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

User avatar
Radagy
Posts: 344
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 11:29 am
Location: Italy

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by Radagy »

It would be nice if on the Multiplayer Server Open Challenge Window, the developers oould add a column reporting the game version installed on the PC of people looking for a game.
This way people that upgraded to a beta patch could easily match other players who did the same.

chuckfourth
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:25 am

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by chuckfourth »

Hi
Id like to suggest some tactical rules regarding assaults.

The current assault modelling appears relatively simple. As I understand it the two sides line up and march forward all weapons firing. This results in way too many specialist weapons and indirect fire weapons being damaged/destroyed.

my suggestion for how to run an assault in game.

1. Air Attacks.

2. Artillery duel.

3. Assaulting Artillery barrage on ememy positions.

4. Infantry advances.

5. Advancing infantry shelled by defending Artillery.

6. Advancing infantry comes under fire from enemy direct fire weapons, Advancing support weapons return fire.

7. Advancing infantry closes.

8. Armour exploits.


Currently the divisional and higher artillery is treated as though it was emplaced in the front line. Divisional artillery and Higher(Corps artillery) are long range indirect fire weapons. In practice sensible emplacement of this type of artillery is at its maximum range from the position to be shelled or supported.
So the Divisional and Corps guns need to be treated differently to the rest of the equipment. Basically they need to be removed from taking casualties as they are in fact removed from the battle. With some provisos, see below.

Those steps again in detail

1. Air Attacks.

Air attacks unchanged they can engage anything, the bigger the target the more likely it is to be engaged.

2. Artillery duel.

Only Heavy Guns batteries (corps artillery) engage in the artillery duel(excluding Rocket batteries) and then only those with very long ranges. The probability of qualifying Artillery firing couterbattery should be very low. And vary with nationality and equipment range.
The bigger the guns(batteries) range the more likely it will fire counterbattery.
Each battery conducting counterbattery results in one of the enemy (Divisional guns or Corps) batteries not firing. (ie they cancell each other out).
The countered battery only takes disruption, no guns are damaged.

3. Assaulting Artillery barrage on ememy positions.

The Effect should be mainly to disrupt "squad" category and 'soft' equipment from the equipment tab.
The ratio of casualties between feild pieces, squads, HMGs, Mortars etc should be the same as the ratio of these equipments to each other in the formation being bombarded. Artillery is an -area- weapon.
Anything with armour in unaffected. (Armour defeats schrapnell and chance of a direct hit is tiny.)
Neither sides Artillery (Divisional and Corps) receive any disruption or casualties.

4. Infantry advances.

Only squads(infantry, engineer, cavalry etc), assault guns, CS tanks and Flame tanks advance. Everyone else stays put.
So only these categories in the assaulting force recieve casualties.

5. Advancing infantry shelled by defending Artillery.

Indirect fire Defending Artillery fires on only advancing assault force as defined in step 4.
Defending artillery is all indirect fire guns mortars and Rockets.
The shorter range and hence later engagement time of the smaller mortars is balanced by their high rate of fire one employed. Again this is Area fire.
Result neglible on armour (direct hit extremely unlikely). "Squads" are moving and so suffering high damage/disruption.
Armour emerges unscathed
For Armoured infantry no efect.

6. Advancing infantry comes under fire from enemy direct fire weapons, Advancing support weapons return fire.

For the Attacker only the advancing assault force as defined in step 4. take casualties.
The Attackers Mortars and Infantry guns take no casualties.
Assaulting Assault guns, CS tanks, Flame tanks, fire as range permits.

Defending AT returns fire as range permits. (assuming the gunners know at what range they can penetrate the oncomming armour)
Run a subroutine here between Assaulting armour and defending AT until one or the other has 100 percent disruption/casualties.
Defending AT engages -only- Armour.
Defending "heavy squad weapons" and "squad weapons" and "man weapons" fire as the range permits.

7. Advancing infantry closes.

Now Attacking squads can fire as Range permits. Attacking casualties are still restricted to the advancing assault force.

I base the following "defenderr casualty" routine on the premise that the various formations are deployed to be mutually supporting and sited in depth, to mean that the infantry screen is placed forward and their support weapons are emplaced in depth.

Defender casualties reflect Divisional deployment, This varies but generally the formations exist in 3's so for example,

In a platoon the 3 squads will be forward, the platoon HMG sited in depth so you need to nuetralise 1 squad ( or one third of the platoons squads) before you can engage the platoons HMG. In a coy 3 platoons would be forward and the company HMGs and mortars placed behind, so you have to destroy one platoon before you can engage the -coy- mortars and HMgs. One -coy- (or its equivelent) needs to be nuetralised before you engage the battalions heavy mortars. one battalion needs to be nuetralised before you can destroy the regimental infantry guns. and so on.

