War in the East Q&A

[ComradeP]

the first two turns in Barbarossa are half-week turns.

Only the first turn for both sides, right? The date given for turn 3 is July 3rd, 7 days from June 26th.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: BvB

We disagree, no problem. But why totally prohibit my point of view? I am arguing for more flexibility in the editor.
I have wargamed since the mid 1960's and bought almost every Grigsby game since the early 1980's, including his first Apple II version of this game. I would probably buy it regardless. If you argue on the technical aspect that it would be too difficult to allow such options then I cannot argue. But to say this is to be a purely historical game with no chance for any what if situation, then why buy the game at all? Why not just continue to play the older versions?

Since you've been wargaming as long as I have I can throw out some titles that might give you a point of reference to where we are coming from. The kind of hypothetical options you are suggesting are more appropriate in a game like WAR IN EUROPE where you could indeed forgo the Balkan campaign and invade the Soviet Union earlier but WIE included all the economic, political, and military consequences of doing so. WitE is in the vain of SPI's original WAR IN THE EAST or GDW's FIRE IN THE EAST. It is what I would call a "grand operational" game rather than a strategic game like Grigsby's WAR IN RUSSIA game. WitE is by design limited in scope to only simulating the conflict as it historically unfolded. "Hard wired" into the game are a host of rules to do this ranging from the first turn being only 4 days long as opposed to the standard week for all other turns to an intricate schedule of reinforcements and withdrawals based on the historical timeline. Even if the editor were up to it, the amount of research and manipulation necessary to alter these built in features would hardly be justified by the results.

I would also ask when it comes to such hypotheticals, why bother? If you give either side an advantage they did not possess historically doesn't logic dictate that they will do better? It seems to me that it is far more interesting and fun to win by playing the hand you are dealt than by stacking the deck in your favor.

[BvB]

ok, thanks. Fair enough. Sorry for not having seen that in the older posts. It is not important enough for all those extra head aches with the design and release...
As for stacking the deck, that was not my intention. I was considering things like what if the Soviets attacked first, what if the Germans waited till 1942 to start, or even starting around the time of the Finnish War... not trying to set things to help or hurt a side so much as experiment with alternative historical possibilities.
I fail to understand why some folks are so narrow minded. No research is needed to adjust an editor - that is up to the person playing with it. But the actual game code, if it can't handle it then that is the final word - not our different opinions on what the game should or shouldn't be.
PS: since there are alternate scenarios in the game to start later in the historical war and those don't involve the first turn rules, why couldn't an editor change the start to earlier and in that case not involve the first turn rules either just by clicking to turn them off?

[Flaviusx]

Baron von Beer, if you want to know what happens if the Soviets attack first, see my posts uptopic regarding Fire in the East and the Icebreaker scenario.

Same result here. It's boring and stupid. Simply by avoiding the surprise turn the Soviets win from the getgo and the conflict turns into a grinding war of attrition. They won't go anywhere, of course, and the Germans may even push them back some, but it's pretty much over as soon as it starts. Even as a self professed Red Army fan boy, there's nothing interesting about this. (The Nazi fanboys, of course, never even consider such scenarios. They're only looking at making things easier on the Wehrmacht, which is equally boring and problematic.)

And, of course, the game's entire mechanics cannot support it: it truly is fantasy in that sense. For example, the entire order of battle and reinforcement is premised on a strategic situation where the Red Army has to radically reorganize and simplify itself in the face of huge German gains, before then building up more complex military units later on in the war. Your whole order of battle becomes as rotten as Denmark and quite divorced from the strategic situation. Then there's the entire first winter rules which would hardly seem to apply again a German player who may not even get so far as the Dnepr.

Even if the developers provided you with an open ended game editor to support such things, nothing good would come from it. The end results would lack the integrity of the historical and original design and play very strangely indeed. You could make up anything you want but at the same time fatally compromise the integrity of the game and lack all the loving detail and research that went into it.

This is not a grand strategy game. I wish people stopped trying to turn it into one, it won't work for that any more than its boardgame predecessors did.

