Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

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
Telemecus
Posts: 4689
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:32 pm
Contact:

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by Telemecus »

I think you should still have morale losses when attacks are suicidal. There are many recorded events of troops being ordered into what they thought of as futile battles and losing morale as a result. Or even becoming mutinous. So maybe extreme loses from attacking (4 to 1 or some such threshold) is still necessary. Making all attacks a morale freebie would just mean mass spamming of attacks whatever the odds.
Wargamers Discord https://discord.gg/U6DcDxT
Stelteck
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:07 pm

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by Stelteck »

ORIGINAL: morvael

Yes, perhaps only attacking and winning should result in morale increase, and defending and losing in morale decrease.
Ho yes !!

Brakes are for cowards !!
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by morvael »

Telemecus, losing men and equipment should be penalty enough, especially for the Axis.
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by Crackaces »

Being attacked by the enemy is usually more a bad news than a morale building thing.

The first battle of Slominsk with the Russians futile effort .. they gave up a lot of blood to gain time and space .. I have to see the Germans being quite celebratory
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
Nix77
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:19 am
Location: Finland

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by Nix77 »

ORIGINAL: Nix77

Morvael & team, please look more closely into the support squad change:

- Soviet total OOB 4.27M => 3.82M (256k difference in Corps HQs, 200k in armies)
- HQ ToE could be adjusted previously to gain manpower from HQ support squads, if that was the desired effect?
- 215k+ men (!!!) less are gained now in 1.11.01 from disbanding Corps HQs
- German HQ support squads still remain at the same (unrealistic?) levels?

What was the cause for the support squad change? Why German HQ ToE was not changed? If there is a change in support squad numbers, shouldn't the unit's support needs be toned down, or was this previously not working as it should?

I think there's a lot to rethink in this change, please consider this as a bug report for 1.11.01.

Image

EDIT: the picture says "Corps OOB", that's the added figure from CR below the OOB and my additional calculations. I deducted Airborne and Air Command HQs from the calculations since they don't disband automagically.

Following up with questions about the Support Squad change:

What exactly is the desired functionality of HQs having support squads? In 1.11.01, an army HQ of 10 divisions can raise the divisions' capacity to recover fatigue and repair elements by less than 10% (200/10/275), and the division will still be operating at less than 60% of the needed support.

If the bonus admin chance mechanic is not changed, a Soviet Army has 20% chance to give +1 admin to the leader checks, if at full ToE.

The above numbers are now really small, and it seems it wouldn't make much difference if all the army HQs were operating at 20% ToE:

56% vs 60% fatigue reduction & element repair effectiveness
4% vs 20% chance for admin bonus

The support squad & command chain seems to have become quite insignificant for the Soviet side with this patch.

Front HQs were also reduced to 500 support squads, that translates into roughly 10 squads of assistance spread out among the divisions.

German divisions have almost 100% support need fulfilled by their own ToE, not toning down German HQ support squads seems like an odd choice. I understand the support squads reflect the efficiency of the command structure and Germans should excel in this, but this should be represented perhaps differently than having 30000 men in support duties in a German army (10000 in army, 20000 in the corps) while the Soviet army now has only 4000. That's far from realism.




Would it have been better to make a complete support squad overhaul, and include the German side to it also?

HQ support squad numbers could've been lowered on both sides, while at the same time adjusting the support needs for different units. Support squad admin effect formula should be adjusted accordingly to reflect the changes, and to preserve the meaningfulness of having a functional command chain supporting the combat units.

chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by chaos45 »

ouch...good catch Nix....ya the continuous reducing of Soviet manpower seems to have gone alittle to far. Soviet manpower has already been reduced far below historical, while the Germans is far higher than historical. To the point now that manpower is a huge issue for the soviets until the end game.

Honestly think maybe the soviet manpower multiplier may need to be slightly increase or starting manpower reserves increased to lessen the manpower constraints on the soviets.
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by morvael »

Yes, it's better to handle this with higher multiplier or mobilization of extra men (like vehicles) in the early turn, than by increasing strength of corps to be disbanded. As I said those corps were operating long past the date that WitE allows them now.
Nix77
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:19 am
Location: Finland

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by Nix77 »

ORIGINAL: chaos45

ouch...good catch Nix....ya the continuous reducing of Soviet manpower seems to have gone alittle to far. Soviet manpower has already been reduced far below historical, while the Germans is far higher than historical. To the point now that manpower is a huge issue for the soviets until the end game.

