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).
This discussion seems to revolve around creating a vehicle for preventing the runaway strategies for both sides.
There has been voluminous posting about significant modifications to the game (reaction and idiocy rules, execution of commanders who retreat, etc.,) that based on what we have heard, is not in the cards for the small and valiant crew at 2x3 games.
So, I go back to a solution that Michael T proposed in another thread that lost its focus due to the same discussion about major modifications to the game, interpretation of history and so on.
I think the game is close to being what was intended, namely a great game.
What I suggest is to Patch (because people, me included, want an official rule not a house rule) in an OPTIONAL victory condition set that would involve sudden death victory conditions for both sides.
My proposal for the SD condition is this: if one side or the other occupies all the following cities on the 1st turn of March, 1942, they win the game: Leningrad, Rzhev Moscow, Tula, Voronezh, Voroshilovgrad and Rostov.
Let's try it and see if it doesn't eliminate the run for the hills tactics by both sides.
Seems to me although you say "one side or the other" you really only the mean it to be the Axis. We've already established that the Soviets cannot hold Leningrad against a determined Axis player and especially if you make the conditions of March '42 it would be a given. Therefore the Soviets will almost never have a shot at winning your proposed condition, even if the Axis might find it difficult to hold the other places.
For all the complaints of the advantages the Soviets get, I don't hear much comment that if Leningrad is isolated, 100,000 Soviets just give up when attacked in the city environs at the cost of a couple hundred Axis soldiers. Same for Moscow or any other city you can name. Until that gets fixed, the game lacks a major degree of realism in my book.
Thanks all for the recapitulation of history that includes a reminder that Berlin fell.
Can people let go of this broken record and get on with agreeing to some kind of optional SD rule that Joel writes that @x3 people will code??
I think you're going to find that a lot of us on the Soviet side flatly will refuse to play with these sudden death victory conditions; we're just not buying into the idea that this was in the cards. This whole thing seems like an exercise in futility to me. Even if the community somehow manages to cobble up an optional rule and convinces Joel to code it, Axis players (and this is really an Axis wish list) aren't going to find many Soviet opponents willing to play under these conditions.
IMHO the VPs are fine the way they are: barring the death of Hitler Germany would have never surrendered or been otherwise defeated unless Berlin fell, and frankly there is no historical precendent to suggest that the SU would have ever "surrendered." WITE is a very long game, so if one is looking for an artifical set of conditions to cease hostilities, then play another game or have some fairyland houserules. Who in their right mind would have ever suggested to Stalin something like :"Joseph, if Leningrad, Moscow and Rostov fall in 1941 we must give up?"
Play to the bitter end: Berlin or Bust.
Marquo
While I agree with you to a point, the problem with this line of thinking is that it provides very little incentive for the player to actually play the game.
Is it true that the Germans probably should never have invaded Russia in the first place? Yes, but then why play WITE at all? Sure, taking all that land between Smolensk and Berlin is worth "something" insofar as delaying the Russians from getting to Berlin, but the problem is that you riled up the hordes in the first place.
The Russian player has every reason in the world to play a good defensive game and transition into a good offensive game - he has to beat the clock that winds down in 1945.
In contrast, if we just grant that the German player is never going to be able to force a "surrender", then he might as well hunker down after 1941 and just wait it out unless the Soviet player commit a fairly large mistake or is otherwise vulnerable in one place or another.
Even the Japanese in WITP-AE have an auto-victory condition, and one that has been legitimately reached before - it gives them the opportunity to end the game by risking over-extension, which then translates to a more interesting game for the Allied player because that over-extension is keeps the flow of play mobile instead of mired and entrenched.
Finally, the auto-victory condition for the Japanese isn't grounded in reality either. There's nothing to suggest that the Allies would just up and leave and sign an armistice no matter how deep into India / Australia the Japanese managed to push in, but the devs threw that in anyway, so the base assertion itself that the Soviets would never surrender to the Germans should not automatically disqualify the potential for more lax auto-victory condition in WITE, especially since WITE is, at its heart, a game.
