WitE 2

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
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: WitE 2

Post by Michael T »

It will come down to what is best to survive. Stand and fight, or runaway. I am yet to see a game on this subject where it is in the players interest to stand. It is always better to run, consolidate and stand when you are ready or can't possibly retreat any further. Remember the only reason on many occasions that the combatants remained and stood was due to the direct orders of Hitler or Stalin. I doubt naturally occurring conditions due to operational advantages will simulate the effect of being forced to stand when common sense says run. That, IMO is a true challenge of ones skill, being forced to fight in situation where if you were given free rein would avoid. IMO a player will pack up and run every time he fears total destruction of the local forces, no matter how much damage they will do in fighting to the death.

If WITE 2.0 solves this issue. It will be the first.
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by chaos45 »

the issue in wite 1 is fighting to the death is pointless because you lose everything....typically after only 1 week of being encircled and the attacker loses almost nothing.

I will say from the current games it does appear losses are getting closer to being realistic tho....seeing big fights often with 3k+ losses now in the pvp games. An some battles even over 5k+

However last stands are still pathetic endeavors and in general worthless strategically the way the game plays out. If a last stand could last longer than a week or two---and two only because the attacker usually leaves little behind to deal with them.....and actually kill some of the attackers as they are wiped it would make leaving units behind worthwhile. At current it is rarely worth it to leave anyone behind unless its a really junk unit just to zoc something or make them spend movement to kill it. Yes the changes have made the pocketed units alittle stronger but not much really.
SigUp
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:14 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by SigUp »

Regarding Soviet runaways, you'll never completely eliminate it as a strategy unless you ban it with some hard restrictions like unit freezes etc. However, I don't think that should be done, completely eliminating one way of playing the game. What needs to be done is increase the attractiveness of fighting forward, and by what I've heard WitE2 is trying to do this.

You can burn off MPs for the opponents and the opponents supply stock (which can come quite scarce) with attacks even if they fail. Also, the losses have been adjusted where a lost battle doesn't leave the defender with only very light and insignificant losses. And also, units in pockets don't immediately become ants that can be destroyed in a single turn after the encirclement. So unlike WitE there is a real incentive for the Soviet to fight at the front, attrit the German units and buy time. Also, with the logistics system depending on depots it may be worth it to go out of one's way to defend a key rail hub to deny the Germans the use of it for as long as possible.
User avatar
sillyflower
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:39 pm
Location: Back in Blighty

RE: WitE 2

Post by sillyflower »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If WITE2 can fix logistics, the silly Lvov opener, and various and sundry other issues,

The Pathans have a saying: 'you measure the status of a man by the status of his enemies'

Can a girl therefore measure her status by the status of her troll?
web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: WitE 2

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: Michael T

It will come down to what is best to survive. Stand and fight, or runaway. I am yet to see a game on this subject where it is in the players interest to stand. It is always better to run, consolidate and stand when you are ready or can't possibly retreat any further. Remember the only reason on many occasions that the combatants remained and stood was due to the direct orders of Hitler or Stalin. I doubt naturally occurring conditions due to operational advantages will simulate the effect of being forced to stand when common sense says run. That, IMO is a true challenge of ones skill, being forced to fight in situation where if you were given free rein would avoid. IMO a player will pack up and run every time he fears total destruction of the local forces, no matter how much damage they will do in fighting to the death.

If WITE 2.0 solves this issue. It will be the first.

Several bits point in that direction.

a) believe me (and others) the Lvov fantasy opening of WiTE1 is off the cards.
b) at the moment it seems to make more sense to keep close to the historical axis plan than the norm in WiTE of spinning off Pzr corps into AGN/AGS (in part due to the above)
c) that means the opening campaign in the Ukraine is bruising (for both sides). With the axis you want to try and tip SW/S Fronts over the edge by small encirclements and degrading the combat effectiveness of sufficient units - this is much more a valid tactic than in WiTE as:
d) combat really does kill. I'm commonly seeing battles with combined losses > 6,000. That means that attritional attacks - where you outnumber the enemy in manpower/guns but lack the combat values - can pay off.
e) the rail cap rules present the Soviets in the south with a lot of problems. Rail evac is probably near impossible as you need the fixed capacity pulling in supplies/fuel/ammo/replacements and, of course, sending out your industry.
f) going back to (c) the result is that slowly the Soviets in the south degrade

And then more generally

g) operational pauses seem to make much more sense than in WiTE. Resting and re-organising the Luftwaffe for major blows pays off as does letting supply build up - at the same time you regain MP and increase your combat values (due to the prep points)
h) encircled units can be a major problem to deal with, unlike in WiTE where being cut off was the decisive way to kill (see (d) above. So salients are more viable, dealing with major pockets a multi-turn bruising process.

