Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

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
User avatar
jzardos
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:05 pm

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by jzardos »

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Like the look of the changes, though as a Soviet player, its going to make '41 an even bigger struggle than it is already.

Time will tell at a guess

That’s it looks like and also new chances force Soviet side turtle longer all away from 41-43. It remains to be seen if losing Leningrad and Moscow at 41 in every AAR comes to new norm and not losing them rare happenings.

Soviet side has to stop doing counter attacks as many chances weaken Soviet ability to do those counter attacks they did historically. There is simply no incentive to do those as incentive to make them was weak from the beginning but that’s probably what those German players lobby for and won’t be happy until they get their I win button.

No, it's players that want a fun game for both sides that are trying to remove the '42 IT'S OVER' button. We know Soviets won the war. But was winning the war in June 41 a sure thing for the Soviets? Could the Germans had made better choices to have kept the initiate past 43? IMO your a fool to think the war was over in 41. Wish we could all get past this. Sure the deck was stacked against the Germans, but in no means was it already decide that they couldn't defeat the Soviets. Also, the problem is the game is over usually in 42 for the axis even when historically they still have lots of opportunities in 42 to do much damage to the Soviets.
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by Klydon »

ORIGINAL: jzardos

I'm sorry but this type of statement is purely subjective to what the Axis player has done with his 41 advance. It to me is the ROOT of many misconceptions and in differentiating my wanting a dynamic game with historical premisses rather than just a simulation of what actually did happen on the eastern front for either side.

Sure if the axis player pushed his supply line (abusive on HQ buildup) troops far from rail-heads, it would be possible to find oneself in the same issues the Germans had late in 41. But that's not what this game is about, is it?

Here it is in a nutshell. Players need to be rewarded for making good choices and not be punished on a broad level for bad historical choices that we(players) should now have control over. Case and point. The Soviets have a free-hand to retreat troops to wherever they want, when historically this was far from the case considering Stalin's demands.


Just wanted to point out that I don't agree with this thinking about having to deal with all the ISSUES a side had when a player could make choices to avoid those problems. To me that is the essence of why it's a game and makes it fun to player because of all the possibilities.

Subjective in what manor? Bottom line is the Germans absolutely underestimated the logistical issues of the eastern front from the start of the campaign. They simply did not have the capacity to send a crap load of stuff to the front and that really isn't shown that well in game. There are other rules in game (blizzard issues for the Germans for example) that exist. There is wiggle room in these issues in that the German knows about them IN ADVANCE and can plan accordingly to help reduce the effects of these issues, but that does not mean those issues should be very easily avoided simply because you want to. Just because the Russians are likely not going to build a carpet of level 3 and 4 forts across the entire front, that also means the Germans are going to be hard pressed to build their double/triple line of level 3 forts for the winter in the fall of 1941.

User avatar
jzardos
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:05 pm

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by jzardos »

I'm about to start posting an AAR of a game that I'm currently playing the Soviets and was able to retreat most of my units and at the same time have successful counterattacks on axis mobile forces to delay the axis from taking Leningrad, Moscow, Kharkov and the Stalino areas. The blizzard is now over (t38) and the axis have 3 million men and 2.5k tanks to the Soviets 7 million men and 6k tanks. I've been able to push the Germans back to the Dnep (took one Kiev hex) and took back Smolensk. My opponent is a capable player and has only made some mistakes of pushing the mobile forces a bit too (high fatigue I assume) hard and leaving them vulnerable to counterattack (1:1 rule was my ally).

So now what does my axis opponent do in spring 42? I'll have deep lines of units, even if only in lvl 2 forts, the attrition with the combat engine (vs small Soviet units) will make it difficult for him to break through.

Unfortunately, my opponent might have lost interest and become too demoralized to continue. I know this as the infrequence of turns on his part has decreases and maybe he'll just quite... which would suck.

So maybe I'm wrong an v1.05 will make it more feasible for the axis to have a sustainable initiative in 42 and into 43? The German morale issues and 1:1 rule make this seem very unlikely, hope I'm wrong.