What continues to go unmentioned is that the Axis *already* have a "Sudden Death" victory condition. Namely, score 290 VPs. It seems to me that the elements of the Axis player base that are clamoring for something additional are either conveniently forgetting about this, or are simply unhappy with it being as difficult to attain as it is.
That said, I am on record for wishing that the Victory Conditions in the game were more dynamic, so that some real tension would be instilled in the game, with respect to taking, or holding, territory over time. Awarding VPs for various VP locations, on a per turn basis, similar to the smaller scenario Victory Conditions, and perhaps factoring in some casualty figure (IMO, a much more minor factor compared to territory) should be the means by which such a Victory Condition should be structured.
ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
That said, I am on record for wishing that the Victory Conditions in the game were more dynamic, so that some real tension would be instilled in the game, with respect to taking, or holding, territory over time. Awarding VPs for various VP locations, on a per turn basis, similar to the smaller scenario Victory Conditions, and perhaps factoring in some casualty figure (IMO, a much more minor factor compared to territory) should be the means by which such a Victory Condition should be structured.
See the graphs I posted above for my game against Q-Ball, using scenario victory conditions (scaling losses multipliers to account for the longer length of the campaign). I disagree completely about losses having to be a minor factor. Actually, they should be a major factor.
Achieving the most spending the least should be - in my opinion - the hallmark of sound planning and playing. If land was the major factor, then things wouldn't be that different from they're now, because of the huge strategic imbalance. Having a balance between land and losses I think is the way to go if we want to create incentives so that players are concerned by factors similar to those that influenced decision making 70 years ago.
A possible benchmark would be that if the Soviet suffer historical losses and conquer Berlin by May 1945, Soviet Victory level would be a very narrow minor victory (or perhaps even a draw). WitE should be rewarding performance better than historical, and right now, it doesn't. Note that with the scenario Victory Conditions isn't precisely easy by any means.
The Axis gets quite an advantage during 1941 - which can become bigger during 1942 - and if this advantage is managed rationally - and the Axis plays without any major blunders - should ensure a handsome victory, even if that ends up in the destruction of Germany.
I know the game is completely different, but in AGEOD's AACW on the American Civil War, they have VPs and National Moral. VPs are just what they are, and they matter only in so far as the players reacht the endgame without automatic victory, than they are tallied to say who won. But NM matters a lot more because it has strong operational consequences : With more NM the CSA or USA forces have more cohesion (which in WITE would be morale), the recruitement or replacements is better and basically the army more efficient.
What is interesting is that in AACW NM is a dynamic number influenced by actions in the game and events. Actions in the game that influence NM are the results of battles and the loss or conquest of objective cities. in the standard AACW scenario, there are about 12 to 15 objective cities, from those unlikely to change hands (NEw York) to the capitals and all major cities that were objectives in the war : St Louis and Louisville and Lexington in the neutral states and all big southern cities (from NO to Charleston via Nashville, Memphis, etc...).
At the start of the game the CSA has substantially higher NM, which means its troops are better, and its objective throughout the game is to keep this edge as long as possible to compensate its numerical inferiority. Once the USA start grabbing objective cities and winning battles, the NM differential goes down an than inverts, making it very hard for the CSA to hold..
Now NM is also influenced by events : For example to emulate's the pressure in the Union for offensive action to finish of the reb rabble, several times the USA have to get armies within two provinces from Richmond otherwise they lose 5 or 10 NMpoints...
This system is really good, as it makes the game lively, and gives acual importance to objectives : the CSA has to try to keep Memphis, NO, Norfolk or Little Rock for as long as possible, not for its own sake or just to gain time, but because it has actual benefits in game : allows its forces to stay stronger, more cohesive. and both parties have incentives to actually win battles, just for the NM use of it.
Now I know WITE is a completely different beast, but the way I see it suffers from an overly linear game development. German national morale is X in 41 and will evolve to y, than z, etc... Same for Russians.
