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).
OK Erik, well I travel on business about 50% of my life, so a solid AI experience is really important for me. The reason I still play WitE is that it remains my dream game - but mainly in my dreams thus far.
I take your point that the AI is probably the best so far for 'a game of this scale'. However, most of my enhancement requests seem fairly fundamental to me:
1. Make the AI defend cities, especially if they are also victory hexes.
2. Make it attack when it has overwhelming local superiority.
3. Restrain it from advancing beyond the ZoC reach of follow-on forces.
I know that huge amounts of effort have gone into fixing many deeply detailed aspects of the game (are there enough '42 Stugs in production in June '42, etc.) but for my purposes that's all secondary.
Those three changes above would pretty much shut me up - for a while at least
I played the retreat from Leningrad against the Soviet AI and was very disapointed with the initial few turns of the Soviets that I believed should be able to crush and rush to Riga with no effort and thinking at all, just using force and speed.
So I turned sides and have played the Soviets with this rush and crush tactic and guess what - the German AI makes a pretty good job and my progress via the red wave tactic has not been extremly impressive and there is still no huge hole in the German frontline. Yes, I have played the soviets quick and dirty with not to much thinking and maximizing odds and plotting the tactic...
In essence I agree its a very good computer AI, its not an human oponent but good enough to have a fun blitz game.
And after all, thats why I play games - to have some fun...
Well, it seems that either nobody has observed the three flaws I listed above, or nobody is bothered by them a year into the game, since none of the replies actually addresses them in any depth.
OK Erik, well I travel on business about 50% of my life, so a solid AI experience is really important for me. The reason I still play WitE is that it remains my dream game - but mainly in my dreams thus far.
I take your point that the AI is probably the best so far for 'a game of this scale'. However, most of my enhancement requests seem fairly fundamental to me:
1. Make the AI defend cities, especially if they are also victory hexes.
2. Make it attack when it has overwhelming local superiority.
3. Restrain it from advancing beyond the ZoC reach of follow-on forces.
I know that huge amounts of effort have gone into fixing many deeply detailed aspects of the game (are there enough '42 Stugs in production in June '42, etc.) but for my purposes that's all secondary.
Those three changes above would pretty much shut me up - for a while at least
Didn't Hausser abandon Kharkov before the backhand blow? Maybe Paul Hausser is the role model for the AI? [;)]
It would seem that some scenarios when played of human vs. AI are best played by the human as a certain side. If you choose to play the other side instead, I would presume you do so at your own risk... [:)]
OK Erik, well I travel on business about 50% of my life, so a solid AI experience is really important for me. The reason I still play WitE is that it remains my dream game - but mainly in my dreams thus far.
I take your point that the AI is probably the best so far for 'a game of this scale'. However, most of my enhancement requests seem fairly fundamental to me:
1. Make the AI defend cities, especially if they are also victory hexes.
2. Make it attack when it has overwhelming local superiority.
3. Restrain it from advancing beyond the ZoC reach of follow-on forces.
I know that huge amounts of effort have gone into fixing many deeply detailed aspects of the game (are there enough '42 Stugs in production in June '42, etc.) but for my purposes that's all secondary.
Those three changes above would pretty much shut me up - for a while at least
Didn't Hausser abandon Kharkov before the backhand blow? Maybe Paul Hausser is the role model for the AI? [;)]
Yes, but then the backhand blow was delivered! Anyway, wasn't that in 43? The scenario is '42 pre-Stalingrad.
Don't want to be negative honestly but WitE does not do small scenarios like Uranus at all well. The suspension of belief is too great. This does not bode well for WitW. An example of this is the entire 6th army which as we know was heavily engaged in the streets of Stalingrad can merrily disengage and move along the axis of its choice (Yup the logistics model aint good). The mechanics of the game do not differentiate between a units circumstance a unit behaves exactly the same way if it is down to 5000 men defending a ten mile front as a 15,000 strong division attacking on a mile frontage.
Personally I think it is a shame that such an in depth game is so weak in too many important areas
Don't want to be negative honestly but WitE does not do small scenarios like Uranus at all well. The suspension of belief is too great. This does not bode well for WitW. An example of this is the entire 6th army which as we know was heavily engaged in the streets of Stalingrad can merrily disengage and move along the axis of its choice (Yup the logistics model aint good). The mechanics of the game do not differentiate between a units circumstance a unit behaves exactly the same way if it is down to 5000 men defending a ten mile front as a 15,000 strong division attacking on a mile frontage.
Personally I think it is a shame that such an in depth game is so weak in too many important areas
Hausser is the role model for the AI?
I just wonder - most of your time here seems occupied with telling everyone the game is utter crap and is no good. I wonder why, if its that bad, you havent moved on long ago and started playing something else. Seriously - if its that bad - why do you bother coming here ?[&:]
I dont really see your point above in any case - logistics aside - surely the whole point of the 6th Armies situation in stalingrad was that it wasnt allowed to disengage. Even when surrounded they werent allowed to break out. So - whether the underlying theme of your argument has any validity - you have likely chosen the very worst example in the whole war to illustrate it.
Had the 6th army chosen the correct moment - they might very well have been able to disengage in a manner that kept them in good order.
Not sure if this is a debate about the AI or the value of the expansion.
My own opinion is based on several factors:
1) Shorter scenarios allow me the fun of the game system and the reward of an outcome in a very reasonable amount of real life time.
2) The smaller scenarios allow me to explore the numbers behind the game - micro managing the GC is very time consuming - but digging in what SU's are assigned, specific aircraft, leader ratings, etc in the scenarios has given me greater insight into the GC - and actually made my skill there improve.
