Why is the map so big ?

A complete overhaul and re-development of Gary Grigsby's War in the East, with a focus on improvements to historical accuracy, realism, user interface and AI.

Moderators: RedLancer, Joel Billings

User avatar
nukkxx5058
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:57 pm
Location: France

Why is the map so big ?

Post by nukkxx5058 »

The map covers the whole Europe + north Africa.
Is it to concatenate both WITW and WITE2 in the next game ? Gary Grigsby's War in Europe ?

Winner of the first edition of the Command: Modern Operations COMPLEX PBEM Tournament (April 2022) :-)
User avatar
Naughteous Maximus
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:28 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by Naughteous Maximus »

Yes
User avatar
nukkxx5058
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:57 pm
Location: France

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by nukkxx5058 »

Are you serious ? [X(]
Winner of the first edition of the Command: Modern Operations COMPLEX PBEM Tournament (April 2022) :-)
rob89
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:31 am

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by rob89 »

and why does it extend far beyond the Chelyabinsk-Magnitogorsk line in the Urals, without any terrain feature? What's the meaning?

thanks in advance

regards
User avatar
Bamilus
Posts: 979
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:01 pm
Location: The Old Northwest

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by Bamilus »

Size does matter.....
Paradox Interactive Forum Refugee
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7312
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by Q-Ball »

Just waiting for WIE (War in Europe), and then, with a little expansion, WITW
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 31208
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by Joel Billings »

When we built the map originally for WitW, we knew we wanted to eventually work on WitE2 as well, and allow the possibility of a War in Europe. It wasn't a lot of work to add in the areas around the edges and keep a rectangular shape of the map.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Kel
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:20 pm

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by Kel »

then, would it be possible to consider, for the campaign scenarios in particular, cropping the map to the relevant area ? IE without western europe, siberia, transcaucasus area and arctic area - since they are both empty of units, greyed out - and figured by theater boxes.
This cropping would be a QOL improvement in most of the scenarios. It would give a) reducing useless scrolling whenever you want to come back to the front after closing a theater box, b) a more clear and usable minimap and c) an overall more finished look to the thing.
I understand that the larger map will be used when WIE is released but... we are not there yet. Thank you
Kein Operationsplan reicht mit einiger Sicherheit
über das erste Zusammentreffen
mit der feindlichen Hauptmacht hinaus.
rob89
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:31 am

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by rob89 »

+1
User avatar
nukkxx5058
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:57 pm
Location: France

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by nukkxx5058 »

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

When we built the map originally for WitW, we knew we wanted to eventually work on WitE2 as well, and allow the possibility of a War in Europe. It wasn't a lot of work to add in the areas around the edges and keep a rectangular shape of the map.

War in Europe ... could it be with a 1939 start ?
Winner of the first edition of the Command: Modern Operations COMPLEX PBEM Tournament (April 2022) :-)
rob89
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:31 am

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by rob89 »

ORIGINAL: nukkxx5058

War in Europe ... could it be with a 1939 start ?

I think it would mean completely overturning the approach they had so far with WitE and WitW ... and opening up to a possible non-historical timeline, a different Barbarossa, etc.

I do not think so...

If ever WiE will be there, I think it will be from a conventional 22.06.41 start-line, with rigid OOBs and economics, 'driver' events, etc. ...

My 2 cents... [;)]
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7312
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by Q-Ball »

IMO, the biggest challenge to opening up the whole map is the Naval War. Just impossible to balance over time.
Numdydar
Posts: 3226
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by Numdydar »

Very few things are actually 'impossible'. Most are just very hard, unprofitable, etc. to do [:)]
User avatar
nukkxx5058
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:57 pm
Location: France

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by nukkxx5058 »

ORIGINAL: rob89

ORIGINAL: nukkxx5058

War in Europe ... could it be with a 1939 start ?

I think it would mean completely overturning the approach they had so far with WitE and WitW ... and opening up to a possible non-historical timeline, a different Barbarossa, etc.

I do not think so...

If ever WiE will be there, I think it will be from a conventional 22.06.41 start-line, with rigid OOBs and economics, 'driver' events, etc. ...

