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
Joel Billings
Posts: 33034
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: WitE 2

Post by Joel Billings »

It took 4 years from WitE to WitW. It's been 1.5 years since WitW. We needed to spend more time post-release on WitE than WitW, so that is a plus for WitE2, however Gary is also spending some time on the tactical game in development so that is a minus (but Pavel is fully on WitE2). In some ways development of WitE2 should be easier than WitW was, but on the other hand it's a longer game that is harder to test and balance. However there's a lot of experience with unique WitE needs due to the WitE1 experience. We are in alpha, and will be for at least the rest of this year. Does that give you an answer? [:)]
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by Capitaine »

ORIGINAL: MechFO

NM, modifying the very arbitrary system now in place. Why should a Soviet keeping Kiev into 42 have the same NM as somebody who loses it? Have a base value that stays more or less constant and modify it. The main issue here IMO would be the first few months of 41. For this period one could have special buffs/debuffs in place to get the ball rolling, later value would depend on performance in the field This gives incentives to both sides to fight and keep what they can.

This might also be connected to total casualties modifying NM, especially for Germans, they lost performance due to attrition, not date.

If the Soviets run too much, they preserve their forces but [trash] their combat effectiveness. If the Germans run too much they risk making the Soviets too strong too soon. However this also means the logistics system will have to be able to prevent offensives snowballing.

Economy. Aside from Oil, maybe give certain large industrial clusters or special resource locations production modifiers for vehicles? or a delayed limited supply generation capability.


That said, I think just the new logistics/railyard/depot system will make certain cities so important to have/deny to the enemy, that the dynamic will be very different to the existing one.

I fully endorse these ideas. I like a national morale penalty for running away. It's a logical penalty as opposed to other sorts of penalties or rewards. VPs also make sense because gaining and losing objectives is the measure of how we determine victory in the game, and they should vary according to timing. Initial objective values would relate to how the sides perceived their posture from the outset of the war. It's a little harder to develop an objective value in later stages after the '41 campaign has run its course.
User avatar
robinsa
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:00 am
Location: North Carolina

RE: WitE 2

Post by robinsa »

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: MechFO

NM, modifying the very arbitrary system now in place. Why should a Soviet keeping Kiev into 42 have the same NM as somebody who loses it? Have a base value that stays more or less constant and modify it. The main issue here IMO would be the first few months of 41. For this period one could have special buffs/debuffs in place to get the ball rolling, later value would depend on performance in the field This gives incentives to both sides to fight and keep what they can.

This might also be connected to total casualties modifying NM, especially for Germans, they lost performance due to attrition, not date.

If the Soviets run too much, they preserve their forces but [trash] their combat effectiveness. If the Germans run too much they risk making the Soviets too strong too soon. However this also means the logistics system will have to be able to prevent offensives snowballing.

Economy. Aside from Oil, maybe give certain large industrial clusters or special resource locations production modifiers for vehicles? or a delayed limited supply generation capability.


That said, I think just the new logistics/railyard/depot system will make certain cities so important to have/deny to the enemy, that the dynamic will be very different to the existing one.

I fully endorse these ideas. I like a national morale penalty for running away. It's a logical penalty as opposed to other sorts of penalties or rewards. VPs also make sense because gaining and losing objectives is the measure of how we determine victory in the game, and they should vary according to timing. Initial objective values would relate to how the sides perceived their posture from the outset of the war. It's a little harder to develop an objective value in later stages after the '41 campaign has run its course.
I disagree. The sixth army holding their ground surely didn't add to morale.

I think it should be connected to victory points but that would require a new system with "ticking" VP's. For every turn you hold an objective you get point (at an increasing rate to make sure you really want that extra VP).

It would be interesting if there was a possibility to change between different VP systems between games.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: WitE 2

Post by Aurelian »

A nation that absorbed millions in casualties in six months is hardly going to be bothered by losing cities.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by Capitaine »

ORIGINAL: robinsa

ORIGINAL: Capitaine


I fully endorse these ideas. I like a national morale penalty for running away. It's a logical penalty as opposed to other sorts of penalties or rewards. VPs also make sense because gaining and losing objectives is the measure of how we determine victory in the game, and they should vary according to timing. Initial objective values would relate to how the sides perceived their posture from the outset of the war. It's a little harder to develop an objective value in later stages after the '41 campaign has run its course.
I disagree. The sixth army holding their ground surely didn't add to morale.

