War in the East...

[Joel Billings]

This game is some where in between the old War in Russia and WitP in terms of length. It's weekly turns like War in Russia, but with units being divisions (and some brigades) instead of corps, it's fair to assume the game will take 2-4 times as long to play as War in Russia. I haven't done a time estimate though, so I could be off. It's fair to say that turns can take an hour each, although initially they can take longer, and later on I think they might take less time. With around 200 turns, that sounds like 200 hours to play through, but it could be more (or less). WitP has daily turns, so it has 7 times the number of turns. Although some players can get into playing WitP turns in 15 minutes once they get going, that's still roughly twice the time. Once we get further along be sure to ask us again and we'll try to give a better time estimate.

[Fintilgin]

Thanks, I'll definitely keep an eye on it. One nice thing about Barbarossa is, if you're playing the Germans, you can potentially pull off a win in well less than the full 200 turns.

It's probably not feasible, but it would be nice if you could turn over more of the fiddly stuff to the AI. Let it auto-manage more of the supply/reinforcement stuff, maybe allowing you to say, prioritize HQs X, Y, and Z. Or even turn over a particular front or group of units to the AI with orders like HOLD, ADVANCE ON ROSTOV CAUTIOUSLY, or NOT A STEP BACK. Something so you can focus in on areas of particular interest to you and move through the game more quickly. With such a huge game it would actually be cool if you could set a couple grand strategic goals for the AI which would then plot out your turn for you. You could then go in and tweak and override things towards your vision, reinforcing particular areas, taking control of some HQs to micromanage a particular battle or encirclment, etc. As if you were playing Hitler or Stalin and the AI was your generals presenting their strategies which you could approve and modify, without forcing you to go in and click on all 3000 of your individual units every single turn (but letting you do so if you wanted). But that, I imagine, would probably be a different game design all together.

I get a touch frustrated sometimes, because I really want a grand strategy game like this that is deeper, richer, and more complex then offerings like Strategic Command, but 300+ hour Monster Mega Games where you have to micromanage every individual bullet, shell, and can of beans leave me out in the cold. Someday, someone will make a game at just the scale I'd like, and I'll be a happy camper.

[benpark]

I have great expectations for this game.

I would hope to see a few things:

-The ability to reconstitute units that have been eliminated. I'm hoping for something a bit more complex than the standard elimination of units given the divisional level scale.

-Surrender of units under certain circumstances (surrounded for x amount of time without hope of resupply and certain over-run attacks, perhaps). I also hope that some method of depicting morale is taken into account for units on an individual and strategic basis.

-A map and unit depiction that appeals to board gamers, yet moves the look of these games forward visually. I also hope Berlin is in (and game play until 1945), and given breathing room to the West for envelopment. Too many games have it on the last hex of the board/screen.

-Lastly, a user interface that makes the game play fluidly instead of being torture to play.

[Josans]

Gary and Joel are working hard to make a great game about East Front (with help from testers [;)]), with very accuracy but at the same time looking for no spend a lot of time to make a turn as long as witp.
I think we will have many optional rules to people just want a fast turn game or players like to control anything. For example, right now, you can choose to do air missions with a simply click of the mouse or do it mannualy from each airbase. You choose. The overall result can be the same but Gary give you the chance to focused at the deep of the game if you want...
The OOB is excellent and be sure you will have a great game and a lot of info like a book about Eastern Front in the same package.

[JJKettunen]

Is any part of the Finnish front covered? I could help you with the OOB if there's any need.

[U2]

ORIGINAL: Keke

Is any part of the Finnish front covered? I could help you with the OOB if there's any need.

Yes, it is.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: U2

ORIGINAL: Keke

Is any part of the Finnish front covered? I could help you with the OOB if there's any need.

Yes, it is.

All of it?

[U2]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: U2

ORIGINAL: Keke

Is any part of the Finnish front covered? I could help you with the OOB if there's any need.

Yes, it is.

All of it?

I don't know if I am allowed to go into specifics due to the NDA. Hopefully Joel will answer you.

[Joel Billings]

We're just covering the very southernmost portion of the Finnish front (Leningrad, Svir River sp?).

[JJKettunen]

Thanks for the info. Just let me know if you need any kind of help.

[Zaratoughda]

OK, a number of questions here...

First, if there is free movement, what's to prevent a player from attacking with a couple of units and if they don't succeed, just move them out of the way and attack with some other units.

This was a major problem with Norm Koger's 'Age of Rifles'. If your attack got thrown back just attack with other units. I tried the Gettysburg scenario and the computer ended up attacking not once, not twice, but three times along these lines... and it came off as being really silly compared to games like SSI's Gettysburg: Turning Point.

The whole thing with free movement, plotted movement (like in War in Russia) or 'attacks cause loss of movement points' (like in TOAW) is crucial to a game and the idea that combat units' attack ability is diminished the more MP they use, is interesting and may prove effective.

