Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

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
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by morvael »

With two combats against 1, I'd say you have to add totals. So it would be 1192 Axis men lost and 5338 Soviets in WitE2. The ratios are 6.43 in WitE1 and 4.47 in WitE2 (5.57 in first combat, 2.95 in second combat). The Germans did a fighting withdrawal in WitE1 (as denoted by (W)), which reduced their retreat losses considerably. They were also fighting in better fort, and had just one combat. No doubt losses in WitE2 are higher (especially from shooting in combat), but it's not a problem to dial them up in WitE1 (as many players ask for). Now that the replacement system is working properly (as far as WitE1 innards allow it to), by prioritising fighty elements over support, it shouldn't be a problem at all (other than enforcing more pauses in combat due to evisceration of combatants, especially when coupled with making harder to get replacements on the frontlines).

Edit: I would also gladly reduce CV multipliers in combat to WitW/WitE2 levels... which makes combat more predictable.
User avatar
RedLancer
Posts: 4338
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:09 am
Location: UK

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by RedLancer »

I did factor that into my spreadsheet which is why there are two WitE2 loss columns. I didn't put in ratios as I felt that in a single combat too much inference my be drawn.

My post was not an implied criticism of WitE but rather to highlight differences between the systems.
John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
darbycmcd
Posts: 400
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:47 am

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by darbycmcd »

MT, you are just a bit off base on this issue. LiquidSky is correct, and it relates to the OB flexibility issue you brought up on another thread. The Soviets have the ability to optimize their OB in a way that the Germans don't, which means, just as LS pointed out, that most players will push replacements into fewer formations. They will not raise not only a couple hundred rifle divisions, but also the dozens of NKVD divisions, the masses of engineer, artillery, independent armor and other combat support troops. I believe, although I don't care enough to go look it up, that the Soviets used a cadre system similar to the Germans, where units were worn to a nub an then rebuilt, rather than the US system which fed in replacements. Which means you end up with those masses of hollowed out units but even more masses of units! Players typically won't do this, which makes for a late game RKKA which looks fairly ahistorical.

Your tooth to tail argument is somewhat incoherent, I think you are saying that the massive manpower mobilized by the Soviets shouldn't count in the game? Or because they had combat support and combat service support (CSS) cadres, something something everyone loves the reds.... ? The funny thing is, because the Germans had a higher percentage of troops in CSS the game is more likely to overstate the combat force of their army as function of total troops, but I guess you don't care to think about that.

Here is the deal, German players that whine about the large soviet army generally don't understand that you see in the game is SMALLER than what they were able to raise historically, not only in terms of formations but also in total number of troops. Seriously, get over that frustration and STOP ACCUSING THE DEVELOPERS OF BIAS. Deviation from ignorant beliefs is not a sign of bias.

I think that one of the major problems in discussing this game is that there are two lines of thought, some people who really really want the Germans to be able to win the war and those who prefer more historical approaches. You do have a decent argument for the historical people however that the ability of the Soviet player to make the decision to have a smaller than historical OB leads to a non-historical 'flavor', but your red-scare tantrums are not persuasive.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by Michael T »

You are just another Red fanboi. Ignore button engaged.
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: Michael T

You are just another Red fanboi. Ignore button engaged.

Yes more of the coin has one side stuff bro.

Last time I checked a coin had 2 sides not one.

Now your starting to understand all my time outs?

I got a time out for calling someone a Red fanboy - was the national moral is not working debate 99 vs Pelton

and yes I was right :)

That bane was worth it for sure [8D]





morveal proved me right [&o][&o][&o][&o]

Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
EwaldvonKleist
Posts: 2365
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:58 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by EwaldvonKleist »

I will never unterstand why people can't be as friendly and respectful on the Internet as in their real life.
Few discussions have ever been won by ignoring one side.
User avatar
LiquidSky
Posts: 2811
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:28 am

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by LiquidSky »



In WitW...the Germans are given an historical OOB. So are the allies. That doesn't stop you from 'tailoring' your OOB to make an ahistorical stronger fighting force.