Edit: also, what is the effect of all this on Lend Lease? On US entry? (And, for that matter, US strategy after entering.) On neutrals? On the war in Africa? Etc. Nobody really knows nor is the game equipped to make adjustments for such things.

[BvB]

ok, so before I annoy you guys any further, we know what the editor can't do.
So what can it do and what is it's purpose? Maybe only for setting up small parts of the battle area? Such as if someone wanted to do the 1945 Hungary area or 1941 Moscow or that sort of thing?
In a board game since it is in your hands you can tinker to your heart's content to experiment as I suggest.
I just thought one could take the game engine as is and be able to change anything one wanted. Regardless of whether one agrees or not with the options I suggested trying, the bottom line is, it sounds like the editor is limited in scope and ability. And as you guys have suggested, it shouldn't be done if it would complicate the release or take time away from tweaking things in the current design.
I am more likely really to take small battle portions from the game as is to use as a source for setting up tactical battles in other games. Salute to your efforts and good luck in the game

[karonagames]

@BVB, when I first became a tester, one of the first questions I asked about the editor was could I produce the exact same option you suggested, and I was told politely, but firmly what you have been told.

Like you, I was disappointed, but since then I have focused more on what the game does do, and not worry too much about what it doesn't do, I think there will many hours of enjoyment to be found in the things that you can edit.

The real hope for all of us who would like to explore the type of "what if" you suggest is for 2by3 to produce "War in Europe" using the same engine as WITE.

[Flaviusx]

It's going to be years before we see anything like a War in Europe from this game engine. I would think they'd have to produce a western front game separately first. And then do a complete overhaul of diplomatic and economic engines before putting the two together in one game, since neither of these really exist at present.

Simulating freeish production at this game scale is going to be a huge design challenge. The historical orders of battle impose a certain design discipline on the game but become increasingly implausible as you expand the scope of the game to cover the entire theater and strategic options multiply.

I don't particularly think that War in Europe succeeded in meeting that challenge, btw. My own view is that divisional level games don't work well here for this sort of thing, and you have to kick it up a notch or two (to corps level and up) to really get something that flows smoothly and is playable. That is, move it up to the World in Flames/A3rd Reich level. There's a sort of Heisenberg uncertainty principle at work here, the more micro the game is, the harder it is to model the macro issues.

[karonagames]

I can dream, can't I? [:)]

[Great_Ajax]

Within the June 1941-May 1945, you can do anything on the Russian front. What to do a hypothetical campaign where the Soviets attack in 1942? Fantasy scenario where the Germans win in Normandy and release all of the units in the West to the Eastern Front? Knock yourself out as it can be done. You can narrow down the boundaries to focus on smaller scenarios. See the threads on the Road to Leningrad and Road AARs. There are several smaller sized scenarios already (not sure which ones will be released). The good news is that you can build campaigns and scenarios directly from the editor without having to know any programming/scripting.

Trey

ORIGINAL: BvB

ok, so before I annoy you guys any further, we know what the editor can't do.
So what can it do and what is it's purpose? Maybe only for setting up small parts of the battle area? Such as if someone wanted to do the 1945 Hungary area or 1941 Moscow or that sort of thing?
In a board game since it is in your hands you can tinker to your heart's content to experiment as I suggest.
I just thought one could take the game engine as is and be able to change anything one wanted. Regardless of whether one agrees or not with the options I suggested trying, the bottom line is, it sounds like the editor is limited in scope and ability. And as you guys have suggested, it shouldn't be done if it would complicate the release or take time away from tweaking things in the current design.
I am more likely really to take small battle portions from the game as is to use as a source for setting up tactical battles in other games. Salute to your efforts and good luck in the game

[Walloc]

I was wondering if there was any mechanisme, directly or indirectly covering vehicle breakdowns?

2 weeks into Barbarossa, 3rd Pz div had 128 out of 198 tanks out action. Most to breakdowns. Sure most would come back over time, but the breakdowns certainly diluted german strength, making it over time all the "easier" to stop the advance. Same thing later on with russian advances in later years.
One could say that you fall victim to own pace of advance. As far as i understand supply rules, from what is availble here on the forums. It might be factored into that. Just wondering, if specific rules are covering that.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Flaviusx]

El Hefe, what on earth does the Red Army look like in 1942 if given a chance to sit tight that long?