To put the impact of (d) into context in my last Axis AI vs Soviet test by the start of December I'd lost close to 3m men. The AI in WiTE struggles to get you close to 1m. The AI in WiTE2 is still less effective at pocketing than a player so this reflects the combat engine. Worth noting that routing units rather than encircling is no longer slopply play - it wrecks that Soviet formation for some time and the Soviets are short on manpower from the start.

I think there are good reasons for a Soviet fighting retreat. Its not mandated but there are rules in place or being developed that mean the quicker you cede territory the quicker the enemy is ready and dangerous further east. My feeling is the building blocks towards a game with realistic operational pauses, sectors where neither side can or want to do much and swings of advantage are already there.
ORIGINAL: SigUp

... Also, with the logistics system depending on depots it may be worth it to go out of one's way to defend a key rail hub to deny the Germans the use of it for as long as possible.

As in WiTW this matters. Supply does not come from a functioning rail line, it comes from that (or a port) plus a depot. One way to stop the enemy building a new depot is to keep the hex in a zoc. Even a one turn delay can be critical as it takes 2-3 turns for a depot to become properly operational.
User avatar
EwaldvonKleist
Posts: 2365
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:58 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

RE: WitE 2

Post by EwaldvonKleist »

Fight forward: As far as i know, it would have always been better to retreat in history, whether in early operation Barbarossa for the soviets or late war for the germans (pockets in the south, prior to bagration etc.). So a "historical" game engine will support such tactics. If you want historical play, you have to include the influence of the leaders in some way. When your 6. army at stalingrad is severely threatened, a player will withdraw it. But if the game engine steals MPs from it because of "Führer Orders", you cant move it out. This is just super difficult to program because social-cultural and "crazy leaders" effects are hard to press in numbers and algorithms.
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: WitE 2

Post by morvael »

ORIGINAL: SigUp

And also, units in pockets don't immediately become ants that can be destroyed in a single turn after the encirclement.

I had an encirclement in WitE that took 5 weeks to clear, and that fast only because two panzer corps were redirected to help :-)
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: WitE 2

Post by morvael »

Stealing MP is a bit artificial solution, victory conditions are better solution.
HMSWarspite
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: WitE 2

Post by HMSWarspite »

I agree that militarily, running away is often the best answer. The reason why it wasnt done more in Russia (and other places) is the influence of other factors (prestige, politics, resources and so on). So I agree with the use of victory conditions to drive the 'right' behaviour. In WitE there was no cumulative victory measure, just the two extremes (290 vp for GE and capture Berlin for the sovs. Some form of territory times time measure would also assist.

On the other side of the coin, witw has an allied turtle risk (because of the negative VPs for casualties which offset capturing cities) I don't think this will be a risk in WitE 2 due to the high casualty tolerance of both sides and hence the lack of need for casualty points. But let's make sure that risk stays out too.
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
User avatar
EwaldvonKleist
Posts: 2365
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:58 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

RE: WitE 2

Post by EwaldvonKleist »

Stealing MP are for sure artificial, but they mirror the problem of supreme leaders not allowing the field commanders doing the things they want.
Victory Conditions: I have now idea how to set VC in a way that creates a stalingrad like battle. VCs have to be very dynamic for this and how to teach this to the computer?
I have no satisfying solution for this. I just wanted to point out that a historical game engine will not produce historical results because both sides wont play like Hitler and Stalin.
Karri
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 4:09 pm
Contact:

RE: WitE 2

Post by Karri »

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Stealing MP are for sure artificial, but they mirror the problem of supreme leaders not allowing the field commanders doing the things they want.
Victory Conditions: I have now idea how to set VC in a way that creates a stalingrad like battle. VCs have to be very dynamic for this and how to teach this to the computer?
I have no satisfying solution for this. I just wanted to point out that a historical game engine will not produce historical results because both sides wont play like Hitler and Stalin.