When I say 'engage' there should be a probability here, ie nuetralise one coy before you can engage the battalions heavy mortars reads nuetralise one coy (or equivelent) to get a 50 per cent chance of engageing the battalions heavy mortars, nuetralise all 3 coys give you 100 per cent chance of engageing battalions heavy mortars

8. Armour exploits.

For an armoured division steps 1-7 are run as described, using the corresponding elemants in the armoured division. ie the infantry element of the armoured division is deployed first. -then- the armour is committed. Once the one third of squads within the defending division has been damaged/disrupted armour is free to engage all enemy categories of equipment(exploit).

conditions

Flak should not be employed by the Attacker at all. In the defence it is employed rarely. (as is the current case I believe)

Currently the AI commits AT and flak support units to attacks this should I think be discontinued as AT is a defensive (support) weapon, even when tracked. Tanks are for the attack.

On the defence AT weapons are only allowed to fire at armoured vehices otherwise they are not committed, (ie dont suffer any casualties) Defenders AT weapons fire as range permits.
Attackers AT weapons are not employed at all and so the Attackers AT suffer no casualties in any event. note this should include "tracked tank destroyers"


To implement this we would need more categories for ground elements. We can then differentiate between identical Coy, battalion, regimental and divisional ground elements. ie "HMG company" and "HMG battalion".

Equipment page would need to diffentiate between howitzers (indirect fire divisional guns and better) and direct fire infantry guns, currently they are all "guns" the howitzers need a new category maybe howitzer, light med and heavy. So they can then be 'abstacted' for the barrages.

Basically indirect fire artillery and AT engagements are removed from the general assault. (ie if there isnt any armour to shoot at the AT guns limber up and fight another day)


Implementation (based loosely on a german inf division)

you need as set of tables for each division

ie for example a Division might contain
3 regiments
9 battalions
27 companies
81 platoons
243 squads

and in terms of MGs
81 HMG:Platoon
27 HMG:Coy

for indirect fire weapons it might be
81 Mortar:Platoon (50mm)
54 Mortar:Coy (81mm) (two per coy)
18 Inf gun:Regiment (75mm) (6 per regiment)


calculate the ratios between the different formations supporting weapons (another table)

3 squads for each HMG:platoon.
13.5 round up 14 squads per Inf gun:regiment.

Keep a tally on how many "squads" you have destroyed (and then HMGs etc)

Then you need a set of rules to force the assaulting elements to work up the divisional heirarchy
like so.

Start engage squads only

When number of squads nuetralised equals one third of the total number of squads divided by total number of platoons (referencing the tables) then
engage HMG:Platoon[probability 50%]
When number of squads nuetralised equals one third of the total number of squads divided by total number of platoons then
engage Mortar:Platoon[probability 50%]


When number of squads nuetralised equals the total number of squads divided by total number of platoons then
engage HMG:Platoon[probability 100%]
When number of squads nuetralised equals the total number of squads divided by total number of platoons then
engage Mortar:Platoon[probability 100%]


When number of squads nuetralised equals one third of the total number of squads divided by total number of battalions then
engage Inf gun:Regiment[probability 50%]
a sliding scale or similar in here.
When number of squads nuetralised equals the total number of squads divided by total number of regiments then
engage Inf gun:Regiment[probability 100%]


For all these calculations if you fail the probabliity test engage another squad.


Obvioulsy pages and pages of such 'rules' are possible, and I think desirable.


I think this or something similar would give you a more historically accurate casualty spread. Less AT, Flak, artillery, more infantry.


There is obviously a lot of room for modifications and refinements(subroutines) here, I put this forward as a starting point only.


Unfortuneately Ive sort of losing momentum on this suggestion at the moment and might possibly futurely produce something similar for calculating attackers casualties more specifically.

Best Regards Chuck.

Best Regards Chuck
swkuh
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:10 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by swkuh »

Playability suggestion (2nd iteration.) The withdrawing/arriving info report should show current turn units. Would save a lot of searching for these units for those who play at a sedate pace, like me. Forgetting what was exposed in prior turn.