Now imagine WITE with an NM system where there is say 25 objectives cities, with variable values, from Berlin and Moscow as the capitalsls, to Leningrad, Stalingrad and Koenigsberg, than all different layers. We could have a system where the NM of the two sides evolves, from a starting point of x for Germany and Y for the Soviets based on : battle results or losses and objective points.
It would matter for the players to try to hold NM objective cities because they affect the overall NM level which in turn affects units moral and for example production (Mampower and Armts begin affected by a multiplier).
The system would be tailored so as to emulate in a typical game the natural evolution of the situation : German NM gets better in 41 because of their success, recedes during the winter, than again gets better in 42 as they regain objective cities. Opposite for the Soviets. This would also lead to a more historical play of aiming for big objectives. The Russians would try to delay the fall of Leningrad because the earlier it falls the bigger the positive NM effect for the Germans. Later in the war the Germans would actively try to hold the festpunkts because each extra month you deny Kharkov of Smolensk ot the Russians, you maintain your army strength and limit the growth of theirs.
Ideally the objective cities and their NM value wouldn't stay the same, it would evolve during the game in a somewhat random way to emulate a form of political pressure on the players. Say it's summer 43 and Kharkov becomes a major NM points objective : The Germans know it and so do the Russians, and even if the German line is long and almost flanked, each extra week they hold that NM objective city prevents the Russians from getting the nm bonus its capture would entail, which would provoke a surge in the units morale.. It might be wort losing quite a few divs for an extra month or 6 weeks of holding it...
See this type of dynamic system would be great. The players would still be free to do what they please, but in game actions would have consequences. A soviet players retreat to fast ? He just allowed the Germans to gain NM points very quickly and boosted their morale... with added events, it would be even better. the Germans let the Russians advance 10 hexes in the Blizzard from the december front line ? boom, -5NM for Germany and +5NM for Soviets.
Make the player make decisions that have a cost. with the ethereal und unimpactful actual VP system + preplanned linear evolution of the settings (Morale, etc...), the player's actions have no impact as long as force conservation is ensured.
just two cents but really, I find the AGEOD model of NM very interesting.
Thanks all for the recapitulation of history that includes a reminder that Berlin fell.
Can people let go of this broken record and get on with agreeing to some kind of optional SD rule that Joel writes that @x3 people will code??
I think you're going to find that a lot of us on the Soviet side flatly will refuse to play with these sudden death victory conditions; we're just not buying into the idea that this was in the cards. This whole thing seems like an exercise in futility to me. Even if the community somehow manages to cobble up an optional rule and convinces Joel to code it, Axis players (and this is really an Axis wish list) aren't going to find many Soviet opponents willing to play under these conditions.
Thanks all for the recapitulation of history that includes a reminder that Berlin fell.
Can people let go of this broken record and get on with agreeing to some kind of optional SD rule that Joel writes that @x3 people will code??
You're quite welcome.
Perhaps you can provide the basis on which the fall of Moscow would of meant much.
Now NM is also influenced by events : For example to emulate's the pressure in the Union for offensive action to finish of the reb rabble, several times the USA have to get armies within two provinces from Richmond otherwise they lose 5 or 10 NMpoints...
True, but those events are also open to abuse. A hyper agressive Rebel, with all those excellant leaders, will pour North. He can be sitting in Baltimore, lay seige to Washington, be sitting in Harrisburg, etc. And your newspapers will be screaming. Not because of that, but because you're not advancing.
I think you're going to find that a lot of us on the Soviet side flatly will refuse to play with these sudden death victory conditions; we're just not buying into the idea that this was in the cards. This whole thing seems like an exercise in futility to me. Even if the community somehow manages to cobble up an optional rule and convinces Joel to code it, Axis players (and this is really an Axis wish list) aren't going to find many Soviet opponents willing to play under these conditions
What you continually fail to acknowledge is that *either* side can win a sudden death victory. Its not a German fanboy dream. Sudden Death victory is a well established method to put pressure on both sides of a game to act in a historical manner in regard to defending and attacking. It is also a method to end clearly one sided games early. But thats secondary in this case.