My 2 cents... [;)]

A freejazz version of WW2 in Europe with a starting date in 39 and then whatever happens with OOBs flexibility could be fun :-) (in addition to a more solid and historical 41-start campaign)
Winner of the first edition of the Command: Modern Operations COMPLEX PBEM Tournament (April 2022) :-)
Cavalry Corp
Posts: 3130
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:28 pm
Location: Sampford Spiney Devon UK

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by Cavalry Corp »

More important to have a combat replay added first- that still really drags the game down for me. Imagine WITP style replay, it would add so much interest.
carlkay58
Posts: 8680
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:30 pm

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by carlkay58 »

The easiest War in Europe scenario would have a 43 start with the Allies going for Sicily and the battle of Kursk in the east. This minimizes the naval situation as by that time in the war things are pretty well set with the naval situation and the methods used in WitW would work. This would allow the combining of the strategic situations in a more controlled manner and make sure the additional flexibility that the Axis would get are not overpowered. Because the biggest winner of this scenario would be the Axis and you have to be careful to not allow them to get overpowered by the merging.
Numdydar
Posts: 3226
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by Numdydar »

But '43 is a terrible start for the Axis as it is just a slow grind to the end for them. The Axis would not have any of the 'fun' of overrunning Europe like Japan does in War in the Pacific before everything crashes down.

carlkay58
Posts: 8680
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:30 pm

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by carlkay58 »

I agree but I also stand on my statement that it is the easiest scenario to start with. But what it does free up for the Axis is the ability to use its inner lines to switch forces back and forth between the fronts. If they stripped out the west and shipped them to the east for a 43 summer offensive and then brought what they needed back to keep the Western Allies tied down it can change a lot. Remember with the entire map to work with you have even more control than any of the previous games with the 'Eastern Front' box of WitW or the Theater Boxes of WitE2 and that can make a BIG difference. That is why I mentioned that the key would be to make sure the Axis did not gain so much ability to change things that it would make it an easy Axis victory.
User avatar
von Runstedt
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:34 pm

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by von Runstedt »

Never really understood that argument in a WIE sense. Yes, it kinda makes sense in the context of WITE and WITW because there, you are a partisan theater commander. To a partisan theater commander, their front is all that matters and to hell with the other one(s). So long as they don't collapse completely, they only need just enough to maintain them as they are.

But for WIE? the logic doesnt make nearly as much sense. For one thing, the fronts are a minimum of 2 weeks journey apart for most of the time and there is only a limited rail capacity available to the player, meaning that if you transfer troops between them regularly, your forces spend much of their time in transit rather than in action and you will lose, at least to some extent, the flexibility to transfer forces within a given theater. Add to that things like air interdiction and damage to railways and centers and you lose both forces and additional time that could have been better spent keeping those units on their respective fronts. Thus, although you can potentially use the transfer of forces to decisive effect, the reality is that you are probably not going to be able to use this advantage with any kind of regularity, making it something that you could maybe use a handful of times in the campaign to good effect, but most of the time, you are probably going to be in a position where you can only afford to undertake transfer like this on a relatively rare basis

On top of that, you are no longer a partisan theater commander. You are no longer in a position where you can mostly ignore the other front. If things are looking bad on the other front, the mess will be yours to clean up, forcing you to be a good deal more conservative about when, how and how much you transfer forces between fronts. On top of that, if you are playing against a player opponent who is in control of both fronts, I'm sure they would be very capable of taking advantage of any significant transfer of forces between the two fronts and if they don't, that isnt a balance issue.

Ultimately, the Axis player would be at more of a disadvantage than in WITE or WITW, since they would either only be able to transfer so few forces that it wouldn't make a decisive difference, or they would transfer too many forces and leave themselves vulnerable on one front or another while, if anything, the Allied player would have a major advantage, being able to wield the might of the combined allied war effort in a coordinated and conscious fashion rather than having to rely on the dice roll outcomes generated by the theater box. The Allied player would also, incidentally, benefit from no longer being a partisan theater commander, since now they would simply be able to view the overall situation relatively objectively, being able to play as if the only goal is defeating the Axis forces rather than trying to win solely for the western or Soviet allies (e.g. it wouldnt matter if the Soviets or western allies got to Berlin/Germany first, only that someone got there. The weight of achieving victory is more evenly distributed and you no longer have to play as if, if your theater doesn't win the war then you lose the game).

You also make it seem like the ability of transferring forces between fronts would be solely a thing that empowers the Axis, allowing them to take the initiative in the war (e.g. your example of the Axis bringing in more forces to launch a spoiling offensive in the east then transferring back west in '43). The reality is, though, that the transfer of forces is just as likely to be something that the Allied player can use to take the initiative. For instance, as in the actual history, you can create crisis's for the axis player (e.g. the disasters of Stalingrad or Bagration in the east, or the invasion of Italy and the collapse of the Normandy Front in the west) and force the Axis player to transfer forces from one front to another, rather than the decision being one that is entirely within the Axis player's control. Thus rather than the Axis being the one using the transfer system to their advantage, the Axis player is now sort of a slave to this system, needing to transfer forces to respond to catastrophes that were pretty much the norm for the Germans by this stage of the war and ensuring that these troop transfers are more like a band aid the axis player can apply rather than something that gives them a real advantage.
Liam Bobyak
Bronze
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:12 am

RE: Why is the map so big ?

Post by Bronze »

Deleted for duplicity
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2”