I think it should be connected to victory points but that would require a new system with "ticking" VP's. For every turn you hold an objective you get point (at an increasing rate to make sure you really want that extra VP).

It would be interesting if there was a possibility to change between different VP systems between games.

It's not that holding ground adds to morale; it's that ceding it would hurt morale. Imagine, the Sixth Army expends massive effort to take Stalingrad, only to pull out shortly thereafter... You think there wouldn't be a drop in NM at that action? So it's very logical to expect negative morale consequences to the politically compelled military positions in the war.

Ideally, losing any established objective cities should bear a cost not only in VPs, but in NM as a political matter. How soon a captured objective becomes "owned" by the conqueror is an issue to be determined. Certainly Stalingrad bears a lot of insight into this concept: The German morale would have suffered so greatly had they evacuated Stalingrad that they risked the destruction of Sixth A. to hold it. Ideally that could be reflected in the game. Ideally.
User avatar
Great_Ajax
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

RE: WitE 2

Post by Great_Ajax »

National Morale is not just unit morale and the wording of the term doesn't explain it's impact. NM includes numerous factors such as base quality of troops and officers, efficiency of training programs as well as evolving doctrine.

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

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer
Ridgeway
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:36 pm

RE: WitE 2

Post by Ridgeway »

So much confusion could have been avoided if GG had referred to this concept as something like "Average Combat Proficiency" rather than "National Morale".
User avatar
Great_Ajax
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

RE: WitE 2

Post by Great_Ajax »

I definitely agree with that.

Trey
ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

So much confusion could have been avoided if GG had referred to this concept as something like "Average Combat Proficiency" rather than "National Morale".
"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by Capitaine »

Does it also encompass troop morale?
MechFO
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by MechFO »

ORIGINAL: el hefe

National Morale is not just unit morale and the wording of the term doesn't explain it's impact. NM includes numerous factors such as base quality of troops and officers, efficiency of training programs as well as evolving doctrine.

Trey

I'm aware of that, which is why losses suffered IMO should be a prime modifier in any NM system, but I think assigning it to some geographical locations could still be used as a trailing indicator of general proficiency, while at the same time giving these locations such tangible benefits that both sides would do their very best to hang on to them as long as possible. Of course NM points shouldn't be scattered all over the map, or this the only modifier, but one of several.

Political considerations/morale etc considerations means a fight would be necessary to take f.e. Stalingrad. If it were taken, this is an indication the Soviets are deteriorating in relative quality since under no circumstances would it be ceded without them being overwhelmed. Remember, our perceptions of the 2 sides quality is heavily dependent on their success, and the currency of success is territorial gain and there is a reason both sides decided to duke it out there instead of another arbitrary geographical location, somewhere in the steps.

We would think less of a Wehrmacht that barely managed to take Kiev instead of standing in front of Moscow. More of one that is sitting in Stalingrad in 44 instead of running in the Ukraine. Of course, many influences, are being subsumed into this, but that's just how NM works.

The current NM already goes in this direction, except it is tied to arbitrary dates, and the values derived from our perception of how "good" they were. But those values are derived from where those frontlines were and how they moved.

The big advantage of having a geographical influence is also that we know who was where when, which, together with the date system, gives a certain baseline on what values should be assigned where. Ideally losses would be a further modifier which adds a further consideration that players must consider.
User avatar
Great_Ajax
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

RE: WitE 2

Post by Great_Ajax »

MechFO, I have long preferred to tie NM to player influenced actions rather than arbitrarily dates. I agree that German NM should be tied to losses instead of dates as the decline of the German capability was driven by attrition. Having a driver for the Soviets is a bit stickier as their increasing capabilities came from learning from painful mistakes and the evolution of their doctrine. My theory is that as Soviet losses climb, so should their proficiency as making mistakes and failure is a critical part of learning and therefore, a key ingredient for improvement in performance. A Soviet Army that is focused on avoiding combat in 1941 with low losses should not see an automatic NM increase. The Soviet player should be encouraged to attack and we are seeing in the Alpha of WitE 2 that attacking Soviets are enacting a far greater toll on German forces in 1941.

