War in the East Q&A

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: molchomor

Joel's comments did a great job of describing the differences between SF and WitE but I'd like to address some of your individual points in more detail.

-Production for each model is fixed to historical data (=i.e. as ordered by Hitler who put his nose in everything)

If you research the actual history of German AFV production you will see that most of the production changes allowed in SF are pure fantasy and the influence of Hitler far less than people image.

-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?)

The constantly varying TOEs are so rich with historical detail that they more than make up for not having the ability to tinker yourself and there is always the editor if you still cannot resist the temptation.

-Units are withdrawn from the front according to historical data (=whims of Hitler, and presumably taking e.g. the precious tigers with them)

The withdrawals are usually driven by events off the Eastern front or by the need to make substantial re-organizations. For example, one of the withdrawals that occurs is the 1st Cavalry division leaves the Eastern front to be converted into the 24th Panzer division.

-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.)

Air units do not have to withdraw from the Eastern front to rest and train.

-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.).

Since production is allocated historically most of it is already going to the Eastern front prior to 1944 and those low quality units are in the West just not in the game.

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.

Trust me, you will have more than enough on your plate just managing the war in the East and be thankful the designer hasn't burden you with even more decisions to make.

[robarrieta]

Hi. Has the game manual been drafted? If so, how in depth is the explanation of the game's mechanics? In other words, will explain things such as combat odds, supply calcs, combat modifiers, etc?

Also, please, please, please do not make the manual anything like the worthless TOAW manual. Don't be shy with the details!

[elmo3]

At this stage the manual is undergoing many changes and is far from finished.  No doubt it will be up to the same standards as other 2by3 manuals.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

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

They were, and still are, so very very good, but however weird, it must be nice to have that sort of pedigree. Happy New Year, roll on Q2. [:)]

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

I was wondering, I have played TOAW for years, there are some very big Eastern Front scenarios created with that game, I myself did a couple and researched for anothers, there is a lot of interesting info there regarding OOBs, how easily can be to create an scenario in WITE using those data?
Another question, breaktroghus were always the weak point in TOAW, they were difficult to achieve because of the strong ZOCs, otherwise required to keep enemy units engaged in a realistic way, this is always a difficult balance, how is that working in WITE?
Finally, how important is supply in the game? In TOAW supply was very unrealistic, the enitire Wermacht could be supplied trhough a single supply point, is supply a quantitative measure? can units get shrot of supply because they extract it from the same supply point and got it dry?

[elmo3]

IMHO the editor could be a bit more user friendly but it will be improved and better documented before launch I'm sure.

Breakthroughs are certainly possible and it is quite historical to be able to pocket many Soviet units in the early turns of the '41 campaign for example.  There are extra movement point costs for moving through terrain you don't already control but they are not prohibitive.  Pretty sure we have posted some screen shots of breakthroughs and pockets here somewhere already.

Supply is critical to success for both sides.  I never played TOAW but it is not possible to supply your whole organization from a single source.  You can have situations where some units are in supply and others are not based on many different factors.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

Another question, in many wargames any unit attacked that can´t retreat becuase it is surrounded, either completely or by enemy ZOCs, is completely destroyed, is that the case in WITE?

[Great_Ajax]

Good seeing you again, Inaki. I am just getting to work with the editor and Lee is right about the user friendliness of it and it is more difficult to use than TOAW. However, it is very easy to build OOBs and the game comes with template TO&Es already so in that regards, it is much quicker. A nice feature of this system is that you can establish command hierachies within the game and the editor as well so you can set up Armies and Corps and what units are subordinate to them.

Agreed on TOAW's breakouts. The ZOCs work better in this system and it is very easy to find a weak seam in the Russian lines in '41 and then exploit with a Panzer Corps into the rear. In fact, I am pretty agressive doing this to the point where I have dangerously extended these mobile units and Andy has smacked me a couple of times when I have done so. The mobile units are very dangerous so much so that Soviets in '41 can't really do anything to stop them until the Panzers start running out of fuel. I like to use the Panzer Corps more of an out maneuvering unit than one that engages in tough combat.

Supply is critical in WiTE and is THE major factor that prevents the Germans from completely defeating the Soviets in '41. There are times when I have to sit out my mobile units for a couple of weeks while they draw fuel to prepare for another push. Once you get over to the Dnepr, fuel supplies really dry up as the rail system is a mess and you have to get your rail repair units to catch up with the front. You don't know how many times I have cursed at the screen for having no fuel to exploit a nice seam or find myself run dry after I have made a good breakthrough only to watch Andy slip his forces to the East and reconsolidate on another defensive line. I don't think there are specific supply points per say but the longer that a unit is away from Germany, the more supplies start to dry up. It is also important that a HQ remain near a working rail line to receive supplies and subordinate units have to be within so any hexes of their HQ to receive adequate supply. I am not familiar with the exact mechanics though.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

I was wondering, I have played TOAW for years, there are some very big Eastern Front scenarios created with that game, I myself did a couple and researched for anothers, there is a lot of interesting info there regarding OOBs, how easily can be to create an scenario in WITE using those data?
Another question, breaktroghus were always the weak point in TOAW, they were difficult to achieve because of the strong ZOCs, otherwise required to keep enemy units engaged in a realistic way, this is always a difficult balance, how is that working in WITE?
Finally, how important is supply in the game? In TOAW supply was very unrealistic, the enitire Wermacht could be supplied trhough a single supply point, is supply a quantitative measure? can units get shrot of supply because they extract it from the same supply point and got it dry?