3) The smaller advanced year scenarios give me a chance to see how the armies need to evolve
4) The smaller scope allows me to try multiple strategies/tactics to see what may work or what may not. In Decision in the Ukraine I tried 3 different openings with the 60th army and learned from each.
5) And best of all - while waiting for a PBEM turn from my opponent in the GC - I can mess around in the scenarios.
Not sure if this is a debate about the AI or the value of the expansion.
My own opinion is based on several factors:
1) Shorter scenarios allow me the fun of the game system and the reward of an outcome in a very reasonable amount of real life time.
2) The smaller scenarios allow me to explore the numbers behind the game - micro managing the GC is very time consuming - but digging in what SU's are assigned, specific aircraft, leader ratings, etc in the scenarios has given me greater insight into the GC - and actually made my skill there improve.
3) The smaller advanced year scenarios give me a chance to see how the armies need to evolve
4) The smaller scope allows me to try multiple strategies/tactics to see what may work or what may not. In Decision in the Ukraine I tried 3 different openings with the 60th army and learned from each.
5) And best of all - while waiting for a PBEM turn from my opponent in the GC - I can mess around in the scenarios.
I just wonder - most of your time here seems occupied with telling everyone the game is utter crap and is no good. I wonder why, if its that bad, you havent moved on long ago and started playing something else. Seriously - if its that bad - why do you bother coming here ?
I dont really see your point above in any case - logistics aside - surely the whole point of the 6th Armies situation in stalingrad was that it wasnt allowed to disengage. Even when surrounded they werent allowed to break out. So - whether the underlying theme of your argument has any validity - you have likely chosen the very worst example in the whole war to illustrate it.
Had the 6th army chosen the correct moment - they might very well have been able to disengage in a manner that kept them in good order.
I would like the games to improve that's kinda the point.
Now if you read what I have written with regards the uranus scenario and compare it to events you will notice the mechanics are unsupportable. I am using an example that is easy to comprehend. The bottom line is you have fantastic structure to units hats off to that but in the scheme of things they all behave the same way in every circumstance no matter what situation they find themselves in which is well and truly ludicrous. Like you say if the 6th army had of composed itself and organised a breakout no doubt it could have moved in reasonable shape the thing is the game dont reflect that.
We buy the game and we play it because we love it and see its potential, just like you.
Some of us put long hours of free time into community mods for the same reasons.
We complain because the flaws are obvious, yet they haven't been fixed in over a year. Oh, and because we're paying customers and therefore entitled to complain. And because one outcome of WW2 was a guarantee to this right to free speech for all of us. And because forums like this offer a channel for lodging complaints and getting feedback from the devs and the wider fan base. Need any more reasons? I have a ton.
We don't abuse other members. We don't waste time in other forums, even when we own those games. We merely seek perfection from the best developers in this market because we know they can deliver it.
ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
Now, to those who hate WitE complainers:
We buy the game and we play it because we love it and see its potential, just like you.
Some of us put long hours of free time into community mods for the same reasons.
We don't abuse other members. We don't waste time in other forums, even when we own those games. We merely seek perfection from the best developers in this market because we know they can deliver it.
I don't see any hate or abuse. I do see agreement and disagreement but that's normal.
We complain because the flaws are obvious, yet they haven't been fixed in over a year. Oh, and because we're paying customers and therefore entitled to complain. And because one outcome of WW2 was a guarantee to this right to free speech for all of us. And because forums like this offer a channel for lodging complaints and getting feedback from the devs and the wider fan base. Need any more reasons? I have a ton.
The only part here where I feel you are being unfair is with this comment that things haven't been fixed in over a year. Just take a look at the six updates since release and all the fixes, changes and improvements. A lot has indeed been fixed, many changes have been made and the result is IMHO a better game. The AI is included in that. The 1.06 AI could beat the 1.00 AI fairly handily, but it will never be as good as a good human player. It's not perfect, but it serves as very good training and can give a good player a challenge if you set it to Challenging or higher.
I'm just tired of people who imply that we don't have any business complaining about the item we bought.
I did acknowledge all the detailed fixes that have been delivered. Do you have any response to these three AI issues/observations?
1. Make the AI defend cities, especially if they are also victory hexes.
Yes, pretty much unfixable at this point without risk of breaking more than it fixes. Gary put in code to try to get it to go after victory cities, and quite awhile ago had tried to get it to defend cities obviously without a lot of impact. The AI is written by Gary, and Gary alone. It is incredibly complex and easily broken, so at some point the cost/benefit analysis says it's time to give up.
2. Make it attack when it has overwhelming local superiority.
Again, it isn't as easy as it sounds. However, Gary had for many months suspected a problem in an AI routine that was trying to get the Soviet AI especially to attack more aggressively when it had superiority. He wrote a special routine to help this problem, but it never seemed to work as well as he wanted it to. About a week ago while working on WitW AI in Sicily/Italy, Gary discovered that one routine was overriding the newer routine and preventing the attacks he was looking for. He made the changes in WitW and saw an immediate improvement. He then made a similar change in WitE and tests showed him that it was finally being more aggressive. This will be in the next WitE patch. It will help, but we can't say yet exactly how much. This is one of those cases where Gary could work for weeks/months and never see the problem, but seeing the code working in another situation (WitW) allowed him to see the problem.
3. Restrain it from advancing beyond the ZoC reach of follow-on forces.
Un-fixable?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I will say that Gary has spent months of additional work on the WitE AI after release, some of which was possible because he knew it would carry over to WitW. Almost every AI issue that has been brought up on the forum (if not every issue, and certainly every issue with detailed saves) has been looked at by Gary at one time or another. He improves what he can, but no, it is not at all easy to "fix" many of the issues that are brought up.