To me, there is no skin in the game with the player because the victory objectives are purely player driven. There is no higher authority directing strategic objectives and therefore, no pressure or consequences for these strategic goals. The games play out like a giant sandbox without a lot of realistic constraints as both Germans and Soviets are free to abandon large swathes of territory with no real consequence. My dream WitE addition would be a Supreme Leader strategic objective assignment system. At a minimum, each Spring (say March), each Supreme Leader assigns a strategic objective to the northern, central and southern sector and could be a combination of attack and defend for a large city in each sector. Each player has no idea what the other player's objectives are and could lead to some interesting operational situations. Success and failure to achieve these goals would have concrete benefits and punishments. What those impacts are would be debatable but I think it would drive a much more dynamic and realistic game.

Trey

ORIGINAL: MechFO
ORIGINAL: el hefe

National Morale is not just unit morale and the wording of the term doesn't explain it's impact. NM includes numerous factors such as base quality of troops and officers, efficiency of training programs as well as evolving doctrine.

Trey

I'm aware of that, which is why losses suffered IMO should be a prime modifier in any NM system, but I think assigning it to some geographical locations could still be used as a trailing indicator of general proficiency, while at the same time giving these locations such tangible benefits that both sides would do their very best to hang on to them as long as possible. Of course NM points shouldn't be scattered all over the map, or this the only modifier, but one of several.

Political considerations/morale etc considerations means a fight would be necessary to take f.e. Stalingrad. If it were taken, this is an indication the Soviets are deteriorating in relative quality since under no circumstances would it be ceded without them being overwhelmed. Remember, our perceptions of the 2 sides quality is heavily dependent on their success, and the currency of success is territorial gain and there is a reason both sides decided to duke it out there instead of another arbitrary geographical location, somewhere in the steps.

We would think less of a Wehrmacht that barely managed to take Kiev instead of standing in front of Moscow. More of one that is sitting in Stalingrad in 44 instead of running in the Ukraine. Of course, many influences, are being subsumed into this, but that's just how NM works.

The current NM already goes in this direction, except it is tied to arbitrary dates, and the values derived from our perception of how "good" they were. But those values are derived from where those frontlines were and how they moved.

The big advantage of having a geographical influence is also that we know who was where when, which, together with the date system, gives a certain baseline on what values should be assigned where. Ideally losses would be a further modifier which adds a further consideration that players must consider.
"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by Capitaine »

ORIGINAL: el hefe

MechFO, I have long preferred to tie NM to player influenced actions rather than arbitrarily dates. I agree that German NM should be tied to losses instead of dates as the decline of the German capability was driven by attrition. Having a driver for the Soviets is a bit stickier as their increasing capabilities came from learning from painful mistakes and the evolution of their doctrine. My theory is that as Soviet losses climb, so should their proficiency as making mistakes and failure is a critical part of learning and therefore, a key ingredient for improvement in performance. A Soviet Army that is focused on avoiding combat in 1941 with low losses should not see an automatic NM increase. The Soviet player should be encouraged to attack and we are seeing in the Alpha of WitE 2 that attacking Soviets are enacting a far greater toll on German forces in 1941.

To me, there is no skin in the game with the player because the victory objectives are purely player driven. There is no higher authority directing strategic objectives and therefore, no pressure or consequences for these strategic goals. The games play out like a giant sandbox without a lot of realistic constraints as both Germans and Soviets are free to abandon large swathes of territory with no real consequence. My dream WitE addition would be a Supreme Leader strategic objective assignment system. At a minimum, each Spring (say March), each Supreme Leader assigns a strategic objective to the northern, central and southern sector and could be a combination of attack and defend for a large city in each sector. Each player has no idea what the other player's objectives are and could lead to some interesting operational situations. Success and failure to achieve these goals would have concrete benefits and punishments. What those impacts are would be debatable but I think it would drive a much more dynamic and realistic game.