Sudden death victory conditions are supposed to offer a equal chance for both sides if designed properly. Thats what I would advocate. I hate the fact that the runaway tactics employed by both sides can go unpunished. It's totally wrong. That is my primary motivation for sudden death.
The fear of losing is greater than the ambition of victory in most people. Thats why we see all this running away. I don't beleive the game is so unbalanced that there is no choice for the Russians to run in summer 1941 or the Germans to run in winter 41. People do it because its the no risk way to play. A mechanisim is needed to force people to fight for every inch just like the real war. I think sudden death is a way to do this. If not that then something else please... perhaps a victory set like James has described. HPS use it in their WWIE series. It would do the job but its complex to work out in the first instance. But beautiful when done right. It would mean giving up too much ground too early would mean giving up a lot of VP and increase dramatically the chance of a losing. Not the war, but the GAME. This is another point people are mixing up. Sudden death does not mean you neccesarily lose the war, but you lost the GAME [8|]
Now NM is also influenced by events : For example to emulate's the pressure in the Union for offensive action to finish of the reb rabble, several times the USA have to get armies within two provinces from Richmond otherwise they lose 5 or 10 NMpoints...
True, but those events are also open to abuse. A hyper agressive Rebel, with all those excellant leaders, will pour North. He can be sitting in Baltimore, lay seige to Washington, be sitting in Harrisburg, etc. And your newspapers will be screaming. Not because of that, but because you're not advancing.
I lost an AACW game exactly because of that. Spent six months working on an effective Army of the Potomac. I had smashed Confederate armies in Tennesse in August and had laid siege and captured New Orleans. And then I had to send the Army of the Potomac in a wild geese hunt around Richmond in autumn. After a "satisfactory" campaign across the Shenandoah valley, I found myself stranded at the gates of Richmond while the Army of Northern Virginia invaded Pennsylvania. After extricating it with a murderous winter march across the Allegheny, I was completely defeated in a major battle northeast of Washington, and it was game over.
I mean, the game was a kind of cool what-if. But the whole business was sort of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" engine, since it sort of creates an incentive to send a unadequately organized, supplied, equipped and trained army into Virginia, with the guarantee of it being shattered in the field.
It's worse against the AI, that exploits this and sends his über leaders with cavalry divisions to Albany, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, etc. totally destroying NM in the process even if Richmond falls and the CSA economy collapses...
I think you're going to find that a lot of us on the Soviet side flatly will refuse to play with these sudden death victory conditions; we're just not buying into the idea that this was in the cards. This whole thing seems like an exercise in futility to me. Even if the community somehow manages to cobble up an optional rule and convinces Joel to code it, Axis players (and this is really an Axis wish list) aren't going to find many Soviet opponents willing to play under these conditions
What you continually fail to acknowledge is that *either* side can win a sudden death victory. Its not a German fanboy dream. Sudden Death victory is a well established method to put pressure on both sides of a game to act in a historical manner in regard to defending and attacking. It is also a method to end clearly one sided games early. But thats secondary in this case.
Sudden death victory conditions are supposed to offer a equal chance for both sides if designed properly. Thats what I would advocate. I hate the fact that the runaway tactics employed by both sides can go unpunished. It's totally wrong. That is my primary motivation for sudden death.
