War in the East Q&A

[Endsieg]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: Endsieg

Elmo:
Nara River (Russian: ¬¯¬Ñ¬â¬Ñ) is a river in the Moscow Oblast and Kaluga Oblast in Russia. It is a left tributary of the Oka River. The length of the river is 158 km. The area of its basin is 2030 km©÷. The Nara River freezes up in November-December and stays under the ice until April. The cities of Naro-Fominsk and Serpukhov are located on the Nara River.

It's west of and close to Moscow. It was a main defensive line of the Sovs throughout Nov 41. Perhaps Pavel can comment on this?

The river is not on the map, but both those cities are on the map. I assume Pavel did not feel the river was large enough to include when he did his river review. There are so many rivers in Russia that I had instructed Pavel to try to be very selective so we didn't end up with too many rivers. As it is, we have many more rivers now than we started with before Pavel's map work.

Thank you for the informative answer, Joel.
Drawing an imaginary line between the two cities you highlighted is precisely where i had been looking to find the Nara. An interesting defensive line, no? I think Zhukhov sort of relied on that river being there at the beginning of Nov41, frozen or not.
A year from now when we're all feverishly playing [;)], I can imagine situations where the Soviet PBEM player will really wish the river HAD been included; and likewise the Axis PBEM player will be really glad the river WASNT included[:D]

[Joel Billings]

As soon as the ice level gets up high enough to freeze the river, it won't have an impact. Of course if the Germans get there early enough, it would have some impact.

[Joel Billings]

Now you went and did it. You encouraged Pavel to add more rivers. Keep doing that and the map will turn blue. [:)]

[Endsieg]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Now you went and did it. You encouraged Pavel to add more rivers. Keep doing that and the map will turn blue. [:)]

Sorry, i didnt want to be an obstructionist and delay this game...i'd rather be playing it yesterday.[:)]
The map is beautiful, i luv all the named russian rivers all over the place.
It just startled me that a river which figures so repeatedly in all accounts of the (first) Battle of Moscow, Oct 15-Dec 5, 41 (heck, just Wiki it...)is not included on the game map. The Germans, in turn, used the Nara as a defensive line after their failed attack across it Dec 1,41., only was breached in late Dec, IIRC.
If Pavel adds just one river, the Nara, good for him! But the more the merrier, infantry and armour doesnt like waste deep water , even if it's only 20 meters across[;)]

[molchomor]

Hi and thanks for keeping strategy gaming alive.

I very fondly remember playing Second Front (WiR prequel) and to a lesser degree the sequel Western Front.

Q: Are you really saying that I would not be able to control axis production (at least for tanks and planes) ? For me this would be a major gamebreaker as this was one of the highlight in Second Front IMHO. An option for manual production setting would be great for those of us who can do with the micromanaging. This added very much to the depth of Second front, rounding up & assigning those precious first Tigers to your elite Pz-Divisions for the assault on Leningrad, while giving the older models to the Italians on the quiet part of the front...And the feeling when you first could produce ME-262 planes, switching almost all aircraft production to that to try the idea proposed by Galland and so on... This was a strategy game within the game - the balancing of older models/higher production vs. newer models/lower production.

Q: How will the west be represented, like in Second front where you had OKW and filled it with enough Divisions to "hold the line" ?

Q: Will the element of "training" your airsquads in the east against "easy" opposition before transfering them to the west to fight off B-17s be similar ?

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: molchomor

Hi and thanks for keeping strategy gaming alive.

I very fondly remember playing Second Front (WiR prequel) and to a lesser degree the sequel Western Front.

Q: Are you really saying that I would not be able to control axis production (at least for tanks and planes) ? For me this would be a major gamebreaker as this was one of the highlight in Second Front IMHO. An option for manual production setting would be great for those of us who can do with the micromanaging. This added very much to the depth of Second front, rounding up & assigning those precious first Tigers to your elite Pz-Divisions for the assault on Leningrad, while giving the older models to the Italians on the quiet part of the front...And the feeling when you first could produce ME-262 planes, switching almost all aircraft production to that to try the idea proposed by Galland and so on... This was a strategy game within the game - the balancing of older models/higher production vs. newer models/lower production.

Q: How will the west be represented, like in Second front where you had OKW and filled it with enough Divisions to "hold the line" ?

Q: Will the element of "training" your airsquads in the east against "easy" opposition before transfering them to the west to fight off B-17s be similar ?

You should not view WitE through the prism of SF/WIR or almost any other Gary Grigsby game. WitE is a division/corps (Soviets) level game with 10 mile hexes and week long turns. The game models combat down to the individual weapon level and every combat element (tank, plane, gun, squad etc.) is modeled in almost as much detail as a tactical game. The production of AFVs and aircraft is fixed to approximate historical production but all other production (various squad and weapon types) is "on demand" based on the difference between TOE strength and actual strength. The hundreds of TOEs provided in the game control the allocation of production so your Tiger tanks will go to the types of units which got them historically and not randomly distributed across the front.