User avatar
pompack
Posts: 2585
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 1:44 am
Location: University Park, Texas

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by pompack »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I disagree about the counterattacking. If anything, it is even more important to do this now.


Ah Flavio, what do you know about it; you have only played with the as-yet-unreleased-patch while everyone else has actually read about it in the Forum. [:D]
User avatar
Captain
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 4:37 pm

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by Captain »

interesting discussion. I will wait until I have had a chance to play 1.05 before reaching a conclusion.

On another point, since this issue keeps coming up, the German Army had pleny of winter clothing/gear in december 41, all of it safely stored in warehouses, the problem was getting it to the front:

The severe winter weather was the third major reason that caused German defenders to adopt village-based strongpoints. Even by Russian standards, the 1941-42 winter was particularly harsh. From December until early March, military operations were hampered by heavy snowfall and by the few hours of winter daylight. Yet the extreme cold was by far the most significant aspect of the winter weather. During the winter battles, German and Russian forces clashed in temperatures routinely ranging from -I0°C to -30°C, with brief cold spells exceeding -40°C.47 Contrary to German belief, the cold was an impartial adversary that dogged the operations of both sides with equal intensity. However, the Germans were generally more vulnerable to the debilitating effects of the subzero temperatures due to a near-total lack of winter clothing and equipment.

Hitler blamed the Army High Command for the failure to provide winter necessities, ignoring any intimation that, he might bear some blame for the German military predicament. In a clever propaganda stroke, Nazi Party functionaries launched a massive emergency drive in late December to collect winter clothing from the German public. Direct action by the party and the people, it was implied, would rapidly correct the scandalous frontline conditions wrought by General Staff bungling.48 Coming at a time when Hitler was relieving "incompetent" and "disloyal" officers left and right, this program confirmed the popular impression that Adolf Hitler's personal intervention into the German Army's affairs was not only warranted but even overdue. So persuasive was this logic--and so thorough the propaganda effort to sell it--that even some high-ranking German military officers remained convinced after the war that slipshod General Staff planning had produced the shortage of winter equipment.49


However, the truth was far different, German soldiers fought without winter clothing or special equipment simply because the German supply system could not transport the items forward from rear depots. Normal winter-issue items (woolen vests, caps, earmuffs, scarves, and sweaters) were stocked in Germany and Poland, and General Halder had repeatedly discussed the need to provide these and other essentials to the fighting forces before the onset of winter. On 10 November, however, Halder learned that transportation difficulties would delay deliveries of winter clothing to the front until late January 1942 or even later.50

The German logistical system, already tottering from the strain of providing fuel, food, and ammunition to three army groups over the primitive Russian transportation net, was brought to the brink of total collapse by the arrival of winter. Sporadic partisan activity and an epidemic of locomotive breakdowns greatly curtailed German rail-haul capacity. (For instance, the number of German supply trains to the Eastern Front totaled only 1,420 in January 1942, compared to 2,093 in September 1941.)51 Losses of motor vehicles and draft horses further snarled supply distribution, and frantic attempts to press Russian pony-drawn panje wagons into service provided little immediate relief. Moreover, the severe cold increased the consumption rate of certain commodities. For example, German soldiers used large quantities of grenades and explosives to fracture the frozen earth in order to create makeshift foxholes. Likewise, fuel consumption did not decline in proportion to vehicle losses since drivers idled their motors round-the-clock to prevent engine freeze-up.52

Because the supply lines could not handle all the supplies that the Germans needed, the limited transportation space was devoted to such vital cargoes as ammunition and medical supplies. Since winter clothing is inherently bulky and therefore relatively inefficient to transport, it remained, for the most part, crated in warehouses in Poland and Germany, awaiting a lull in the logistical crisis when it could be shuttled forward without displacing other commodities.53 In the meantime, German soldiers had to fend for themselves as best they could.54


http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/ ... .asp#orgin
Image
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by janh »

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
ORIGINAL: Encircled

Like the look of the changes, though as a Soviet player, its going to make '41 an even bigger struggle than it is already.