For example, in the beginning, I will disband HQ's and the infantry multi-role regiments.

Then I will disband all the Russian Ost Battalions. And all the fortification units (WestWall, Italian Alps)

By 1944, I will disband LW Divisions. All motorized regiments and the Panzer Brigades are also disbanded...mostly for the trucks...put the panthers are nice. If I have to I will put sections of the front on static for trucks.

1945 I disband any unit reinforcing from the Russian front.

The result is I keep my panzer/SS divisions near full strength for counterattacking. The front line infantry divisions at around 75% strength.....time is on my side, so anything that can slow the allied advance is good.

But my army will not resemble the paper armies that the Germans fielded in 1945.

The same thing will happen for the early game Russians. And for the late war Germans in WitE2 and it's 'historical' OOB. Just because you start with an historical OOB doesn't mean you are going to end with one.

NOTE: They have changed some of the rules to prevent the more obvious abuses...like disbanding Ost Battalions and HQ's.
“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

I will never unterstand why people can't be as friendly and respectful on the Internet as in their real life.
Few discussions have ever been won by ignoring one side.

Here they are ALWAYS won by data.

I am generally a disrespect ass hat - but I win in the end because 1+1=2 No matter how much of an ass hat I am explaining it.

Basicly like Putin and Trump.

Pink Hat people just die, they are nice and PC, but don't provide data and always lose in the end.


Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



In WitW...the Germans are given an historical OOB. So are the allies. That doesn't stop you from 'tailoring' your OOB to make an ahistorical stronger fighting force.

For example, in the beginning, I will disband HQ's and the infantry multi-role regiments.

Then I will disband all the Russian Ost Battalions. And all the fortification units (WestWall, Italian Alps)

By 1944, I will disband LW Divisions. All motorized regiments and the Panzer Brigades are also disbanded...mostly for the trucks...put the panthers are nice. If I have to I will put sections of the front on static for trucks.

1945 I disband any unit reinforcing from the Russian front.

The result is I keep my panzer/SS divisions near full strength for counterattacking. The front line infantry divisions at around 75% strength.....time is on my side, so anything that can slow the allied advance is good.

But my army will not resemble the paper armies that the Germans fielded in 1945.

The same thing will happen for the early game Russians. And for the late war Germans in WitE2 and it's 'historical' OOB. Just because you start with an historical OOB doesn't mean you are going to end with one.

NOTE: They have changed some of the rules to prevent the more obvious abuses...like disbanding Ost Battalions and HQ's.

Good stuff, but the logistic is more important.

Yes yes your my 1 loss WitW - exploiter :)

Pot calling the kettle black I know
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
EwaldvonKleist
Posts: 2365
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:58 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by EwaldvonKleist »

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

I will never unterstand why people can't be as friendly and respectful on the Internet as in their real life.
Few discussions have ever been won by ignoring one side.

Here they are ALWAYS won by data.

I am generally a disrespect ass hat - but I win in the end because 1+1=2 No matter how much of an ass hat I am explaining it.

Basicly like Putin and Trump.

Pink Hat people just die, they are nice and PC, but don't provide data and always lose in the end.


I fully support your data approach but your style of discussion does not really help to win. Why not say "you are wrong" instead of "you are wrong and dumb"?
Until we enter the terrain of mathematics, data can be intrrpreted in different was.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by Michael T »

There is a long history of animosity here between the Red Fanboi's and some others. It goes back years, it's like war now with a no prisoners approach. There is no chance for peace and to be honest I don't want it. They undermined any chance for making WITE 1.0 fair and balanced. They will attempt to pervert WITE 2.0 as well.