The War off the Eastern Front is only indirectly represented in the game with the arrival or withdrawal of units to and from the Eastern Front. Everything which happened off the Eastern Front is assumed to happen by the historical time table and only influence the Eastern Front to the extent they did so historically. If the Axis player defeats the Soviet Union he wins the game even if he does so in May, 1945 with the Allies on the Elbe. Although that may sound weird the chance of it happening are almost zero. Unless the Axis player has inflicted mortal damage on the Russian player by the end of 1942, the Soviet Union will at worse fight Germany to a standstill; more likely the Russians will begin pushing the Germans back by 1943. It is hard to predict more than that because so much depends on the playing style of the players. Conservative players will make for a dull game; aggressive players will have more fun and probably a more "historical" game.

[thackaray]

ORIGINAL: jaw
Conservative players will make for a dull game; aggressive players will have more fun and probably a more "historical" game.

Woah! Woah! Woah! Woooooaaaaahhhh there!

So to be historical you have to be aggressive regardless of which side you play?

This doesn't seem right. I would have thought an aggressive player would have an ahistorical game, i.e. do better than actual history.

So how does the AI play - conservative/aggressive? And the other question is how badly does the AI cheat to make itself an effective opponent against a human?

[Endsieg]

ORIGINAL: thackaray

ORIGINAL: jaw
Conservative players will make for a dull game; aggressive players will have more fun and probably a more "historical" game.

Woah! Woah! Woah! Woooooaaaaahhhh there!

So to be historical you have to be aggressive regardless of which side you play?

This doesn't seem right. I would have thought an aggressive player would have an ahistorical game, i.e. do better than actual history.

So how does the AI play - conservative/aggressive? And the other question is how badly does the AI cheat to make itself an effective opponent against a human?

i think Jaw mis-typed...am guessing he meant aggressive players "might" have an ahistorical game...?

[elmo3]

Early in the campaign the Germans must be aggressive.  Their best chance, as was the case historically, is to score an early victory.  The longer the Soviets stay in the game the more likely it is they will recover and eventually go over on the offensive.  At that point the Soviets need aggressive play to prevent the Germans from setting up a stalemate situation.

[thackaray]

I know WitE isn't WIR but in PBEM when German players can't take Leningrad before Winter '41, most of them give up and ruin a good game for a Soviet player who has taken time and effort to organise a good defence.

The Russians won historically in the main by grinding the German forces down and pushing back a dogged German defence. This was conservative by my definition. Granted, Soviet Generals competed against each other nearer the end of the war.

My definition of aggressive attack is breaking through the enemy lines and pushing deep a 3-4 hexes behind to cut off enemy units and keeping this style of play up all along the front. This means risking lack of supply and air cover.

Conservate game play for the Russian attacker is attacking all along the front all the time, advancing 1-2 hexes within supply/rail conversion limits. This is what happened in real life.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: thackaray



Woah! Woah! Woah! Woooooaaaaahhhh there!

So to be historical you have to be aggressive regardless of which side you play?

This doesn't seem right. I would have thought an aggressive player would have an ahistorical game, i.e. do better than actual history.

So how does the AI play - conservative/aggressive? And the other question is how badly does the AI cheat to make itself an effective opponent against a human?

The whole concept of Blitzkrieg was to be ruthlessly aggressive and attack all out on the premise that a short, bloody war was always better than a long and ultimately bloodier one. The Germans did everything they could to win in the first six months of Barbarossa and as the German player you will be hard pressed to summon the nerve to match their aggressiveness. A conservative German might forstall defeat but he will never win.

Likewise, the Russian player must take advantage of every opportunity to bleed the Axis. Before the winter of 41/42 those opportunities are far and few between but they do happen. Once the Russian winter sets in you've got to inflict as much damage as you can on the Axis forces and gain back as much ground as you can before the weather moderates again. To paraphase Arnold, "they'll be back."

The AI is very aggressive, particularly when playing the Russian, and it supposedly doesn't cheat. I say supposedly because in any computer game I've ever played the side the AI is playing always seems stronger than it does when I'm playing that side. Maybe I'm just paranoid.

[thackaray]

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: thackaray

Woah! Woah! Woah! Woooooaaaaahhhh there!

So to be historical you have to be aggressive regardless of which side you play?

This doesn't seem right. I would have thought an aggressive player would have an ahistorical game, i.e. do better than actual history.

So how does the AI play - conservative/aggressive? And the other question is how badly does the AI cheat to make itself an effective opponent against a human?