But, there are lots of aspects to this whole thing.

Z

[Zaratoughda]

Next question (or comment, whatever).....

10 miles per hex and weekly turns???

Hmmmm.... War in Russia was 20 miles per hex and weekly turns, so you would think that with 10 miles per hex you would have two turns per week.

Also, Western Front, was corps/division level (not sure the scale) and, 4 day turns.

Most of the scenarios in TOAW that have scales along these lines have half week (or less) turns.

I recently sent an EMail to Rob Kunz, who did the series of scenarios, I believe there were like 8 of them, for TOAW, on the progress of Army Group Center. Here the unit size was division/regiment and 10 KM/hex (6.2 miles/hex) and.... daily (!) turns. I asked him if he had interest in doing the same series of scenarios for the new 2x3 eastern front game and he said he sure would but.... thinking about it now I am not sure these scenarios could be done with weekly turns.

Someone posted in this thread that they would like a game that didn't take forever and I have the same feelings but, would prefer two turns per week and smaller scenarios for those of us that want the shorter games and, the campaign game at two turns per week for those that want a longer game (but, sheesh, even two turns per week is WAY faster than the daily turns of WitP).

Anyways, you got my opinon on this one.

Z

[Zaratoughda]

One other thing.... I am just curious.... division/BRIGADE??

Hmmm.... most games/scenarios that I have seen at this level, for the Germans, have the infantry in divisions and the exceptional units (panzer and some motorized) in regiments with the divisional level batalions in the divisional HQ unit.

So, where do BRIGADES come in here?

Sounds like you are attaching the divisional level batalions to the regiments and calling them brigades. <g>

Of course, for the Russians it is always a challange because their divisions were a lot smaller. Can usually get by with Russians at one level higher (e.g. corps instead of divisions) but some go with Russian divisions (at this level) and... then there are a LOT of them.

Z

[Lützow]

At a second thought I'm unsure about weekly turns also. This should work well for the great campaign but makes it harder to depicture smaller scenarios. Barbarossa was not the slowly attrition warfare we know from pacific theate but predominantly a series of decisive battles. That being said, you can hardly use same scale for Leningrad siege and Wintergewitter.

[Zaratoughda]

For a game that does not take that long.... there should be a Barbarosa scenario that ends when the whether first turns bad. I did such a scenario for WiR in the last year and it was a 15 turn scenario..... if you went with half week turns it would be a 30 turn scenario and still that is not that bad.

In any case, such a scenario would be good for playtest, as it could be played many times and if there is any play unbalance it could be weeded out.

Z

[benpark]

A week does seem too large a block of time, but I figured that it was developmentally fixed by now. Maybe not- so I'll add my voice to the list of wanting smaller blocks of time per turn.

I hope that the game is geared toward the equivalent crowd as WiP was- die hard wargamers that don't mind a lot of units, detail and time spent with the game. If the game is going to be more of a light wargame, I'll be greatly disappointed as this is the area of my greatest interest historically. Don't be afraid to create the be all, end all, Alpha and Omega of Eastern Front wargames.

[wosung]

Well, honestly I like the scale of WIR and PW more than that of WitP.

With the latter you just have not few meaningless boring turns, nevertheless with a clickfeast. Because: It's so detailed, and you better manage everything on your own instead of delegating to your PC. Sometimes I quit before the first turn, just because I am tired of moving all the subs out manually. And yes: I know about AE.

I played all three extensively. But even now more WIR and PW than WitP. For me the former, after nearly 15 years, just got exactly the right space, time and unit scale.

I only wish these two classical games could be remade with

-global scale
-politics, research and enhanced production
-better interface, with player determined rules of engagement and command by HQ's


Regards

[Zaratoughda]

Yeah, really, can't see why they let these games (WiR and PW) just die.

Maybe.... what they should do, is a new version of World at War.... this time integrating the hex map and corps level WiR, Western Front, and PW as well, all into a new monster game... covering all of WW2 at the corps/army level and weekly turns.

Hmmmm.... lol.... this one would be interesting for sure but at best this would be something after the new east front game is completed.

Z

[benpark]

You can get that scale (corps and army) with lots of games that are out there. Hubert Carter's Strategic Command is one, there are others. A game that simulates only the Soviet-German conflict is where my interest lies. The more detailed, the better. If some find the detail of this scale and subject boring, you must have never played "Drang Nach Osten" in a garage for months on end (and enjoyed the heck out of it).

[Helpless]

Even in WIR each turn was made of impulses, so you can plan some in turn reaction. Probably the same goes with new WIE, just with more "impulses" per turn.

Although I got used to one day turns in WITP, it seems that longer control periods are more realistic for the front commander - you need to plan better, but game flow is faster and less forgiving..