational tanks on the entire eastern front in March 42. Now, this number swelled to around 3000 by the time the German offensive jumped off. The game has not been able to replicate that as most games I have seen have tank strength down to around 1k at the lowest and upwards of close to 3k tanks by the summer.

At the start of August, German tank strength was at around 44% of ToE available for deployment. 20% were disabled and 30% were deadlined for repair (no parts). Start of September it was 47% available for deployment.

Pelton, I don't disagree with you on the weather, but I think they have the tank attrition fairly accurate and if anything, it might be a little generous, but then I think most German commanders are a bit more careful with their panzers than their historical counterparts.

Not sure about the attrition rates in summer and blizzard, but they generally look reasonable I would say. Such heavy attrition already by August seems rare though. In my AI games you can say never, though in some GCs I had heavy and in others much lesser tank losses despite not actually doing much different -- I believe. Playing with hindsight 70 years later, in a time where doctrines and knowledge (also the "home by christmas" race) have changed so much, one probably is far less reckless and aggressive with (hasty) attacks with Panzers than a Rommel or Guderian was at the time back? I would start looking there for the difference.
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by morvael »

ORIGINAL: mevstedt

As a person who has played both sides, with the majority of the games as the axis though, I still believe the soviets are too weak overall during the early stages of the game/campaign compared to history. How this can be changed however is a big problem as simply boosting them would just make them too strong when a person employs the "run for the hills" type of strategy, ie the game needs an incentive for the russians to actually fight (as well as the strength to do so) where as the germans have incentive to hold the line during blizzard but are completely unable to do so by the current state of the blizzard rule.

This is actually quite simple, if taken care of during game design (which unfortunately is not the case here). Developers should look into boardgames that solved the issue, like Napoleon's Triumph and Twilight in the East. The logic is simple: players want to win the game. Players will not repeat historical mistakes that make their victory less possible. There must be an incentive to repeat historical mistakes. Look into victory conditions. Award players for doing historical mistakes. Examples: in Napoleon's Triumph, the Allied player would never march into the trap and let his flank be smashed from Pratzen. The game solves this by requiring the Allies to capture objectives on the French side of the battlefield to win (otherwise they lose), unless the French player will deploy his reserves (two corps), which changes the objectives so that now the French player must capture objectives on the Allied side to win. Simple as that, and you never see the Allies camping in their deployment zone. Twilight in the East awards players for making prepared attacks, so they are forced to use the bloody tactics of early WWI, there is no gain in digging and being passive. Also, some armies start with mandated objectives (according to pre-war plans) and they may not move away, only closer to them, unless they abandon the plan, which costs the more VP the farther is your objective. Two simple VP related rules and you have the armies marching into historical traps with bloody battles all along the frontlines. Suddenly "stupid" things are worthwile for the players to pursue, because they are awarded for that with VP. And the ultimate goal of every player is to win the game.
User avatar
AFV
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:12 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by AFV »

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
The first move of the game isn't in accordance with historical records either. Yet I can't recall any Axis player demanding it be fixed.

I would like the first turn fixed. The Llov pocket is just too harsh. However, it has become a way to balance out all the other imbalances in the game, which is unfortunate.

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

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by AFV »

ORIGINAL: morvael

ORIGINAL: mevstedt

As a person who has played both sides, with the majority of the games as the axis though, I still believe the soviets are too weak overall during the early stages of the game/campaign compared to history. How this can be changed however is a big problem as simply boosting them would just make them too strong when a person employs the "run for the hills" type of strategy, ie the game needs an incentive for the russians to actually fight (as well as the strength to do so) where as the germans have incentive to hold the line during blizzard but are completely unable to do so by the current state of the blizzard rule.

This is actually quite simple, if taken care of during game design (which unfortunately is not the case here). Developers should look into boardgames that solved the issue, like Napoleon's Triumph and Twilight in the East. The logic is simple: players want to win the game. Players will not repeat historical mistakes that make their victory less possible. There must be an incentive to repeat historical mistakes. Look into victory conditions. Award players for doing historical mistakes. Examples: in Napoleon's Triumph, the Allied player would never march into the trap and let his flank be smashed from Pratzen. The game solves this by requiring the Allies to capture objectives on the French side of the battlefield to win (otherwise they lose), unless the French player will deploy his reserves (two corps), which changes the objectives so that now the French player must capture objectives on the Allied side to win. Simple as that, and you never see the Allies camping in their deployment zone. Twilight in the East awards players for making prepared attacks, so they are forced to use the bloody tactics of early WWI, there is no gain in digging and being passive. Also, some armies start with mandated objectives (according to pre-war plans) and they may not move away, only closer to them, unless they abandon the plan, which costs the more VP the farther is your objective. Two simple VP related rules and you have the armies marching into historical traps with bloody battles all along the frontlines. Suddenly "stupid" things are worthwile for the players to pursue, because they are awarded for that with VP. And the ultimate goal of every player is to win the game.

Excellent points. Points could be awarded for the Soviet holding x on turn x. The hard part is determining those variables so they are fair and balance the game.
turtlefang
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:43 am

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by turtlefang »

Morvael has identified the biggest issue here. In general, a good Soviet player against an equal German player should do much better than the Soviet player did in real life. The Soviets just did a bad job especially in regards to allowing too many encirclements. Even if getting pounded with losses, the Soviets should still manage to not loss as many divisions to surrounds.

So the Soviets has the better chance to do better than historical.

Reality is that the Soviets, if not so incompetent in 41, should have done better than they did. And the Soviet player has more room to do better than the German player in this case.

And like it or not, command incompetence is hard to program in a wargame. Most players don't like getting saddled with the type of rules required to do that.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: mevstedt
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
The first move of the game isn't in accordance with historical records either. Yet I can't recall any Axis player demanding it be fixed.

So one ahistorical move = 12 turns of ahistorical countermoves?[8|]

Perhaps you should run through the forums to read all the complaints and accusations from some Axis players first.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: morvael

ORIGINAL: mevstedt

As a person who has played both sides, with the majority of the games as the axis though, I still believe the soviets are too weak overall during the early stages of the game/campaign compared to history. How this can be changed however is a big problem as simply boosting them would just make them too strong when a person employs the "run for the hills" type of strategy, ie the game needs an incentive for the russians to actually fight (as well as the strength to do so) where as the germans have incentive to hold the line during blizzard but are completely unable to do so by the current state of the blizzard rule.

This is actually quite simple, if taken care of during game design (which unfortunately is not the case here). Developers should look into boardgames that solved the issue, like Napoleon's Triumph and Twilight in the East. The logic is simple: players want to win the game.

The designers did not want to force players to make the same mistakes made by both sides.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
MechFO
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 am

RE: atrition to movement nerf needs to be coded out during next patch

Post by MechFO »

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

The 1941/42 winter as portrayed in the game is quite accurate in accordance with the historical records.

The Russians had trouble making headway against depleted German units at 30-40% Inf TOE. What killed German units (besides supply situation) was having to retreat to prevent being outflanked. This was both due to their severe overextension as well as the sudden loss of tactical mobility. The constant exposure to winter in the open from having to keep moving killed both the transport (horses and broken down trucks) leading to the vast majority of equipment losses as well as leading to many attrition losses.

Even so, spent German units still managed to conduct Army scale successful manoeuvre warfare in January/February 41.

German units should lose ZOC and have severe supply and movement penalties as well as suffering heavy attrition if having to displace, but the current blizzard penalties (especially cv) are a joke. If anything they are ass-backward rewarding running while running was pretty much what killed the combat value of units in real life....

The summer 41 campaign also has more than it's share of structural issues but that's for another thread.
Post Reply

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