Along same line of easing the infrequent gamer's chores, showing all those inactive Axis allies' units is distracting. Especially in short scenarios.
hfarrish
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:52 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by hfarrish »


Maybe this has been mentioned before, but an option to create multiple of a type of support unit at once would be very helpful. So much effort in '42 and '43 goes into building support units to fill out Soviet Corps, so being able to create 15 Sapper Regiments at once (for 15 APs) would be a big improvement over having to go through the motions 15 times...
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by morvael »

There is a checkbox "build new" and when you click it, a new option shows up "build num". I believe you can set it to max 10. Then, when you click on sapper regiment it will build the number you wanted in one go (though it takes time, you must wait as the messages about newly created units display one after the other).
hfarrish
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:52 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by hfarrish »


Thanks - had a suspicion that (as usual) I was missing something. Big help.
mannerheim4
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:01 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by mannerheim4 »

Well, I mentioned that airpower is sadly underrated in this game, which adversely effects the Germans. It appears universal that no one bothers with airfield bombing after turn 1. Why is that? As a result, the German player is in a defensive position starting with turn 2 in the airwar. They cannot "take it to the Russians". All they can do is hope that the Russians intercept ground support or air interdiction missions - and counter intercept them. This is not a proactive means of maintaining air superiority. The problem appears to be simple combat resolution after turn one. Training/morale should play a MUCH larger role in individual air battles.

Secondly, one of the most vital missions at the operational level has little bearing in this game - the destruction of command control and signaling at the Corp/Army level. Before offenses were begun, the Germans (and soviets later) would bomb certain communication centers/rail yards in cities behind the lines AND corp/army level HQ's. There is no need to do this in the game. This would add some much needed chrome. Given that the game rates all of the leaders and has a variety of leader checks, it would not be difficult to assign a negative modifer to these "rolls" if an HQ or city was bombed. This reduction of the ability of the defending player would place the player in the seat of the general at the front, as he loses some control and ability to react with his units. Lower level units do not have the overall picture, so a lack of signal/comm with the lower units should result in a lack of movement points of some units, a lack of dedication of SU units from higher HQ, and a lowering of initiative/administration levels of leaders.

And finally, a card system similar to Decisive Battles would be great, it would add some "face" to the faceless leaders in the game. Ordinarily, I could care less who my leaders at Corp/Army are, nor do I know them on the opponent side. Having a card system such as Decisive Battles Case Blue, even at only the Army level (not too many of them...) would add more chrome to this game and would set the leaders apart from each other in a visible manner - since you could plan your advances/defenses based upon the leader abilities.

Regards
mannerheim4
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:01 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by mannerheim4 »

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


Maybe this has been mentioned before, but an option to create multiple of a type of support unit at once would be very helpful. So much effort in '42 and '43 goes into building support units to fill out Soviet Corps, so being able to create 15 Sapper Regiments at once (for 15 APs) would be a big improvement over having to go through the motions 15 times...

I believe you can already do that. Just to the right of "Build new unit", you can place a check mark and then click on the number "1" and change it to how many you want.

Regards
vsek
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 7:25 am

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by vsek »

I would like to see..
1. A way to highlight several units at once and get some sort of pup up summary of how many soldiers, tanks art etc thats contained in the selection. Also an "approximate" option too. This way if I do an encirclement I kind of know how many troops I got. Or how many I stand too loose etc.

2. An alternative earlier start date option to June 22'nd. Representing Musolini not attacking Greece. Also the extra air units would be nice, Plus the unit withdraws would have to be factored in later in the game to represent a possible British incursion on through Greece maybe.

3. Several games I have played as German I am well in 1944 and have several large Russian citys like Lenningrad and Moscow etc and am in an endless slug match. It would be nice to factor in an aggressive withdraw of german units to counter the western allies at this time. Specially after the Italian withdrawl.
HOTEC
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:34 am

RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color deficiency/weakness:

Post by HOTEC »

a. use pattern or hatching;
b. use shape; and
b. color for supply info, Commander Report etc, to be edited;
JamesM
Posts: 1024
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: QLD, Australia

RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color deficiency/weakness:

Post by JamesM »

I am not sure if this has been mentioned before. I wonder if an extra option can be added to the Commander's Report air group tab an option to change between primary mission types for fighter bombers i.e. fighter to bomber and visa versa?
Rodimstev
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 7:07 am

RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color deficiency/weakness:

Post by Rodimstev »

hi all,

it is possible to change by a patch, the direction about the retreat of units after a combat that lose?

in effect, i observed that when a unit lose a combat, the unit retraet toward the hexagone that has not unit...or the less possible and very often it is near the ennemi line....in this case, this unit has a big chance to be encercled..and destroyed...

in reality a unit choose always to retreat toward friends units...

kinds regards
rodim
"l'audace encore de l'audace toujours de l'audace" Danton devant l'assemblée nationale 20 septembre 1792.
swkuh
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:10 pm

RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color deficiency/weakness:

Post by swkuh »

Suggestion for v2.0, or current, and especially WitW:

Provide capability to annotate any unit's display with a brief message for the players' use. Example would be objectives, other intentions, cautions to usage,...
User avatar
PhilThomas
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:39 pm
Location: Hollywood

RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color deficiency/weakness:

Post by PhilThomas »

Here's one: put commas in large numbers in the various reports.