The whole concept of Blitzkrieg was to be ruthlessly aggressive and attack all out on the premise that a short, bloody war was always better than a long and ultimately bloodier one. The Germans did everything they could to win in the first six months of Barbarossa and as the German player you will be hard pressed to summon the nerve to match their aggressiveness. A conservative German might forstall defeat but he will never win.

Likewise, the Russian player must take advantage of every opportunity to bleed the Axis. Before the winter of 41/42 those opportunities are far and few between but they do happen. Once the Russian winter sets in you've got to inflict as much damage as you can on the Axis forces and gain back as much ground as you can before the weather moderates again. To paraphase Arnold, "they'll be back."

The AI is very aggressive, particularly when playing the Russian, and it supposedly doesn't cheat. I say supposedly because in any computer game I've ever played the side the AI is playing always seems stronger than it does when I'm playing that side. Maybe I'm just paranoid.

I would say that's normal conservative offensive operations for most average player whatever side they play. For me, aggressive play is going beyond that.

From what you mentioned about the Axis player being highly unlikely to reach the historical limits of advance that's already setting them on the road to defeat.

The only thing that might keep a German player interested if they know they've got about a 10% chance to take Leningrad in the first 6 months, to hinder the Soviet player for the rest of the war.

However, me being cynical, think that being unable to even reach the historical advance is going to put a fair few people off playing German for the whole war, as they know they've got feck all chance of winning at all. They'll see how they do upto the '41 Winter then give up, knowing the Soviets are going to walk over them in the Blizzard season and demolish the German offensive capability for the '42 Summer offensive.

Has any tester playing as Soviets, played really aggressively, not just one or two local attacks before Winter '41? Then attacked aggressively rotating units so that they gain experience quickly, during blizzards in Winter '41. Take a quick break during the rain/mud period of April/May, rotate fresh units as required, then attack the Germans aggressively during the Summer of '42?

Of course during this period, rotating Soviet Airforce units to gain experience, rest and gain reinforcements.

[PyleDriver]

I'm not sure Jim responded where you understand what he said. He never said "road to defeat". I think he implied "road to success". That in a nutshell is what the Axis needs to do to win...Soviet aggressivness, it boils down in the first 2 years to take the Axis out of there tempo. If they just sit back and wait, then they lose. Oh and you need to throw everything you have at them the first winter...As far as AI cheats, their there, but there good cheats, not warped moves, but good, they make the game fun...

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: thackaray

...However, me being cynical, think that being unable to even reach the historical advance is going to put a fair few people off playing German for the whole war, as they know they've got feck all chance of winning at all....

There is a PBEM game going on now between two testers where the Germans are well ahead of their historical advance. In another test the Soviets are doing better than history. Nobody is saying either side has no chance of winning.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

I wonder, in a PBEM game in wich players are already playing in 1944,  with Soviets about historical advance, or maybe a bit less, has the German player any chance to win the game?

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

I wonder, in a PBEM game in wich players are already playing in 1944,  with Soviets about historical advance, or maybe a bit less, has the German player any chance to win the game?

As has been mentioned, we're still in alpha right now. I don't believe anyone has played the full campaign that far yet. A '43 scenario is being built and I believe a '44 scenario will be built as well, both with historical starting positions. So when those are done and tested we'll have a better idea how to answer your question.

[molchomor]

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: molchomor

Hi and thanks for keeping strategy gaming alive.

I very fondly remember playing Second Front (WiR prequel) and to a lesser degree the sequel Western Front.

Q: Are you really saying that I would not be able to control axis production (at least for tanks and planes) ? For me this would be a major gamebreaker as this was one of the highlight in Second Front IMHO. An option for manual production setting would be great for those of us who can do with the micromanaging. This added very much to the depth of Second front, rounding up & assigning those precious first Tigers to your elite Pz-Divisions for the assault on Leningrad, while giving the older models to the Italians on the quiet part of the front...And the feeling when you first could produce ME-262 planes, switching almost all aircraft production to that to try the idea proposed by Galland and so on... This was a strategy game within the game - the balancing of older models/higher production vs. newer models/lower production.

Q: How will the west be represented, like in Second front where you had OKW and filled it with enough Divisions to "hold the line" ?

Q: Will the element of "training" your airsquads in the east against "easy" opposition before transfering them to the west to fight off B-17s be similar ?

You should not view WitE through the prism of SF/WIR or almost any other Gary Grigsby game. WitE is a division/corps (Soviets) level game with 10 mile hexes and week long turns. The game models combat down to the individual weapon level and every combat element (tank, plane, gun, squad etc.) is modeled in almost as much detail as a tactical game. The production of AFVs and aircraft is fixed to approximate historical production but all other production (various squad and weapon types) is "on demand" based on the difference between TOE strength and actual strength. The hundreds of TOEs provided in the game control the allocation of production so your Tiger tanks will go to the types of units which got them historically and not randomly distributed across the front.