The fear of losing is greater than the ambition of victory in most people. Thats why we see all this running away. I don't beleive the game is so unbalanced that there is no choice for the Russians to run in summer 1941 or the Germans to run in winter 41. People do it because its the no risk way to play. A mechanisim is needed to force people to fight for every inch just like the real war. I think sudden death is a way to do this. If not that then something else please... perhaps a victory set like James has described. HPS use it in their WWIE series. It would do the job but its complex to work out in the first instance. But beautiful when done right. It would mean giving up too much ground too early would mean giving up a lot of VP and increase dramatically the chance of a losing. Not the war, but the GAME. This is another point people are mixing up. Sudden death does not mean you neccesarily lose the war, but you lost the GAME [8|]
Exactly, I agree. However, the sudden death victory conditions are already there and serve their purpose imo. What is needed is a more dynamic VP system whereby holding(or losing) objectives garners VPs for specific turns and durations. SSG does this quite well in their series of games. I would think the designers of the game would be able to 'design' and implement one if they wished. After all, that is what they do. Asking the community to come up with and agree to some sort of system is a Machiavellian move to ensure nothing gets resolved or done lol.
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I think you're going to find that a lot of us on the Soviet side flatly will refuse to play with these sudden death victory conditions; we're just not buying into the idea that this was in the cards. This whole thing seems like an exercise in futility to me. Even if the community somehow manages to cobble up an optional rule and convinces Joel to code it, Axis players (and this is really an Axis wish list) aren't going to find many Soviet opponents willing to play under these conditions.
It's odd then I suppose that those old boardgames that did have those pesky sudden death rules managed to be enjoyed by so many wargamers over the years? [&:]
Something to keep in mind is that those old victory conditions worked both ways: first to keep the Russian player from running like a rabbit during the first couple years, and second to keep the German player from running like a rabbit during the last couple years. It is not simply an Axis "wish list" request. There's a damn good reason those old games had these mandatory sudden death victory conditions integrated as part of the game design, and seeing these disagreements pretty much validates why they were used. It's certainly no skin off anybody's bones to have them reintroduced as a game OPTION. [;)]
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Perhaps you can provide the basis on which the fall of Moscow would of meant much.
Perhaps losses of close to a million men in its' defense would serve.
No doubt in my mind that had the Sovs lost Moscow they would have continued to have fought. But its' loss would have been a big blow to morale.
As Clausewitz wrote...
"If we desire to defeat the enemy, we must proportion our efforts to his powers of resistance. This is expressed by the product of two factors which cannot be separated, namely, the sum of available means and the strength of the Will."
And while Clausewitz also stressed "The destruction of the enemy's military force, is the leading principle of War," he also pointed out that "In the combat the loss of moral force is the chief cause of the decision." That is to say that the loss of Will is the precursor to the destruction of the enemy's force.
From the theoretical point of view, loss of terrain and important geographical locations should effect the enemy's Will. Indeed Soviet reaction to the invasion shows that their leadership did indeed understand the importance of maintaining the national Will, as we see in the declaration of Minsk as a Hero City for holding on one week against the Axis invasion or the fanatic defense of Moscow. That is why they stood and fought and why, for example, the capture of the Hero City of Leningrad should lead to a drop in military morale.
If the design does not take Will into account, the forces operate in a vacuum in which events have no bearing on their ability to wage war, and therefore, it is flawed.
Which is why we find ourselves in this discussion...
The specific problem is that the game fails to simulate the breakdown of C&C in Summer '41 right? Lets see how we could model this without doing extremely unfun stuff like explicitly removing the Soviet player's ability to control them.
Rules for '41:
Knock 1/3 off the MP of all Soviet Units.
Reduce their ability to 'hold' supply by 1/2.
Double Offensive CV (but keep Defensive CV static).
For every Army/Front etc without a unit in 'contact' with a German formation, end-of-turn roll chance to lose AP/Rail capacity/Sack Commanding Officer.
Now obviously I've just plucked numbers out of thin air without a moment's consideration for what would actually be balanced, but those are the mechanisms I would play with to try to convince the Soviet player to stand and fight. Essentially what you want to do is offer the Soviet player chances to deliver solid punches to German forces he can catch out of position, with the proviso that the inevitable German response will probably mean the loss of the units delivering that punch (ie. as happened historically). What makes this tactic viable is that the MP reduction makes running away less viable. The carrot is the increased offensive punch (reflecting the fact that locally Soviet attacks did create danger points). The stick is the loss of Stuff-The-Soviet-Player-Wants if he plays Red Robin.