Trey

As I mull this topic over, I find that the highlighted text also has a lot of merit. With all the systemic problems of the Soviet army, running away and preserving themselves will not bring severe deficiencies into focus. Soviet doctrine would not be reexamined, and their NM (unit proficiency) should not increase as it now does automatically. Using arbitrary dates as a basis for changes in NM is totally divorced from the actual player-determined course of the war. Combined with running away and ceding objectives, the effect on Soviet NM should be highly negative with no chance of increasing until sufficient losses have been incurred to bring on reform.

I would hope that player decisions rather than historical decisions not chosen would be given a high priority in revisions in WitE 2. Such mechanisms would really make a lot more difference in its value as a game than a lot of technical modifications, however welcome those are.
User avatar
RedLancer
Posts: 4338
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:09 am
Location: UK

RE: WitE 2

Post by RedLancer »

I don't normally post my ideas publicly but this is one I've ofter thought about....

My suggestion is that manpower is more tightly restricted and NM more stable. In return the player is given the ability to trigger additional manpower into the pool but at a cost in NM. This replicates mobilisation and changes in the call up criteria for the population. This benefits good players. Someone who is doing better than history is not penalised by historical NM levels if they do better than history. For the AI the mobilisation is triggered when the manpower pool falls below a set level.
John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
User avatar
zakblood
Posts: 22722
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:19 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by zakblood »

sounds like a good idea to me[&o]
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 22621) (22621.ni_release.220506-1250)
MechFO
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by MechFO »

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I don't normally post my ideas publicly but this is one I've ofter thought about....

My suggestion is that manpower is more tightly restricted and NM more stable. In return the player is given the ability to trigger additional manpower into the pool but at a cost in NM. This replicates mobilisation and changes in the call up criteria for the population. This benefits good players. Someone who is doing better than history is not penalised by historical NM levels if they do better than history. For the AI the mobilisation is triggered when the manpower pool falls below a set level.

Very good idea and fits the German situation to a T. Soviet situation as well actually, since performance wouldn't have been so bad in 42 if trained manpower losses hadn't been so huge in 41.

Might also be an idea to give Soviets bonuses to Armament/Supply/Vehicle? production if Manpower pool is over a certain threshold. This way the Soviet player has an incentive to not just plop the biggest possible army on the map.

In general I think AGEOD games might be a good inspiration on how to give the player the possibility for trade offs.

MechFO
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by MechFO »

ORIGINAL: el hefe
Having a driver for the Soviets is a bit stickier as their increasing capabilities came from learning from painful mistakes and the evolution of their doctrine. My theory is that as Soviet losses climb, so should their proficiency as making mistakes and failure is a critical part of learning and therefore, a key ingredient for improvement in performance. A Soviet Army that is focused on avoiding combat in 1941 with low losses should not see an automatic NM increase. The Soviet player should be encouraged to attack and we are seeing in the Alpha of WitE 2 that attacking Soviets are enacting a far greater toll on German forces in 1941.

Could be argued, though to be fair, at lot of problems later on were due to having lost all the trained manpower in 41 due to a combination of massive C3/Log failures and German quality. Fighting, at least defensively, at company/sub company level was never the Soviet problem, if the units had some time to train and were decently equipped. That said, I think it can be supported and would definitely add an interesting dynamic to the game.
ORIGINAL: el hefe
To me, there is no skin in the game with the player because the victory objectives are purely player driven. There is no higher authority directing strategic objectives and therefore, no pressure or consequences for these strategic goals. The games play out like a giant sandbox without a lot of realistic constraints as both Germans and Soviets are free to abandon large swathes of territory with no real consequence. My dream WitE addition would be a Supreme Leader strategic objective assignment system. At a minimum, each Spring (say March), each Supreme Leader assigns a strategic objective to the northern, central and southern sector and could be a combination of attack and defend for a large city in each sector. Each player has no idea what the other player's objectives are and could lead to some interesting operational situations. Success and failure to achieve these goals would have concrete benefits and punishments. What those impacts are would be debatable but I think it would drive a much more dynamic and realistic game.

Trey


I'd settle for a DC Barb system, but absolutely agree.