Honestly think maybe the soviet manpower multiplier may need to be slightly increase or starting manpower reserves increased to lessen the manpower constraints on the soviets.

There's one effect that I missed though, the 23 new armies that arrive during the late summer and autumn of '41 take around 120000-150000 men less as they need less support. So the manpower effect isn't that dramatic after all!


I would however maybe tune down the German support squads too, since they're mostly unneeded for anything else than the admin bonus chance (divisions have nearly 100% support squad levels, haven't checked the later ToEs though). Maybe change the admin bonus chance multiplier too to reflect the lower support numbers?


The lingering rifle corps HQs would perhaps be a proper chaos factor in the Soviet command chain. I'd become more tempted to disband them manually tbh :)
Nix77
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:19 am
Location: Finland

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by Nix77 »

ORIGINAL: morvael

Yes, it's better to handle this with higher multiplier or mobilization of extra men (like vehicles) in the early turn, than by increasing strength of corps to be disbanded. As I said those corps were operating long past the date that WitE allows them now.

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_cor ... iet_Union)
By November 1941, the Soviet order of battle showed only one rifle corps headquarters still active among the forces fighting the German invasion.

....

The use of rifle corps headquarters never disappeared entirely from the Red Army during World War II, as rifle armies in areas not fighting the Germans (such as the Far Eastern military region) maintained their use of rifle corps headquarters during the entire war.
tomeck48
Posts: 210
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:52 pm

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by tomeck48 »

I recently downloaded the version 1.11.01. In the Game Options screen there is a new option called CV mode. I get the "better math" setting but I can also pick and "Art. 1" and a "Sup 1 or 0." What do those do?
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by morvael »

User avatar
MrBlizzard
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:34 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by MrBlizzard »

Under beta some soviet airgroups have been renamed in turn 2 with an incomplete name (ie only "64" instead than "64 IAP"
Blizzard
User avatar
MrBlizzard
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:34 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by MrBlizzard »

This is what I mean

Image
Attachments
20171120_17581611.jpg
20171120_17581611.jpg (420.71 KiB) Viewed 67 times
Blizzard
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by morvael »

Will check.
What is the version of your scenario data, version of your game (exe), and your opponent's exe?
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by morvael »

This happens most likely because your opponent is using older exe which doesn't know about new plane types and thus doesn't know the correct names for air groups. One more reason why I must add save locking for every new patch.
User avatar
MrBlizzard
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:34 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by MrBlizzard »

Thanks
Mine is 1941-45 campaign - bitter end
1.11.01
Server game
My opponent told me He has the same version, I'll check again with him
Blizzard
User avatar
tyronec
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Portaferry, N. Ireland

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by tyronec »

I don't know if this is a bug, but am on T7 of a game under the new patch and my available transport aircraft is very low.
The numbers available each turn has been as follows:
2- 197
3- 263
4- 145
5- 153
6- 77
7- 77
My transport airbases have nearly always been on railways and are not overloaded. Used them T3 to T5 but last turn I didn't fly any supply at all so was surprised numbers had not gone up.



Image
Attachments
TR.jpg
TR.jpg (243.16 KiB) Viewed 67 times
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
User avatar
cohimbra
Posts: 639
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:59 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by cohimbra »

ORIGINAL: MrBlizzard

Thanks
Mine is 1941-45 campaign - bitter end
1.11.01
Server game
My opponent told me He has the same version, I'll check again with him
Image
Loading save cause this advice new version 1.09.00 available*
Installed executable first (1.08.04) then patched to 1.11.01

*can't check right now, save is in MrBlizzard hands, but I'm pretty sure it say that
User avatar
cohimbra
Posts: 639
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:59 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by cohimbra »

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

RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Public Beta Update v1.11.01

Post by morvael »

ORIGINAL: tyronec
Used them T3 to T5 but last turn I didn't fly any supply at all so was surprised numbers had not gone up.

They are still there but in reserve. Previously the planes were sent back to pool and players were unhappy that numbers are low while pool is full. Now they stay in unit, but little has changed - they are still not useable. I will try to check why they are so slow to repair.
Post Reply

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