A complete overhaul and re-development of Gary Grigsby's War in the East, with a focus on improvements to historical accuracy, realism, user interface and AI.
The most interesting thing is that at the beginning of the war, the 3rd tank group, for example, was operatively subordinate to the commander of the 9th army! And in the game, on the contrary, the 9th army is easier to disband and subordinate all the troops to the 3rd tank group.
It does seem odd that there is no difference between a panzer group and a panzer army besides the name.
Returned from a vacation and have just found a few minutes to review the numerous points of view on the topic above. It seems to me HLYA is catching some heat for pointing out some obvious facts (or flaws) concerning the the game we all love and the way some players are using certain game mechanics. He is not, and IMHO has never told anyone how to play. He does draw lines on how he plays. Why that triggers others I do not understand. Assault HQ's is not yet perfected and is only one of several game mechanics that needs to be examined. An examination of the facts not preference is what is needed. HYLA please keep up the good work.
“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
Returned from a vacation and have just found a few minutes to review the numerous points of view on the topic above. It seems to me HLYA is catching some heat for pointing out some obvious facts (or flaws) concerning the the game we all love and the way some players are using certain game mechanics. He is not, and IMHO has never told anyone how to play. He does draw lines on how he plays. Why that triggers others I do not understand. Assault HQ's is not yet perfected and is only one of several game mechanics that needs to be examined. An examination of the facts not preference is what is needed. HYLA please keep up the good work.
I think the individual who is saying that is more referring to me, and one of my posts. Which I stand by my statement, and I was not telling anyone how to play, only that the game currently is historically inaccurate if players play a certain way, ie, fall back as fast as possible. Anyway....nothing HLYA said, (I don't think).
The most interesting thing is that at the beginning of the war, the 3rd tank group, for example, was operatively subordinate to the commander of the 9th army! And in the game, on the contrary, the 9th army is easier to disband and subordinate all the troops to the 3rd tank group.
It does seem odd that there is no difference between a panzer group and a panzer army besides the name.
As Panzer groups they were subordinate to the infantry armies. Early in the campaign, Kluge was put in command of the new 4th Panzer Army, which was composed of 2nd and 3rd Panzergruppes. (It didn't last long, but in the game it doesn't matter.)
The Sovs had Strategic Direction commands, later replaced by STAVKA representatives. No real difference in the game.
Just one further question please. Do you only play the Soviet side of this game? Thank you in advance for your answer.
Just started playing the Axis side.
Assault HQs as they stand could use some adjustment. Certainly they should not be overloaded.
Great! Ya, playing both sides will enhance your understanding tremendously Then take that experience and play your favorite side. Good luck to you Sir!
Thx. I'm paying attention to those who say you should play both sides.
If only things were as black and white as you like to portray them. 1: Neither Leningrad or Moscow fell to the Axis. Very true, and that means what exactly? The Germans isolated Leningrad, and the executive decision was made to not take it. In the game, the German player has a very hard time even isolating Leningrad, much less taking it against a human opponent that is reasonably experienced. Granted the Germans never took Moscow, but in the game can the German player launch an offensive in October and get adjacent to Moscow, which would be the historical equivalent. I dare say no, unless the Soviet player is totally incompetent. It other words, the game currently does not mirror historical outcomes.
2: Riga didn't fall in the first week. I found ONE source that said the date of capture for Riga was 1 July 41, which would be T1. Although I consider only one source not enough evidence to dispute your statement. 1st Panzer Div took Ostrov on 4 July. This is 3 hexes south of Pskov! So taking Riga on turn one would not be suprising at all given the historical advance rates.
3: It wasn't possible to seal the pockets like you can in the game. At one point, 14,000 were pocketed. 2,000 captured, they let the rest escape. True, and seldom were perfectly sealed. But your example lacks any historical context. What "pocket" battle are you referring to? I do know that in the Baltic and Belarus areas that around 300,000 Soviets were captured, I guess they did not get out of their pocket.
4: Guderian was removed from command before the end of 1941 and never served in a field command the rest of the war. Yes he was, by that genius military leader Hitler, need I say more. I guess what you are saying is the game should use historical changes of command, hey I would be willing to support that.
5: Directive 33 and 33a stripped Army Group Center of its panzer groups so they can assist the other two groups. True again. Try shifting these Panzer groups around like that in the game, they arrive with high fatigue and low combat CV, so that is why you usually won't see that by players. I understand your point, I am saying the Soviets could not pull back as quickly and as well organized as they do in the game, and if some sort of mechanism was introduced in the game to "force" this, then the Germans should also be forces to live with their own historical moves. I think that the designers decided that both Hitler and Stalin did so many stupid moves and orders that forcing that into the game would be too much and too scripted.
