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).
-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?
Yes, that is an important point, in TOAW an attack of say, 1000 squads vs 50 squads, you could have a result in which the attacker lost 6% and the defender 100%, still the atacker would lose 60 squads and the defender just 50.
The right way should be to take pecentages on the enemy, in that way, the attacker would lose 6% of the defender, that is just 3 squads. Is that the way in which losses are calculates in WITE?
-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?
Yes, that is an important point, in TOAW an attack of say, 1000 squads vs 50 squads, you could have a result in which the attacker lost 6% and the defender 100%, still the atacker would lose 60 squads and the defender just 50.
The right way should be to take pecentages on the enemy, in that way, the attacker would lose 6% of the defender, that is just 3 squads. Is that the way in which losses are calculates in WITE?
In WitE casualites are not proportional and an overwhelming attack can cause the defender to be routed (rendered combat ineffective) or even shattered (unit eliminated).
-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?
Yes, that is an important point, in TOAW an attack of say, 1000 squads vs 50 squads, you could have a result in which the attacker lost 6% and the defender 100%, still the atacker would lose 60 squads and the defender just 50.
The right way should be to take pecentages on the enemy, in that way, the attacker would lose 6% of the defender, that is just 3 squads. Is that the way in which losses are calculates in WITE?
In WitE casualites are not proportional and an overwhelming attack can cause the defender to be routed (rendered combat ineffective) or even shattered (unit eliminated).
And at minimal or no cost to the attacker.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
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 [:)]
We have a short scenario victory system in place, but have not even started on designing our victory conditions for the campaign games. What do you think the focus should be for campaign game victory conditions (those that go to the end of the war)? I'm sure Gary will come up with something, but I'm curious what you think makes for good Eastern Front victory conditions.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
For the German Campaign I think it ought to be the historical limits Hitler himself had in mind. That's probably near impossible, but that's what I'd set for the top victory condition, and then have the second level be holding Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad??
As for the Russians, it would have to be all of the Balkins (except Yugo) and of course Berlin.
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]For the Grand Campaign:[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font] [font="compatilfact lt regular"]Break the map into 2 halves. An Eastern half and a Western half.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font] [font="compatilfact lt regular"]In the eastern half set certain hexes as objectives. While the Germans hold those objectives they receive “X” points per turn per objective.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font] [font="compatilfact lt regular"]In the western half set certain hexes as objectives. While the Russians hold those objectives they receive “X” points per turn per objective.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font] [font="compatilfact lt regular"]If the game is well balanced, then on 8th May 1945, both sides will have the same number of points and we get a draw![/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font] [font="compatilfact lt regular"]-[/font]
People have mentioned that some German players will be tempted to give up if they have to be on the defensive for 2-3 years. What I have in mind is a sliding scale of victory points for hexes held but on a yearly basis.
Victory categoriesMajor victory, normal victory, minor victory, draw, minor loss, normal loss, major loss
1941
Moscow, Leningrad + other cities: Axis - Major Victory, Sov - Major loss. Campaign Victory condition: Axis = major victory
Moscow and Leningrad - Axis - Normal victory, Sov - Normal loss. Campaign victory condition: draw, both sides keep fighting
1942
Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad + other cities: Axis - Major Victory, Sov - Major loss. Campaign Victory condition: Axis = major victory
Moscow or Leningrad/Stalingrad: Axis - Normal victory, Sov - Normal loss. Campaign Victory condition: Axis = normal victory, both sides keep fighting
1943
Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad + other cities: Axis - Major Victory, Sov - Major loss. Campaign Victory condition: Axis = major victory
Moscow and Leningrad or Stalingrad: Axis - Major victory, Sov - major loss. Campaign Victory condition: Axis = major victory
Moscow or Leningrad or Stalingrad: Acis - major victory, Sov - minor loss. Campaign victory condition: Draw, both sides keep fighting
1944
Moscow or Leningrad or Stalingrad: Axis- major victory, Sov - major loss. Campaign victory condition: Axis = major victory
Kharkov, Kiev, Smolensk: Axis - major victory, Sov - normal loss. Campaign victory condition: Axis = major victory
Kiev, Minsk: Axis - normal victory, Sov - minor loss. Campaign victory condition: axis = major victory
Note: As long as Axis by end of 1944 have not being pushed back into Poland or Romania = equals a normal victory for Axis
If worse than this for Axis, the Soviets should be at draw at worst and starting to edge into minor victory territory.
If catastrophic for Germany= Normal or Major victory for Russia
1945
This is where the German players holding territory to the east of Poland and Romania, should be major victory conditions.
The game ends in whatever year a major victory has been scored.
The aim should force both players to aim to get a major victory or deny the other player it. But the major victory conditions change each year, according to territory held. This is because the better the German holds territory historically, the better the rewards and chance to win the game.
Any criticism welcomed, as long as it constructive.
People have mentioned that some German players will be tempted to give up if they have to be on the defensive for 2-3 years. What I have in mind is a sliding scale of victory points for hexes held but on a yearly basis.
The aim should force both players to aim to get a major victory or deny the other player it. But the major victory conditions change each year, according to territory held. This is because the better the German holds territory historically, the better the rewards and chance to win the game.
Any criticism welcomed, as long as it constructive.