Well, one solution is to give dynamic objective. Ie. at the start of turn one German player can decide his objective for 1941. For example in the south capture Kiev, or earn triple the VPs and capture Rostov; fall short and Soviets gain vps. Or something along these lines, though it is quite hard to figure out an actual working system.
User avatar
EwaldvonKleist
Posts: 2365
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:58 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

RE: WitE 2

Post by EwaldvonKleist »

This is not exactly what i mean. I am talking about a system which, however it works, recreates dumb moves like let your 6th army get encircled in stalingrad (or allow the germans the kiev encirclement). This both were results of political decisions to hold a position which can't be hold. The system has to be very dynamic. When for example soviets are approaching smolensk in late 1943, the system has to make this a "symbolic city". In another game (or maybe earlier in the same game) stalingrad or rostov or moscow is the symbolic city. This can change from one turn to another like the mind of stalin and hitler.
I am not sure whether such a game mechanic is good because it means that the players are overruled in some way.
My main point only is: Realistic mechanics don't create realistic games because players don't make irrational decisions like the historical leaders. So we maybe need additional game rules to make them playing irrational in some situations, but it is questionable whether this is really a step into the right direction.
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by Capitaine »

Fighting for particular territory rather than running away is all a political matter. To simulate this there must be some political component in the game, either supreme leader commands, victory points, a national morale, etc., to make it more compelling to stand rather than incur the resulting penalties. Even if defending is changed to be more effective, that alone won't change the run away strategy to preserve the army, unless the defenders are bolstered so much that the historical pace of Barbarossa is sacrificed. So what would make standing to fight more desirable than losing large portions of the army?
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: WitE 2

Post by Flaviusx »

Loki that all sounds really good to me. We've come a long ways since 2010 here.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: WitE 2

Post by Flaviusx »

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Fighting for particular territory rather than running away is all a political matter. To simulate this there must be some political component in the game, either supreme leader commands, victory points, a national morale, etc., to make it more compelling to stand rather than incur the resulting penalties. Even if defending is changed to be more effective, that alone won't change the run away strategy to preserve the army, unless the defenders are bolstered so much that the historical pace of Barbarossa is sacrificed. So what would make standing to fight more desirable than losing large portions of the army?

The flipside of that is if the game makes it incapable for the defender to defend, it will be unplayable.

Let's get real here. How on earth does anybody hold on to Kiev until September in vanilla?

It cannot be done. Not with SW Front going up in smoke on turn 1 rather than on turn 12.

So this whole talk about VPs and politics or whatever is just vaporware. You can't even begin to be serious about this stuff unless the other game systems make it feasible. And at present they do not. Runaways are dictated by present game mechanics.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Northern Star
Posts: 1853
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:53 pm

RE: WitE 2

Post by Northern Star »

Is there still a chance to reinforce a particular front in WitE 2.0, for example if I want to take Leningrad before the summer of 41 ends, or heavily reinforce the Army Group South to take the industrial cities (also during the summer of 41) can I still do that?

How much turns does it take to arrive on average for example to take Leningrad, or Moscow, or the industrial cities in the south?

Let me know… I’m so curious!
War in the East alpha tester

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPV9JWWtOQ0
MechFO
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by MechFO »

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

This is not exactly what i mean. I am talking about a system which, however it works, recreates dumb moves like let your 6th army get encircled in stalingrad (or allow the germans the kiev encirclement). This both were results of political decisions to hold a position which can't be hold. The system has to be very dynamic. When for example soviets are approaching smolensk in late 1943, the system has to make this a "symbolic city". In another game (or maybe earlier in the same game) stalingrad or rostov or moscow is the symbolic city. This can change from one turn to another like the mind of stalin and hitler.
I am not sure whether such a game mechanic is good because it means that the players are overruled in some way.
My main point only is: Realistic mechanics don't create realistic games because players don't make irrational decisions like the historical leaders. So we maybe need additional game rules to make them playing irrational in some situations, but it is questionable whether this is really a step into the right direction.

In many cases they weren't per se irrational decisions, but bad decisions made due to faulty interpretation of the situation combined with additional elements like temparent, predisposition, prestige etc.

This can't be replicated because players have a very good idea of their own and the other sides capabilities in a specific time frame. The Germans should not know if the Soviets have 4 or 7 million men under arms and vice versa. The Germans also shouldn't know it's better to attack in 41 than 44, and for the Soviets vice versa.

There IMO only 2 solutions. One is to take an extremely deterministic view (WITE goes in this direction with it's morale, German TOE/OOB design and first winter rule) and try to guide the overall flow even if the details and events are different, or go the open route, give out the approximate resources for the user to use as he see fit (Soviet TOE/OOB system) and then tie the flow to on map triggers that fire or don't.

WITE is quite deterministic, though I personally prefer sandboxes.



User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: WitE 2

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: Northern Star

Is there still a chance to reinforce a particular front in WitE 2.0, for example if I want to take Leningrad before the summer of 41 ends, or heavily reinforce the Army Group South to take the industrial cities (also during the summer of 41) can I still do that?

How much turns does it take to arrive on average for example to take Leningrad, or Moscow, or the industrial cities in the south?

Let me know… I’m so curious!

one big issue is that supply delivery is much more of a challenge. Its hard to explain without the map but the Ukraine basically has one major rail line to Lvov and then that branches out. Rails have capacity so this means you can't support an unlimited number of units.