ORIGINAL: Alchenar
The specific problem is that the game fails to simulate the breakdown of C&C in Summer '41 right?
No, the specific problem is that the game fails to model national Will and its effect on the military and thus allows the Sov army to operate in a vacuum in which territory losses are of no consequence.
I lost an AACW game exactly because of that. Spent six months working on an effective Army of the Potomac. I had smashed Confederate armies in Tennesse in August and had laid siege and captured New Orleans. And then I had to send the Army of the Potomac in a wild geese hunt around Richmond in autumn. After a "satisfactory" campaign across the Shenandoah valley, I found myself stranded at the gates of Richmond while the Army of Northern Virginia invaded Pennsylvania. After extricating it with a murderous winter march across the Allegheny, I was completely defeated in a major battle northeast of Washington, and it was game over.
I mean, the game was a kind of cool what-if. But the whole business was sort of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" engine, since it sort of creates an incentive to send a unadequately organized, supplied, equipped and trained army into Virginia, with the guarantee of it being shattered in the field.
It's worse against the AI, that exploits this and sends his über leaders with cavalry divisions to Albany, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, etc. totally destroying NM in the process even if Richmond falls and the CSA economy collapses...
I am not saying the AACW system is perfect, but in a game like WITE it would work even better because the fact that there is a continuous frontline avoids excessive ahistoric behaviour. Nevertheless the broader point stands : the game is too linear and the player has no imput in some of its key aspects (evolution of national moral, for ex). an AACW's like system of NM, well done could have a positive effect on incentivising historic behaviour. Then adjustments could be made to the game so that this type of historic behaviour is made rational gamewise.
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I think you're going to find that a lot of us on the Soviet side flatly will refuse to play with these sudden death victory conditions; we're just not buying into the idea that this was in the cards. This whole thing seems like an exercise in futility to me. Even if the community somehow manages to cobble up an optional rule and convinces Joel to code it, Axis players (and this is really an Axis wish list) aren't going to find many Soviet opponents willing to play under these conditions.
It's odd then I suppose that those old boardgames that did have those pesky sudden death rules managed to be enjoyed by so many wargamers over the years? [&:]
Something to keep in mind is that those old victory conditions worked both ways: first to keep the Russian player from running like a rabbit during the first couple years, and second to keep the German player from running like a rabbit during the last couple years. It is not simply an Axis "wish list" request. There's a damn good reason those old games had these mandatory sudden death victory conditions integrated as part of the game design, and seeing these disagreements pretty much validates why they were used. It's certainly no skin off anybody's bones to have them reintroduced as a game OPTION. [;)]
The Soviets are not "running like rabbits." The frontier armies are being annihilated in the first couple of turns -- including, ahistorically, SW Front, and there's simply not much left to stop the Wehrmacht until it's gone very far east. People are not "running" away from Leningrad. Nor or are they "running" from the Dnepr.
Right now the game's offensive tempo is just ridiculously fast, and what people are confusing as "running" is in fact the Germans running out of targets in the first half dozen or so turns and simply stampeding what scattered resistance they meet.
There's a problem with 1941, but it's not the problem that most folks here think it is nor is it a problem that will be solved by fiddling with VP.
Perhaps you can provide the basis on which the fall of Moscow would of meant much.
would have*
And why would it need to mean much? Victory conditions don't necessarily have to be based around a "realistic" political/diplomatic outcome.
As I said previously, these same developers felt comfortable assigning a VP threshold for the Japanese that would award a game-ending "win" for them despite the lack of evidence suggesting that the Western Allies would ever have laid down arms and just accept an in-place Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
Indeed, it may well be that this is an acceptable auto-victory threshold because it represents Japan doing significantly better than its historical performance.
So why shouldn't the German player be given a similarly game-ending win for similarly exceeding historical expectations, even if there's nothing to suggest that Stalin would sign an armistice either?