Bear in mind the historical order of battle for this time period includes, to wit:

1. Massive spam of weak rifle divisions with reduced TOE compared to the prewar organization.

2. No new mechanized divisions and ultimately a replacement of existing tank divisions by brigades.

3. Massive spam of weak cavalry divisions.

4. Eventual introduction of corps which which more less equaled western divisions. (Certainly so for mobile units, and in practical terms also for rifle corps which rarely were built up to TOE strength.)

5. Vast changes in the artillery organization, with arty becoming more and more centralized in high command reserves, eventually grouped into divisions.

All of these things were in response to the 1941 invasion. It is by no means clear that any of them would've occurred if the war got delayed to 1942.

The editor may allow you to construct such a scenario, but I for one would be very skeptical about the results.

[Great_Ajax]

I really don't know but surely the Soviets would be in better shape than they were in 1941 and there would be no surprise on the side of the Axis. I was just listing possibilities of what could be done with the editor. I bet someone will do this scenario though.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

El Hefe, what on earth does the Red Army look like in 1942 if given a chance to sit tight that long?

Bear in mind the historical order of battle for this time period includes, to wit:

1. Massive spam of weak rifle divisions with reduced TOE compared to the prewar organization.

2. No new mechanized divisions and ultimately a replacement of existing tank divisions by brigades.

3. Massive spam of weak cavalry divisions.

4. Eventual introduction of corps which which more less equaled western divisions. (Certainly so for mobile units, and in practical terms also for rifle corps which rarely were built up to TOE strength.)

5. Vast changes in the artillery organization, with arty becoming more and more centralized in high command reserves, eventually grouped into divisions.

All of these things were in response to the 1941 invasion. It is by no means clear that any of them would've occurred if the war got delayed to 1942.

The editor may allow you to construct such a scenario, but I for one would be very skeptical about the results.

[Flaviusx]

Somebody will try it, no doubt, but blech. The OOB will be pure speculation.

[jaw]

Yes, vehicle reliability and breakdowns are taken into account.

[lbadal99]

All, I have been following the forums on this game and it looks like a real winner - a small question regarding detail of the game is around unit TOE - specifically with captured equipment.  Historically the Germans in 1941 captured a huge amount of Russian equipment (Artillery Guns, AT Guns, trucks, tanks, Machine Guns, Rifles, etc.....) and started to redeploy these to hteir units throughout 1941/1942 (most in Russia and some in North Africa).  In looking at some of the detailed screenshots it does show breakdown of equipment very well, but I am wondering if any captured equipment can be redeployed to german iunits out of a captured equipment pool. 
 
I understand this will not necessarily change the outcome of the game but will historically represent what the germans used to get as far as they did.  I believe by late 41 they had a large pool of Russian trucks that were relatuively reliable to help them manage some sort of logistics.  AT and Artillery guns were also widely used by Late 41/into 42 and 43 to help stem the losses and outfit units. 
 
Can anybody comment on whether the development team could incorporate this functionality? 

[Hard Sarge]

the use of Captured stuff is in the game

[Hard Sarge]

here

from the production screen you can see what has been captured, and what is in use

(number in stock/pool, number captured, and the last one, is the number of units using them)

[Hard Sarge]

to make this easy to show, lets look at the Panther G

only one unit is using them

you can click on that one, to go to the commanders doc and get more details

[Hard Sarge]

there we see that the 5th Guards Mech Corps is using 32 of the captured Panthers

clicking on the hex numbers will take us to that unit

and we see the unit page details

[Hard Sarge]

they are way out in front and out of the main supply lines, so they don't look to be getting much in replacements, so maybe a good reason why they have put what they are taking, to use

also you can do a mouse over of the unit, and it will show you the details in a icon form

hope that helps to show and explain how the game uses captured good

(AA and Arty get the most use)