Bielorrusia to Minsk has 3 major west-east lines and then quite a decent network Minsk to Moscow et al. But Minsk is a bottleneck (till you have the north bank of the Dvina under control). Up to Leningrad is not too bad and the ports help.

If you overload a supply system (combination of rail cap and depot cap), quite simply you will run out of supply/ammo/fuel and/or replacements.

So you could do a WiTE style Pzr focus on the south but they will really struggle - at least till you have the Gomel-Minsk line up and working and running down towards Kursk.

At the moment, I am mostly sticking fairly close to the historical plan. I think I am going to experiment with reinforcing AGN but I'd be very cautious about sending more into the Ukraine till you have taken the eastern end of the Pripyet (and linked up the rails).

Other constraint is with fixed airbases, you simply have to spread out the airforce much more - and getting the short ranged stuff into action can be a struggle. You come to quite like the Me-110s for their range. This affects resupply as the Ju-52s tend to have to stay in German Poland and be a bit spread out - its hard/impossible to concentrate them all to support say AGS.

There are tricks though. Keep a sector static (that reduces demand) - of course you need your friendly Red Army to help you out by not pounding your front line. Be prepared to radically rotate formations. I'll leave infantry corps that bore the brunt of the border battles and pocket clean up back in Poland. They are not pulling supply that is meant for your front lines. You can also do a lot by varying the supply priorities of depots and HQs.

All this is from WiTW as well, but the scale of WiTE2 is cleary very different.

edit: progress rates are all over the place so hard to say. Some early games/builds it was feasible to clear the board. Now I think that Leningrad is going to be very hard to take (map changes) but I think I know how. The issue for the Germans is the historical dilemna - is it worth burning off so many men, supply and ammunition to take? Moscow - not sure, I'm doing a PBEM where I think I'll end up very close but I doubt I'll take it. South, mostly seeing Kharkov-Kursk-Dombas fall.

But at the moment there are enough game systems missing or being refined so don't read too much into this.
Karri
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 4:09 pm
Contact:

RE: WitE 2

Post by Karri »

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

This is not exactly what i mean. I am talking about a system which, however it works, recreates dumb moves like let your 6th army get encircled in stalingrad (or allow the germans the kiev encirclement). This both were results of political decisions to hold a position which can't be hold. The system has to be very dynamic. When for example soviets are approaching smolensk in late 1943, the system has to make this a "symbolic city". In another game (or maybe earlier in the same game) stalingrad or rostov or moscow is the symbolic city. This can change from one turn to another like the mind of stalin and hitler.
I am not sure whether such a game mechanic is good because it means that the players are overruled in some way.
My main point only is: Realistic mechanics don't create realistic games because players don't make irrational decisions like the historical leaders. So we maybe need additional game rules to make them playing irrational in some situations, but it is questionable whether this is really a step into the right direction.

Well, that's what I mean: you let the player choose the symbolic city or VP location or whatever(and these should always come with a turn limit), and penalise them if they don't capture it and dish out lots of points if they do. I don't think overruling the player is possible, so the game or the designer setting these objectives usually doesn't work out. It would have to work on several levels and in several situation though, which would make it rather hard to come up with a proper working system.

For example at the start of Barbarossa you give the German player several options to choose from, of which one could be to capture Kiev(or Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad or any other city or multiple cities, or objectives in other words) by turn x. The Soviet player gets a whiff of this(or not?) and has to judge if the possible loss of men is worth denying the VPs to Axis...or for example if the Axis don't get the city by turn x they lose a certain amount of VP.

Of course, this would create a zillion balance issues...in any case, the normal system hardly ever works.
User avatar
von Beanie
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Oak Hills, S. California

RE: WitE 2

Post by von Beanie »

FWIW, I have always liked the feel of WITE 1.0 As the Soviet I always tried to maintain a controlled but steady retreat, and the results have been reasonably historical. I don't see the need for a massive reworking of the system.

In my opinion the Lvov opening could have been easily corrected by allowing for manual, or perhaps random, readjustments of some Soviet rear area formations before turn 1. This could be justified because the location and composition (i.e., KV tank units) of several of these formations was unknown to the Germans. The Lvov opening would be extremely risky to try if the Germans don't know, in advance, the exact size and position of every Soviet rear-area unit. Just allow the computer to adjust the initial positions of Soviet rear units before turn 1 and many of the opening turn gambits will disappear. I sure hope the new design will permit some flexibility on all three fronts in this regard.
"Military operations are drastically affected by many considerations, one of the most important of which is the geography of the area" Dwight D. Eisenhower
Post Reply

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