Flavius (their spiritual leader) is the only one I have any time for at all. At least he admits his bias and from personal communications with him I find him quite an nice fellow despite our difference on this forum.
darbycmcd
Posts: 400
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:47 am

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by darbycmcd »

Pelton, I finally agree with you about something. Your use of data to create arguments founded on a basis of rationally understood truth is about the same as Putin and Trump... congrats
darbycmcd
Posts: 400
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:47 am

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by darbycmcd »

Ack, MT has me on ignore so he won't see this but he keeps saying fair and balanced, but he doesn't do an excellent job of showing that his vision of the game is that. He just cannot understand, it isn't Red Fanboi-ism (jeez, why is this the one forum on Matrix with the childish posters....) it is a schism between simulationists and gamers, for want of a better word. Some people want Germany to be able to win, by which they mean defeat the USSR. Because this did not happen, they almost by definition need to... be flexible with the historical realities. The more historically minded people also want Germany to be able to win, but for them it is clear that for the vast majority of the games that will be a matter of when Berlin falls. I have never heard anyone build a very convincing argument that Germany could defeat the USSR, and the reason is the constraints that actually faced the sides. So when people put forward more realistic understandings of those constraints, because they lead to the defeat of Germany, they must also work against the vision of the 'gamers'.

Not everything though is so consistent for the simulators side. When we have the chance to do things like streamline our OB we do, but that changes the nature of the army we are using compared to historical. Also the most difficult problem for any operational game about the the Eastern Front is that it is almost impossible to get a soviet player to play as badly as Stalin conducted the war for about 2 years. This can lead to stronger red armies in the end game, which can also change the feel of the the late war. So it is a delicate balance for this side as well.

Mostly though I am just really tired of this attitude that if it isn't the way certain people want it, the next game will be broken. Who are you that we should care so much about your opinion? And I think it is a very very unfair oblique and sometimes not very oblique critique of the developers who I have to say, in my opinion, have done really outstanding work with not only the game as a game, but the historical elements as well. Putting forth a well founded argument for a feature or change, awesome. Pouting and stamping your feet if you don't get the change... not nearly as awesome.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by Michael T »

I have not green buttoned you. But I will ignore your views and opinions since in my opinion you are biased. I don’t care if you ignore mine or not. Not one iota.

One of the many problems I have with the RFC (Red Fanboi Club) is that they want their cake and eat it too. They want total historical shackles for Germany but total freedom for Russia. They have no other vision than an historical outcome. They are totally blinkered to any other possible result.

I and many others I suspect have a great time pondering what may have been had different circumstances or decisions been made. Decisions and circumstances that lie within the realm of the possible is my only limit. And I have read a lot on this subject. There any number of a myriad of things that could have played out differently and changed the course of the war. Some better, some worse for Germany.

I have no doubt that had in reality the French and British stopped the Germans in France that these same people now would be clamouring that a German victory in the west in 1940 as impossible. No doubt whatsoever.

This forum is antagonistic because the RFC with belittle anyone with an ounce of imagination. They attack like a swarm. Try to drown out any alternate offerings. They only respect the knowledge of historical fact, and then only facts that align with their own bigoted views on the war. Any fact that contradicts or even questions their own set in stone view is ridiculed. So what is left to the fair and reasonable minded? No choice but to retaliate in kind or leave town, as many have.
charlie0311
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:15 am

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by charlie0311 »

So, so tempting to join in and speak with the insane, be a total fool. Maybe after the pot boils over.

Put the self imposed ban back now.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by Michael T »

A little insanity each day keeps you sane every day [:D]
User avatar
LiquidSky
Posts: 2811
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:28 am

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by LiquidSky »



Well..the discussion was supposed to be more along the lines of OOB and manpower instead of logistics...but I can go there.

The Allies in WitW have what is essentially an unlimited amount of trucks. Moving supply around is easy. They also have a fair number of rail engineers...and can repair the rail net fairly quickly. So moving supply around is easy.

The problem they face is there is only so many ports. So only so much can flow into France which can feed only so many divisions.

Freight is the unit of logistics. It starts at a National Supply Depot (a few of them on the map, such as Berlin,Essen, Frankfurt, Vienna and Milan for the Badguys, and Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, Belfast and Oran for the good guys.