The War off the Eastern Front is only indirectly represented in the game with the arrival or withdrawal of units to and from the Eastern Front. Everything which happened off the Eastern Front is assumed to happen by the historical time table and only influence the Eastern Front to the extent they did so historically. If the Axis player defeats the Soviet Union he wins the game even if he does so in May, 1945 with the Allies on the Elbe. Although that may sound weird the chance of it happening are almost zero. Unless the Axis player has inflicted mortal damage on the Russian player by the end of 1942, the Soviet Union will at worse fight Germany to a standstill; more likely the Russians will begin pushing the Germans back by 1943. It is hard to predict more than that because so much depends on the playing style of the players. Conservative players will make for a dull game; aggressive players will have more fun and probably a more "historical" game.

Thanks for the answers. This will for sure be a great game and I will for sure buy it when released!

As far as I remember Second Front also had week long turns, divisions/corps, hexes of several miles and very detailed weaponry for all units (how many PAKs and self-propelled vehicles every unit had etc.).

So correct me if I'm wrong but I see vast similarities here and - just would like to add my 5 cents on some "missing" elements in WiTE that really made SF great ! Not going to dwell much more on production (I see it already has a very popular separate thread).

But in essence, the ability to try new strategies in SF really added in atmosphere and guaranteed replayability for several years - I hope some of these thing will eventually be implemented in an add-on to WiTE ! For me basic (optional) options for production, rotation of units, balancing/influencing the different fronts are all key strategic elements and I find it hard to understand how and why some of this is not in the game.

E.g., you say that you do not implement (good thing IMHO - this ruined the "Western Front" game) "Hitler/Stalin orders". But, in reality you pretty much do (?) as you do not grant the player at least the option for better control:

-Production for each model is fixed to historical data (=i.e. as ordered by Hitler who put his nose in everything)
-Units get upgrades according to historical data (=i.e. as ordered by Hitler, SS units get best tanks etc., means e.g. I cannot give my brave Finns some nice upgrades as reward for their efforts?)
-Units are withdrawn from the front according to historical data (=whims of Hitler, and presumably taking e.g. the precious tigers with them)
-No possibility to rotate air units to/from the western front as you like for training purposes (as far as I can see at least.)
-No possibility to alter the course of history on the rest of the fronts as in SF (e.g. reinforcing the western front with a couple of PzDiv to keep crucial production in '44 if Ruhr is threatened, assigning left-over/inferior equipment&units to OKW during 41-43 as this is enough to hold the more or less "static" front and to fight partisans etc.).

These are some things that meant alot to me both in terms of immersion, replayability and added alot of strategic elements to the SF games.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

Some naval questions
1.Are naval units included?
2. How are amphibious operations modelled?
3. Can you get supply through ports?

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Some naval questions
1.Are naval units included?
2. How are amphibious operations modelled?
3. Can you get supply through ports?

1. No, although sea transport and amphib operations can both occur along with the possibility of naval or air interdiction of units moving by sea.

2. Shipping points and amphib points accumulate each turn based on controlled ports in each of the 4 sea zones, and those points can be used for transport or amphib ops.

3. Units on the coast may be supplied from a friendly port in the same sea zone.

That is naval ops in a nutshell, but there are lots more details of course.

[Joel Billings]

Unlike SF/WiR, this game has 10 mile hexes (those games were 20 IIRC). I may be confusing my games, but I thought those games had container units that you filled up with various division and possibly brigade sized units (so in effect the units represented larger formations). In WitE, the standard on map unit is the division, although there are also on map units that are brigades. German divisions may breakdown into regiments, so you may be moving regiments, brigades or divisions (along with HQ's and air units). For the Soviets, you can build up Tank and Mech Corps (which are in some ways equivalent to German Divisions). We also allow the Soviets at certain times to build up Rifle and Cavalry Corps, which are in most cases simply 3 divisions put into one on map unit. This is mostly an abstraction to allow the Soviets to stack more raw infantry into a hex if they wish to. Of course, Soviet units tend to fight understrength, so often a rifle corps will only be as large as a German full strength infantry division (of course the Germans fight understrength as well).

The bottom line is that this game with 4x the hexes, and many, many more units has much more going for it in terms of the actual land movement and combat. If you don't believe me, please listen to the testers. This game does not in any way "feel" like SF/WiR, except that it is a game covering the Eastern Front in WWII. For those that believe SF/WiR was the ideal way to approach the Eastern Front, you will be disappointed that this is not another SF/WiR. For those of you that love Eastern Front warfare, we hope you will love the game for what it is (the testers seem very happy so far, which is a good sign).

I have to say it is weird to be competing with one of our old products, especially products from 15+ years ago.