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Another question, in many wargames any unit attacked that can´t retreat becuase it is surrounded, either completely or by enemy ZOCs, is completely destroyed, is that the case in WITE?

ZOC's don't stop a unit from retreating. Whether a unit retreats, routs, shatters, or surrenders and whether it takes additional losses while retreating depends on many factors and involves a lot of calculations. To be honest I've never surrounded an enemy unit with 6 units to see what happens. Historically a lot of soldiers made it through enemy lines when surrounded and lived to fight on and I think this is modeled well with the current retreat rules.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Another question, in many wargames any unit attacked that can´t retreat becuase it is surrounded, either completely or by enemy ZOCs, is completely destroyed, is that the case in WITE?

The answer is complicated. You can't retreat into an enemy controlled hex, but you can retreat into a hex that has an enemy ZOC extending into it (as long as it is considered a friendly hex). If a unit has nowhere it can retreat to, and it is isolated (ended it's turn cut off from supply sources), then it will be removed from the game, but some manpower and equipment will escape and return to the production pools. If it is not isolated, but has no where to retreat to then it will rout per the rout rules back to it's HQ or a nearby friendly town (after taking some extra casualties). So units that were not isolated at the beginning of the enemy player's turn cannot be destroyed because it doesn't have a place to retreat to, but will suffer from routing. Of course, to complicate things, there is "shattered", which could happen to any unit that is damaged sufficiently in combat and is weak enough as a unit that it disintegrates as a unit (with some manpower and equipment going back to the production pools).

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings


Of course, to complicate things, there is "shattered", which could happen to any unit that is damaged sufficiently in combat and is weak enough as a unit that it disintegrates as a unit (with some manpower and equipment going back to the production pools).

You mean that even if not surrendered, any unit can evaporate (using TOAW language) and be removed from play because of excessive losses?

[Helpless]

You mean that even if not surrendered, any unit can evaporate (using TOAW language) and be removed from play because of excessive losses?

It calls shatter in WITE.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

2 quick questions
1) Is there any advantage in winter for Soviet units?
2) As it is an IGOUGO system, is there any way to prevent cheating in PBEM by reloading turns?

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

2 quick questions
1) Is there any advantage in winter for Soviet units?
2) As it is an IGOUGO system, is there any way to prevent cheating in PBEM by reloading turns?

1) Yes the first winter is very tough on the Axis, except for the Finns.
2) PBEM is not implemented yet.

[ComradeP]

-Are losses "scaled" compared to the unit size of the attacking and defending stacks and units?

In TOAW and in some cases in PzC, an attack by a huge amount of units against a single unit could in some cases result in a negligible amount of casualties for the defender and a high amount of casualties for the attacker. It was one of the TOAW things that I didn't like, next to how half a week worth of bombardment caused about 24 casualties (3 squads) and a few guys with a headache.

Will 10 to 1 attacks be likely to crush the defender, or will they cause 20% casualties at every combat phase or the like?

-If a broken up unit (regiments of a division) evaporates, what happens?

[elmo3]

Yes overwhelming attacks can inflict heavy losses on the defender and force it to retreat/rout/shatter but there is a fair amount of randomness in the results so I would not say it's guaranteed.  Not sure what you are asking regarding regiments of a division "evaporating"?  Only the attacked unit(s) are affected.  Any remaining regiments would still be able to fight.  I'm assuming you are referring to a division being broken down into regiments with some not being attacked.

[ComradeP]

I'll rephrase it: what if one of the regiments in a broken up division dies, but the rest do not?

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I'll rephrase it: what if one of the regiments in a broken up division dies, but the rest do not?

This is a very short question that would require a very long answer to give you all the details. Breakdowns and rebuilding units are handled differently for the Axis and Soviet units and cover a couple of full pages of text in the manual. Since the Axis side can't make new units they have to rebuild destroyed ones. When the regiment gets rebuilt it could recombine with the others to reform the division. Soviet buildup and breakdown of units is much more involved depending on the date and the unit involved. Their units are not rebuilt so any unit of the right size can be used to recombine into a parent unit. That is the short answer and as always is subject to change as we move toward launch.

[mmarquo]

I for one hope that the victory conditions are modeled so that the Axis player can win if the game is played through 1944/45. It is very rare for any EF game to last that long because Axis players seem to "lose interest" once the blitz falters and they have to go on a 2/3 year mobile defense. But for me, this is the most fun. Clash of Arms, "War Without Mercy" keeps the 2 players engaged to the bitter end because the VP conditions are constructed well.
 
Marquo [:)]

[AZKGungHo]

I'm with you Marquo.  Playing defense against overwhelming odds, knowing you can't avoid defeat but fighting to see how long you can hold out against the odds - now that's my kind of game!!  No quitting early!!