Freight turns into: Supply, Fuel, Ammo and Replacements.

From here it flows to other depots....port depots that can ship out...port depots that can only receive....and rail line depots...all based on a priority you set.

A unit will request freight based on its priority level and needs. It will get this freight using trucks at the depot...or trucks from within the unit itself (impacting its movement points). I rarely see any (GE) motorized unit with 50mps...especially if it was attacking and moving the turn before.

Depots have a capacity...they only hold so much freight. Rail lines have a capacity....they can only move so much freight.

You will no longer be able convert a single rail line and supply an entire army group along it.

The defender has a huge advantage in logistics. His depots are probably fuller. He isn't burning as much fuel...or expending as much ammo. He probably doesn't need as much replacements....or has pulled the worst of those back to rebuild farther behind. The distances to his depots is much less.

The attacker is burning fuel...he is expending tons of ammo...he is taking losses that need to be replaced. His depot is several hexes behind the line..maybe even dozens of hexes. There may only be a couple of them fed by a single or maybe a couple rail lines.

Looking at a front line defending division (348th inf div) in moderate fighting...it needs around 700 tons of freight for supply/fuel/ammo and another 400 tons for replacements. A typical front line rail depot holds around 20,000 tons of freight. And on a good day receives about 2000 tons. A much bigger depot (larger rail yard) will hold much more and probably receive around 5000 tons of freight...but is probably farther away from the front line.

So you can see..the depots will quickly run dry under continuous operation...and you will be required to pause and let them refill...and to try and direct that freight to more useful units....instead of the entire front line.

Note I have said nothing radically different than what happened in the war. I saw a chart the other day that said the Germans could supply 38% of their front in 1941. In comparison the Americans could do 70% in 1944 and 105% in 1945. The Russians could do 60% in 1943.

This doesn't mean that all the German units are at 38%. Obviously some units don't need more supplies..they aren't fighting. They can live with the bare minimum....Some get a little more...but are saving it for later. Others are fighting, and use it as fast...or faster then they are receiving it.

So if you expecting the Germans to be chock full of goodies while the Russians are eating Tree Bark Soup, with every second soldier getting a rifle and bullets alternating...you may be in for a bit of a shock.

What you will get are areas of the front static and stagnant...on low priority supplies. Other areas on greater priority. Within those areas....some units will be higher then others for priority. Not everyone will be fighting..sometimes you will have to decide to rest and let the depots fill up. You may even have to rest the airforce to conserve fuel. Not push a tank/panzer division just because.
“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by Michael T »

I accept that there is a group of gamers and a group of simulationists. But there is also a RFC. To deny that the RFC does not exist is akin to putting ones head in the sand.
User avatar
Icier
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: a sunny beach nsw

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by Icier »

I think when most people see that the 'Reds" had an army of 10/15 million, they think that is the actual number of FIGHTING troops & forget
that this also encompasses the logistic rear services.
I remember reading somewhere, although Chaos can confirm because of the work that he has done, that it takes 10 men to keep one person in the field so do the math...a logistical service of 150 million.
You may want to check this link...
Logistics: The Soviets' Nemesis to Conventional War in Central Europe?
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a217257.pdf

There is some reading.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Russian replacements... ~150k per turn?

Post by morvael »

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
My post was not an implied criticism of WitE but rather to highlight differences between the systems.

No offence was taken, I never thought about yout post as criticism [:)]

By the way, I wonder if completely different disabled return rates allow higher casualties per battle in WitE2. In WitE1 a man is basically lost if he becomes disabled. As you know from the books we both read it's more realistic when losses AND returns are higher, leading to quick exhaustion of units that fight a lot, but they should eventually rebound if given some pause. As loki100's end-of-turn total losses comparison revealed difference between the two games is much smaller than in the battle example you have provided. So both games may be closer in total losses than per-battle losses, of which greater part in WitE2 must be temporary.
Post Reply

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