E.g., instead of "Men Captured 1432691" make it "1,432,691"

Much easier to read that way.
"Everybody knows the war is over. Everybody knows the good guys lost."
--Leonard Cohen
Rodimstev
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 7:07 am

RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color deficiency/weakness:

Post by Rodimstev »

hi all,
my suggestion is about the result about the HQ retreat when a ennemy unit approach the HQ. We see a retreat of this HQ but i think it is more realistic to have too "like a combat result "
for example : the IX.ArmeeKorsp is forced to retreat and lose X men Y trucks and soon on.

i think it is very important because in WWII the retreat about a HQ (the rear echelon from divisions or corps) has been very critical for both side in East Front and i think this aspect about the game must be improved.

kinds regards
Rodim
"l'audace encore de l'audace toujours de l'audace" Danton devant l'assemblée nationale 20 septembre 1792.
User avatar
micheljq
Posts: 791
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Quebec
Contact:

RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color deficiency/weakness:

Post by micheljq »

Hello I just purchased WitE. My background in WW2 games is the board game World in Flames, Decisive Campaigns series both Warsaw to Paris and Case Blue, and others.

My wish would be to have this kind of game, on the same scale with divisions, brigades, regiments. But, on the whole european theater, 1939-45. That is with Germany, Italy, France, USSR, UK, USA, minors,etc.

Is it too crazy? I remember a board game of this scale called Europa Series, but with a computer it is a lot easier to handle, and does not require a whole house for the maps (maybe dual 24" or larger monitors).

Michel.
Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815
User avatar
Commanderski
Posts: 941
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:24 pm
Location: New Hampshire

RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color deficiency/weakness:

Post by Commanderski »

Hello I just purchased WitE. My background in WW2 games is the board game World in Flames, Decisive Campaigns series both Warsaw to Paris and Case Blue, and others.

My wish would be to have this kind of game, on the same scale with divisions, brigades, regiments. But, on the whole european theater, 1939-45. That is with Germany, Italy, France, USSR, UK, USA, minors,etc.

Is it too crazy? I remember a board game of this scale called Europa Series, but with a computer it is a lot easier to handle, and does not require a whole house for the maps (maybe dual 24" or larger monitors).

Michel.

I'm pretty sure that is their long range goal...and maybe including the Pacific as well.
DHRedge
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:58 pm

RE: Game Suggestions:

Post by DHRedge »

I really like the use of colors and outlines.

Something you could consider, in the information screens that show lists of units, you could set the grid background color to the country color. (and on that page the Filter abbreviation for Romania is RU, elsewhere it is RO.)

And you could make a colomn that is an icon that is simply a square with the color used for the unit.

Such things could also be part of the 'change command menu' where when you select a new 'command' it has a little color box as a column. I quickly learn the colors, but have to page back and forth to figure out what unit is what command.



Also I have repeatedly seen early in the game soviet headquarters left way in front of the lines by the AI. There should be an AI check somewhere that looks at threat assessment to leaders and air bases. Also the AI should, even if being entrapped, if it sees unguarded HQ and Airbases, should send at least one unit to displace them. Both in Finland and the far south, the 5 Star Front commands were both left in front of the lines.

And I don't know if this is intentional, but on the game I have, two of the soviet rivers are literally called 'bug', although someone may have hacked my string table causing that. (Dnepr-Bug Canal, right where the starting center HQ is where everyone would first look, and West of Krivoi Rog, Yuzbny Bug is the name of the other river). I do know that systems use noun replacement for harassment and as communication disruptions, but if it is not a hacked variant, and that really is an error, it is one that should have been seen and fixed)

governato
Posts: 1318
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:35 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color deficiency/weakness:

Post by governato »

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Hello I just purchased WitE. My background in WW2 games is the board game World in Flames, Decisive Campaigns series both Warsaw to Paris and Case Blue, and others.

My wish would be to have this kind of game, on the same scale with divisions, brigades, regiments. But, on the whole european theater, 1939-45. That is with Germany, Italy, France, USSR, UK, USA, minors,etc.

Is it too crazy? I remember a board game of this scale called Europa Series, but with a computer it is a lot easier to handle, and does not require a whole house for the maps (maybe dual 24" or larger monitors).

Michel.


This game just came out and it describe WWII in Europe at the division level. It seems pretty interesting!



http://www.wargamer.com/forums/posts.asp?t=589584


Mehring
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:30 am

RE: Game Suggestions: To cope with person of color deficiency/weakness:

Post by Mehring »

Ability to custom form divisional battle groups and prohibition against armour only units on map, or at least a severe penalty for them.

All current benefits/penalties of divisional vs smaller than division units instead be determined by unit size and composition.
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
Post Reply

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