Smaller/shorther scenarios?

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).

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21, elmo3

Post Reply
TPM
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:05 pm

Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Post by TPM »

My apologies if this has been addressed in another post...I'm wondering if this game will include smaller (i.e., shorther) scenarios that can be played in an evening or two? This game looks awesome, and I would love to get it, but I have limited time/attention span(!) to play long drawn out games that have thousands of units (my problem, not the game's!). So, are there limited scenarios like Case Blue, or 11th Army in the Crimea, etc.? Thanks.
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Post by elmo3 »

The scenario list is not final yet but yes there are plans for shorter scenarios. Check out the Road to Leningrad AAR as one example.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Post by Flaviusx »

The game comes with various smaller scenarios, including Road to Minsk, Road to Moscow, Road to Kiev, Typhoon and Road to Leningrad. (All being intensively tested and perfected as we speak.) It contains campaign games for Barbarossa, 1942, 1943, 1944, and a grand campaign for 1941-45. It also includes an editor and I'm sure many more scenarios will be created post release, both by the developers and the players -- I personally would love to see a Stalingrad one, and may take a personal crack at putting together a Battle for Kiev 1943 scenario, as I have information for this from an old scenario I did for the Europa games.

Pretty much any kind of battle you can think of in the Eastern Front can be worked in here.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
WriterJWA
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: Atlanta

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Post by WriterJWA »

How about a hypothetical scenario that sets the initial national boundaries pre-1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? It would be interesting to see how Barbarossa would have played out if Germany had taken all of Poland in '39 vice half of it.
Jay
USMC '98-'06
0311-4341

"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Omar Bradley

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. "
- Gen. George S. Patton
Kulturhund
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:29 am

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Post by Kulturhund »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The game comes with various smaller scenarios, including Road to Minsk, Road to Moscow, Road to Kiev, Typhoon and Road to Leningrad. (All being intensively tested and perfected as we speak.) It contains campaign games for Barbarossa, 1942, 1943, 1944, and a grand campaign for 1941-45. It also includes an editor and I'm sure many more scenarios will be created post release, both by the developers and the players -- I personally would love to see a Stalingrad one, and may take a personal crack at putting together a Battle for Kiev 1943 scenario, as I have information for this from an old scenario I did for the Europa games.

Pretty much any kind of battle you can think of in the Eastern Front can be worked in here.

So many goodies... and did I mention the wait is killing me [:D]
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: WriterJWA

How about a hypothetical scenario that sets the initial national boundaries pre-1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? It would be interesting to see how Barbarossa would have played out if Germany had taken all of Poland in '39 vice half of it.

In that case how do we know there would have even been a Barbarossa if Germany had to leave a substantial garrison to defend Poland in 1940? Worse case scenario finds Germany bogged down again in the West as the Red Army re-organizes and re-arms. Half of Poland was a small price to pay for taking the largest army in the world out of the equation in 1940. Not even Adolf Hitler could turn down such a bargain.
User avatar
WriterJWA
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: Atlanta

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Post by WriterJWA »

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: WriterJWA

How about a hypothetical scenario that sets the initial national boundaries pre-1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? It would be interesting to see how Barbarossa would have played out if Germany had taken all of Poland in '39 vice half of it.

In that case how do we know there would have even been a Barbarossa if Germany had to leave a substantial garrison to defend Poland in 1940? Worse case scenario finds Germany bogged down again in the West as the Red Army re-organizes and re-arms. Half of Poland was a small price to pay for taking the largest army in the world out of the equation in 1940. Not even Adolf Hitler could turn down such a bargain.

I don't believe it would have been necessary to strongly garrison Poland in '40, much like it wasn't necessary to strongly garrison Germany's western border in September '39. France and Great Britain could have made a good showing against Germany in '39 if they had committed when Germany invaded Poland, but didn't. Germany didn't see fit to focus too much on the half of Poland they owned when they invaded France in '40. Why would they have needed more troops to garrison a border that, as the opening moves of Barbarossa showed, was guarded only notionally, anyway? There was really no army to take out in '40.