Time will tell at a guess

That’s it looks like and also new chances force Soviet side turtle longer all away from 41-43. It remains to be seen if losing Leningrad and Moscow at 41 in every AAR comes to new norm and not losing them rare happenings.

Soviet side has to stop doing counter attacks as many chances weaken Soviet ability to do those counter attacks they did historically. There is simply no incentive to do those as incentive to make them was weak from the beginning but that’s probably what those German players lobby for and won’t be happy until they get their I win button.

Looks like the new fort rules might reduce fort levels on average, so perhaps more attacking and retreating will occur in winter 41/42, and later. If all these projected changes allow Axis forces to stay in some reasonable shape in summer 42 and perhaps even 43, they can perhaps again take some offensive action at least on limited front parts, such as did occur in fact. Hopefully the Russians won't be having it much harder in early 41 (strike the balance...).
If anything, this hopefully means also that not both sides will start digging in in spring of 42, and play turtles until the Red Army is ready to deliver a decisive blow in 1944. I don't quite understand the complaints that as a Russian player, you wouldn't want to see the Axis side have a little more (realistic) potential for 42 and 43 -- it is probably hard enough already to convince an Axis player not to turtle for 2 years. That would make quite a boring game for the Russian side as well, and you use a "fast-forward to June 1944" button... and thereafter treat it as the numbers game that history proved it to be.

What I am curious about is Flavius comment: Why will it be even more important to counterattack early? My impression of the spring 1942 and early summer offensives of the Russians was that they pretty much achieved nothing except delaying the jump of for "Fall Blau" but resulted heavy losses of men and equipment for the Russians? It would rather seem prudent not to act too offensively as a Russian at least until late 1943? With the new moral rules, anything like the carefully executed, very local counter-pushes that for example Q-ball did in his AAR against Axis mobile units would also be less useful now?



User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: janh
What I am curious about is Flavius comment: Why will it be even more important to counterattack early? My impression of the spring 1942 and early summer offensives of the Russians was that they pretty much achieved nothing except delaying the jump of for "Fall Blau" but resulted heavy losses of men and equipment for the Russians? It would rather seem prudent not to act too offensively as a Russian at least until late 1943? With the new moral rules, anything like the carefully executed, very local counter-pushes that for example Q-ball did in his AAR against Axis mobile units would also be less useful now?

I think Flavius refers to summer/autumn 1941. Since fortified lines will take some time to get ready, one will have to be more proactive in the defense, mixing counterattacks and well-timed operational retreats. You'll need to do a lot of effort to give those defense lines a chance to be ready when the time comes for The Stand (wherever the Soviet player decides to make it).
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
ORIGINAL: janh
What I am curious about is Flavius comment: Why will it be even more important to counterattack early? My impression of the spring 1942 and early summer offensives of the Russians was that they pretty much achieved nothing except delaying the jump of for "Fall Blau" but resulted heavy losses of men and equipment for the Russians? It would rather seem prudent not to act too offensively as a Russian at least until late 1943? With the new moral rules, anything like the carefully executed, very local counter-pushes that for example Q-ball did in his AAR against Axis mobile units would also be less useful now?

I think Flavius refers to summer/autumn 1941. Since fortified lines will take some time to get ready, one will have to be more proactive in the defense, mixing counterattacks and well-timed operational retreats. You'll need to do a lot of effort to give those defense lines a chance to be ready when the time comes for The Stand (wherever the Soviet player decides to make it).

Not to mention that armaments evac becomes a total and absolute priority, as Q-Ball points out. Which will have a severe impact both operationally - less railcap to move reserves when they're most needed - and strategically - now each armaments factory point destroyed is a dire blow. With the best Axis play I've seen, it'll be very hard not to lose substantial stuff in the eastern Ukraine: Dnepropetrovsk, Krivoi Rog, Kremenschug. Those places are very hard to defend if the battles in the western Ukraine are a complete disaster.
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 33611
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by Joel Billings »

Just a reminder that Soviet morale starts at 50 in 41 (although it does drop a point each month), so the Soviet forces should be a little stronger in 1941 than they used to be (but they will have less forts). My guess is Flavio is right that counterattacks will become more important.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7620
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by Q-Ball »

The 1941 Soviets will have to fight forward, particularly in the Ukriane, as the most important priority now will be moving Armament Factories. Period.