6: New panzer production was held back for new panzer units. Both Hoth and Guderian, when meeting Hitler, begged for the release of new panzers and replacement engines. All they got was 400 engines and 35 new tanks. Well if you played the Germans, in 1941, you are not getting "New Panzers" in any sort of numbers that make up for the loses, I can certainly tell you that. Given the terrible through put of on the Russian rail system, it is no surprise either. You can sent 26 tons in the form of a tank, or 26 tons of fuel. Fuel was needed much more than new tanks.
If only things were as black and white as you like to portray them.
1: Neither Leningrad or Moscow fell to the Axis. Very true, and that means what exactly? The Germans isolated Leningrad, and the executive decision was made to not take it. In the game, the German player has a very hard time even isolating Leningrad, much less taking it against a human opponent that is reasonably experienced. Granted the Germans never took Moscow, but in the game can the German player launch an offensive in October and get adjacent to Moscow, which would be the historical equivalent. I dare say no, unless the Soviet player is totally incompetent. It other words, the game currently does not mirror historical outcomes.
2: Riga didn't fall in the first week. I found ONE source that said the date of capture for Riga was 1 July 41, which would be T1. Although I consider only one source not enough evidence to dispute your statement. 1st Panzer Div took Ostrov on 4 July. This is 3 hexes south of Pskov! So taking Riga on turn one would not be surprising at all given the historical advance rates.
3: It wasn't possible to seal the pockets like you can in the game. At one point, 14,000 were pocketed. 2,000 captured, they let the rest escape. True, and seldom if ever were pockets perfectly sealed, even today in with the US Army in 2003 in Iraq. But your example lacks any historical context. What "pocket" battle are you referring to? I do know that in the Baltic and Belarus areas that around 300,000 Soviets were captured, I guess they did not get out of their pockets.
4: Guderian was removed from command before the end of 1941 and never served in a field command the rest of the war. Yes he was, by that military genius Hitler, need I say more. I guess what you are saying is the game should use historical changes of command, hey I would be willing to support that. Given the two sides and the quality of leadership, this would probably hurt the Russians more than the Germans.
5: Directive 33 and 33a stripped Army Group Center of its panzer groups so they can assist the other two groups. True again. Try shifting these Panzer groups around like that in the game, they arrive with high fatigue and low combat CV, so that is why you usually won't see that done by players. I understand your point, I am saying the Soviets could not pull back as quickly and as well organized as they do in the game, and if some sort of mechanism was introduced in the game to "force" this, then the Germans should also be forces to live with their own historical moves. I think that the designers decided that both Hitler and Stalin did so many stupid moves and orders that forcing that into the game would be too much and too scripted.
6: New panzer production was held back for new panzer units. Both Hoth and Guderian, when meeting Hitler, begged for the release of new panzers and replacement engines. All they got was 400 engines and 35 new tanks. Well if you played the Germans, in 1941, you are not getting "New Panzers" in any sort of numbers that make up for the loses, I can certainly tell you that. Given the terrible through put of on the Russian rail system, it is no surprise either. You can sent 26 tons in the form of a tank, or 26 tons of fuel. Fuel was needed much more than new tanks.
In conclusion, the game should have been tested using historical examples. In the game can the Germans isolate Leningrad given the Soviet player is going to cover that area with an Assault HQ, while using historical forces on both sides? Can the Germans launch an Offensive in October from historical start lines and get adjacent to Moscow by Dec 6? Again using the same forces involved. If the answer is no, (which I suspect it is) then something is wrong. Be it Assault HQs, movement rates, fatigue build up, something is not correct. This in turn leads to much earlier Soviet dominance in the game, that did not happen.
What is the answer? I would adjust things till the two above examples could be meet, by whatever means the designers think is appropriate. In the context of the game, this should not be that hard.
I do have to say that the mechanisms required to give a historical outcome by player vs AI (w/o super cheating) and player vs expert player are significantly different.
I think it is unreasonable to think that both goals can be achieved. Perhaps human games need a special set of restrictions that only apply to them.
Furthermore, I never expect to be a hardcore GG play, but let's say casually competent. I think to make the game worth my while, I should have some chance of a win. Maybe not the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, but by the 5th play ... I should.
You know the Fritz chess series engine assumed that players would learn the most and remain engaged if they won 1 out of 4 games. Towards that end after you set set your own initial level, your FIDE score would be calculated every training session and its FIDE rating of play would be adjusted accordingly.
Boy, would that be a brilliant system for a game such as this.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
Then take that experience and play your favorite side. Good luck to you Sir!