Advance patrols of the German army were in eyeshot of Moscow at the height of Barbarossa. I wonder what those hundreds of kilometers lost in the split of Poland might have done for the advance.
Jay
USMC '98-'06
0311-4341

"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Omar Bradley

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. "
- Gen. George S. Patton
User avatar
AZKGungHo
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:26 pm
Contact:

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Post by AZKGungHo »

But that added space also worked to the German advantage, since Stalin insisted that the border be guarded, it made it easier for the Germans to make those first large encirclements. As usual, these things tend to offer advantages to both sides, not just one.
"In Arduis Fidelis"
Louie Marsh

Books:
Once A Raider… http://tinyurl.com/89mfnnk
Getting Real - http://tinyurl.com/7zhcjlq
Websites:
www.usmcraiders.com
discipleup.org
User avatar
WriterJWA
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: Atlanta

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Post by WriterJWA »

I'm inclined to believe, given the apparent state of the Polish military, that those encirclements could have been made regardless eastern border location, and in the time allotted. In the case of a country like Poland or France, you neutralize the defenses, then the invaded country has been beaten ... especially if a capital is taken. Consider the encirclement of the AEF in '40 and the fall of Paris. It's basic Clauswitz. Take the defending army out of the equation, and it doesn't matter if you have troops in every province of the invaded country.
Jay
USMC '98-'06
0311-4341

"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Omar Bradley

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. "
- Gen. George S. Patton
jaw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Post by jaw »

ORIGINAL: WriterJWA


I don't believe it would have been necessary to strongly garrison Poland in '40, much like it wasn't necessary to strongly garrison Germany's western border in September '39. France and Great Britain could have made a good showing against Germany in '39 if they had committed when Germany invaded Poland, but didn't. Germany didn't see fit to focus too much on the half of Poland they owned when they invaded France in '40. Why would they have needed more troops to garrison a border that, as the opening moves of Barbarossa showed, was guarded only notionally, anyway? There was really no army to take out in '40.

Advance patrols of the German army were in eyeshot of Moscow at the height of Barbarossa. I wonder what those hundreds of kilometers lost in the split of Poland might have done for the advance.

The British didn't have a single division on the Continent in September of 1939 and the French Army's military planning focused on repelling a German invasion not conducting one of their own so Hitler's gamble paid off but it was still a big gamble.

Germany didn't have to strongly garrison Poland in 1940 BECAUSE of the non-aggression pact. As for the German/Soviet frontier being "notationally" guarded, I wouldn't exactly characterize a couple dozen tank divisions and few score of rifle divisions as notational. If you really want to see a variant, when you get the game skip the first turn entirely for both sides and see how well the Germans do without their first turn surprise. I think you'll be amazed how well this notational Red Army fights.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Post by Flaviusx »

I highly disfavor counterfactuals and alternate history for this particular game and will just leave it at that.

There's literally dozens of possible actual historical scenarios waiting to be made. It'll be a long time before you exhaust those possibilities and have to start doing goofy AH stuff.

WitE Alpha Tester
TPM
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:05 pm

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Post by TPM »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The game comes with various smaller scenarios, including Road to Minsk, Road to Moscow, Road to Kiev, Typhoon and Road to Leningrad. (All being intensively tested and perfected as we speak.) It contains campaign games for Barbarossa, 1942, 1943, 1944, and a grand campaign for 1941-45. It also includes an editor and I'm sure many more scenarios will be created post release, both by the developers and the players -- I personally would love to see a Stalingrad one, and may take a personal crack at putting together a Battle for Kiev 1943 scenario, as I have information for this from an old scenario I did for the Europa games.

Pretty much any kind of battle you can think of in the Eastern Front can be worked in here.

This sounds awesome...thanks for the reply guys, can't wait for this sucker to come out!
User avatar
hgilmer3
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:15 pm

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Post by hgilmer3 »

Joel just posted a scenario list above. Sounds like you're going to get what you want.
KurtC in the WITE PBEM module.
User avatar
SGHunt
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Lancaster, England

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Post by SGHunt »

I'm with Flav on this.  The games starts to be ahistorical from the first move you make, but it always starts from the most historical position it can be geographically, in terms of men, equipment, strategic positions  etc.   It stays as historical as it can be modelled in terms of supplies, reinforcement, upgrades etc.    That's the whole challenge for me.   
Stuart 'von Jaeger' Hunt

WitE Alpha, Beta Tester

Post Reply

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