With that change, you would be better off moving only one T-34 tank from Kharkov, for example, and picking up more Armaments there. The Tanks grow back, the Armaments don't.

Typically, I would evacuate a whole city, including the HI. Now, I wonder if you might leave the HI in a few places to move more Armaments. If you lose more than 100 ARM Factories, at 130 per turn you'll probably never get the Red Army up to snuff. Seems that way anyway, I can't say for sure.

I would also rather sacrifice a whole Army to save 5 Armament Factories if I have to.

All of this I think is good, I just think the Reds have to re-think 1941 as a result (and the Germans by extension).

User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by Flaviusx »

I'm referring to 1941, yes. The Soviet must make a fighting retreat and look for ways to slow the German down, and catch the panzers in exposed positions and knock them back.

BTW I'm not entirely convinced that it is worth spending the APs on FR in 1941. 16 APs is no joke.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by Klydon »

AP's will be even tougher since the Russians can't put motorized divisions in static mode.

If you decide to do level 3-4 forts as a Russian, you better pick your spots very carefully.
User avatar
PeeDeeAitch
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:31 am
Location: Laramie, Wyoming

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by PeeDeeAitch »

So, at the risk of being flippant (when has that stopped me?), Joel's list (which is admittedly not complete) does the following: Hits the important issues while missing them, causes entrenchment problems that hurt the Axis but not the Soviets and vice versa, does not address the 1942 problem and addresses the 1942 problem, and causes ranting. All of this has been done without full testing nor released to the public. All bases covered, ahead full speed!
"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 33611
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by Joel Billings »

That sums things up nicely, thank you.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Encircled
Posts: 2097
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Northern England

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by Encircled »

16 AP to build forts + no motorised divisions into Static mode looks like the best the Russian player can do due to a massive shortage of AP points is just survive.

This might, (and I stress the word might) mean that the Russians take a lot longer (due to shortage of AP points) to sort out their army, which might result in a much weaker Soviet army in '42 than is currently the case.

Of course, the downside is that a lot of Russian players are going to get creamed in '41 and '42

However, this might well work, and if it results in backhand blows, massive sweeping encirclements and less moaning about the 1:1 rule, its got to be good!
User avatar
jzardos
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:05 pm

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by jzardos »

ORIGINAL: Captain

interesting discussion. I will wait until I have had a chance to play 1.05 before reaching a conclusion.

On another point, since this issue keeps coming up, the German Army had pleny of winter clothing/gear in december 41, all of it safely stored in warehouses, the problem was getting it to the front:

Yes, thanks for finding some documentation to this.

My critical point to this entire winter prep discussion is straightforward and logical.

- the Germans had the means to help winterize a majority of their units
- the rail capacity wasn't there late into fall/winter due to the weather and other factors

*KEY POINT*
- had the Germans used the rail capacity in early fall for winter prep stuff and not for resources to continue a late fall/winter offensive on Moscow, German units would have been in much better shape to handle the winter. But Hitler wanted to keep pushing for Moscow, even when most generals wanted to pause and prepare for winter.

Thus, if an axis player chooses to play more cautious and refrain from major offensives in Oct/Nov they should be able to gain some level of winter prep for their units. Just my opinion and seems to follow the historical flow of possibilities for an axis player.
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by Klydon »

Something else that has occurred to me is this will give the Germans more incentive to push in the center and especially the south where the armaments are at. I think choices are good for both the Russians and Germans since right now, the game has a heavy German focus on taking Leningrad in most games. 
User avatar
PeeDeeAitch
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:31 am
Location: Laramie, Wyoming

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by PeeDeeAitch »

ORIGINAL: jzardos
*KEY POINT*
- had the Germans used the rail capacity in early fall for winter prep stuff and not for resources to continue a late fall/winter offensive on Moscow, German units would have been in much better shape to handle the winter. But Hitler wanted to keep pushing for Moscow, even when most generals wanted to pause and prepare for winter.