In the end the player only really cares for 3 things, combat power, replacements, logistics, arguably in that order, hence any incentive system must target those factors.
User avatar
Great_Ajax
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

RE: WitE 2

Post by Great_Ajax »

That is something to definitely look into. We would need to research the secondary levels of effects to see what other impacts of a mass levy of manpower. I know the Germans during Barbarossa were tapped on manpower as they had a set number of trained replacements in 1941 and that pool was exhausted by September. Germany at this time was not on a war production schedule and was in fact powering down production of Heer crew served weapons and artillery. They simply couldn't dump extra manpower without having a significant impact on their industry.

Trey


ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I don't normally post my ideas publicly but this is one I've ofter thought about....

My suggestion is that manpower is more tightly restricted and NM more stable. In return the player is given the ability to trigger additional manpower into the pool but at a cost in NM. This replicates mobilisation and changes in the call up criteria for the population. This benefits good players. Someone who is doing better than history is not penalised by historical NM levels if they do better than history. For the AI the mobilisation is triggered when the manpower pool falls below a set level.
"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: WitE 2

Post by chaos45 »

Perhaps having NM tied to total losses for the Axis powers/Germans?

There might also need to be some tie in due to how things are going on the western front as well. 1943- wasnt only a bad year for the Germans because of Stalingrad surrendering in January, it was also bad for them due to Tunisia and Sicily and the italians leaving the war---all these had affects on the German military outside the eastern front. You listen to some interviews with German Soldiers that were fighting during that time period, and I remember one specifically saying once they realized they were fighting Americans they knew the war lost because Germany couldnt fight the whole world. So keeping things isolated to just the eastern front will be hard to do IMO as the whole war effort is what brought down Germany so some timelines maybe could make it quicker or slower but fighting on several fronts drained the Germans massively over time.

Production wise the Germans made up for in after the massive 1942 drafts by using more and more forced/slave labor from occupied territories---however quality of equipment was prolly alittle worse off when they began to use more and more massed slave labor. The German economy and war effort was never as unified or seamless as what the allies managed to do and one of the big reasons they lost. Everything they did was a rob peter to pay paul effect, not to mention the extreme amounts of political in-fighting Hitler instigated to ensure no-one else could challenge him in power. Basically the Nazis system helped to cause its own downfall with in-built in-inefficiencies. The German army did an amazing job of the term "doing more with less" but that only works for so long before your system breaks under the strain. Soldiers arent machines and the longer you stress them no matter how effective or highly trained they eventually snap. You see this as the war drag on for the Germans in many ways. You make the same guy fight for longer and longer periods of time and watch all his friends die around him and eventually he doesnt care as much anymore and gets himself killed through not caring anymore.....Allies studied this effect extensively and its one of the reasons they rotated and tried to rest units more than the Germans...not to mention the allies usually had the units/men to spare for these rotations.

Adding some options to each side for conduct of the war might be neat---like what if luftwaffe personnel were given to the army for more training, or an option to delay the deployment of the luftwaffe divisions for more training- ei a later arrival date but high quality divisions. Some trade offs like this could be options for both sides. Even on the Soviet side the first use of tank corps in 1942 was a disaster and Soviet commanders knew it would be because they didnt feel their units had, had enough time to train.

now balancing any changes like these could be the issue....but all this is my 2 cents salted with historical/studied facts lol.
User avatar
sillyflower
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:39 pm
Location: Back in Blighty

RE: WitE 2

Post by sillyflower »

Some excellent thinking in recent posts. I particularly like the idea of Soviet NM becoming higher as losses grow (at least in the early part of the game) because NM reflects the learning of lessons as opposed to morale. Anything that dampens down the WiTE momentum effect will make for a better game and, dare I say it, longer GC games.

Less enamoured with the idea of being lumbered with unpredictable political demands from on high as I want to control my forces by myself. However, I do understand the attraction and I would be happy if each side could choose between options. Sadly, probably too difficult for vanilla WiTE 2 as I can see that a lot of testing of complete GCs would be needed for balancing.
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
PyleDriver
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:38 pm
Location: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas

RE: WitE 2

Post by PyleDriver »

My suggestion is a option for the Germans to buy winter clothing. Say one AP's for Inf and two for Mech, which would include
include synthetic oil costs. Include extra rail costs also. That way if a player stops is offense in October he can
be prepared for winter. We would need a new color outline and key for it.

Jon
Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester
Post Reply

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