I agree, a wise German player will quit if he doesn't win in the first six months. After that...figure that the crushing defeat of Germany was
a major victory for Germany all things considered. The Russians should get a major victory if they take Berlin in 1943, a minor victory if they
take Berlin in 1944 and a major defeat if it takes them clear into April 1945
The corpus of a thousand battles rises from the flood.
I guess this is now place to discuss it but if this game sticks to history as much as possible then a historical outcome should be a drawn and if any side performs better then historically then it's victory for them
Hard to speculate on victory conditions when so much is still unknown especially when I am uncertain if success on the Eastern front transcends to a superior defence on other fronts due to transfer of surplus resources, but I hope consideration will be relative to the historical performance of the western Allies in their determination. Very impressed with all I have read about the game so far.
"I'm curious what you think makes for good Eastern Front victory conditions. "
Joel,
I am always intrigued if not fascinated at how designers set the stage for the game. I know you all are deep into programming the mechanics of movement, combat, production, etc.; in the end that is much easier than solving the overarching problem of how to create a level playing field where each contestant has an equal opportunity to win.
In a game like this one must consider time, space and losses needed to obtain the time/space objectives.
First off I reject the notion of comparing the player's acheivements against the historical counterparts. This is not feasible unless you are going to incorporate some sort of Hitler/Stalin "meddling" rules whereby the players are somehow periodically constrained - and then it becomes more of a game of chance than skill. And many would lose interest or not even start playing if there was a chance that periodically they would be hamstrung by OKH or STAVKA. Anyway, historically the campaign was over on day one, thus a different tact is needed.
Joe 98 presented a formulation that is along the lines of what I beleive is reasonable: create objectives which simply generate points/turn. IMHO it is dubious not to reward the Axis for capturing Moscow even if the Soviets retake it 2 turns later. This could be as simple as points per a few, select significant major cities; or complex to the point of rewarding points to the player who controls every hex on the map with each hex assigned a dfferent value (minor/major cities, clear, RR, road, etc). I would favor fairly simple as a campaign like this should be planned and fought on a large, strategic scale.
As for losses, this becomes a tricky issue. Rewarding points for losses may inhibit players from sacrificing units - and may send the message that it is always better to retreat and give up ground than stand, fight, lose and lose points. But if the objectives are space/time rewarded, than sometimes sacrificing a unit to gain time may make sense as long as the penalty for losing the unit is not too severe. It is probably best to keep this as simple as possible - no points for losses and let the players decide how to defend the objectives. If they sacrifice too many units, then the objectives will be easier to take and vice versa.
Marquo [:)]
I would like to point that, for a Soviet player, it should be required to take first the Balkans before going on a major offensive to take Berlin directly
There are historians who think that Stalin didn't want the war to end early, after the Allies had landed in Sicily. According to those historians, Stalin wanted as much influence as he could get in post-WWII Europe and in the world, and he knew after Kursk that the Axis were at least not going to stage any spectacular offensivs anymore, so he had nothing to lose but men and equipment, of which he had plenty. A significant part of that equipment wasn't even his, but came as Lend-Lease from the US, so US factories were indirectly sponsoring Stalin's plans.
I don't think the Soviets would have to capture the Balkans for a major victory, especially as the Western Allies would've freaked if he had. Reaching the border with Yugoslavia should be good enough, after that the Red Army should swing into Hungary like their historical counterparts.
I'm not sure what the best kind of victory system would be. Holding major cities could create a sort of gamey "ninja" victory as the Axis will be mostly trying to capture those cities. Perhaps fighting to the bitter end, with victory points for cities held and units destroyed (with very low points for Rifle divisions and higher amounts of points for elite units for the Soviets, and low points for other Axis divisions, fairly high points for German infantry divisions and high points for Panzer, Panzergrenadier and SS divisions).
SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
Programming some kind of dynamic victory system would be awesome - allowing the conditions to change as the situation at the front changes (Germans initially trying for total victory by knocking the Soviets out of the war, followed by a desperate defense to win just by not loosing everything later on).
I don't know if it would be possible, especially given the myriad conditions that would need to be taken into account - I'm happy just to get my hands on this monster game sometime in the near future.
Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...
When I mentioned my preferred method of victory conditions a few posts above, it was meant to be the basis for dynamic points for dynamic victory condition. So each city would have base points then a random number of points added at start of game. As the game progresses, each hex value increases slightly, but this is in conjunction with the total amount of points need to win increasing or decreasing, as well for each side to get a major victory.
The game is meant to be a historical simulation, but this is in terms of the numbers/types of equipment and men given to each side. The game is ahistorical when it comes to tactical and strategic decisions. So to enforce conditions for the Soviets to have to take the Balkans before gunning for Germany is taking the strategic decisions away from the Soviet player. If this goes ahead, the developers might as well program Hitler and Stalin directives to take certain cities or hold at all costs orders. I'm glad the developers aren't going down that route.
About dynamic conditions, I recall a game some years ago, Civil War Generals 2, that had a very good dynamic system, there were basic Victory locations to start with, but then, when fight went on for some hex, it become a victory location, the more fighting for the hex, the more victory points it rewarded, that would simulate very well the obstinated fight for some locations beyond its strategic importance.