Thus, if an axis player chooses to play more cautious and refrain from major offensives in Oct/Nov they should be able to gain some level of winter prep for their units. Just my opinion and seems to follow the historical flow of possibilities for an axis player.

The debate has never been that there were winter uniforms, but rather getting them there. The Germans did not use all all their supply transport for offensives (they didn't, actually - looking at the supply rates they were on a shoestring and offensives were rather stupid), they didn't have more than basic supply to spare at all.

The issue was how to rationalize the system so that it wasn't in continual crisis and such things as winter clothing could become part of the routine...

Given that supply is abstracted to a good extent now, such issues really don't have a place in the game, unless there is a release of the "Rails East!" expansion.
"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by Michael T »

ORIGINAL: jzardos
ORIGINAL: Captain

interesting discussion. I will wait until I have had a chance to play 1.05 before reaching a conclusion.

On another point, since this issue keeps coming up, the German Army had pleny of winter clothing/gear in december 41, all of it safely stored in warehouses, the problem was getting it to the front:

Yes, thanks for finding some documentation to this.

My critical point to this entire winter prep discussion is straightforward and logical.

- the Germans had the means to help winterize a majority of their units
- the rail capacity wasn't there late into fall/winter due to the weather and other factors

*KEY POINT*
- had the Germans used the rail capacity in early fall for winter prep stuff and not for resources to continue a late fall/winter offensive on Moscow, German units would have been in much better shape to handle the winter. But Hitler wanted to keep pushing for Moscow, even when most generals wanted to pause and prepare for winter.

Thus, if an axis player chooses to play more cautious and refrain from major offensives in Oct/Nov they should be able to gain some level of winter prep for their units. Just my opinion and seems to follow the historical flow of possibilities for an axis player.
*KEY POINT*
- had the Germans used the rail capacity in early fall for winter prep stuff and not for resources to continue a late fall/winter offensive on Moscow, German units would have been in much better shape to handle the winter. But Hitler wanted to keep pushing for Moscow, even when most generals wanted to pause and prepare for winter.

Thus, if an axis player chooses to play more cautious and refrain from major offensives in Oct/Nov they should be able to gain some level of winter prep for their units. Just my opinion and seems to follow the historical flow of possibilities for an axis player.


The problem is the German player is not Hitler. So the player is ordered to keep pushing on, or lose his job. The game does not enforce this but it should not make it any easier to avoid. IMO the German player should not be able to build forts bigger than level 1 prior to December 41. Period. The Germans were pushing right until the blizzard hit. They were ordered by Hitler to do so. Things like better winter preperation should be left to the WWII in Europe game, where the player is Hitler.

It seems to me the Devs are trying to force the Russians in to a forward defensive strategy by making the Armament Factories very precious. Thus the Russian is forced to defend forward to gain enough time to evacuate them. That will cause many more Russian disasters in 41. Allowing the Germans to circumnavigate a harsh winter would be counter productive to this general 41 theme.

IMO the German halt in late summer strategy is just as poorly as the Russian run away ploy. Both should be discoraged by any means possible. Stalin and Hitler simply would not have allowed it. Any commander doing so would have been removed or shot. Sudden death victory conditions in 1941 would also help a lot.
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

Post by 76mm »

Interesting discussions, but I would like to express an opinion on the 1:1 rule. While I don't really have strong feelings about it one way or another, I can say that in my game, in which most of the lines have been static for most of 1942, even with the 1:1 rule, I can only get the Germans out of their fortified positions if I use multiple stacks of rifle corps and massed air, arty, and sapper support. If I needed 2:1 odds, I don't think I'd be able to move the Germans out of their positions at all, resulting in a complete stalemate from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Ho hum.

I hope the devs give very careful consideration to this issue before doing away with the 1:1 rule. I think that the better fix might involve reducing German losses in case of retreats, rather than scrapping 1:1.
Post Reply

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