New House Rule Idea for PBEM

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, elmo3, Sabre21

User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM

Post by Redmarkus5 »

Maybe we need a thread for compiling suggested PBEM House Rules? Some idiot tried to start one a while back, but... ;) tm.asp?m=2648540
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
ComradeP
Posts: 6992
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:11 pm

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM

Post by ComradeP »

Honestly I am not seeing the Axis fighter losses against recon missions - I just checked the last AI move - it did well over 100 recon missions and not one Axis fighter was lost - and not one Soviet recon plane was lost, either.

It varies due to fatique and damage. If the same unit tries to intercept a large amount of recon units, there's a good chance for some losses, especially if the unit was fatiqued at the end of the turn or bombed.

I'm not seeing 1 loss for every 2 intercepts yet, but it's a situation that I have seen playing as the Soviets. It's possible some of the latest changes resulted in fewer losses, but I'm still losing fighters to pointless intercepts.
SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
User avatar
Zemke
Posts: 667
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 12:45 am
Location: Oklahoma

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM

Post by Zemke »

ORIGINAL: Ametysth

Besides, it wasn't old designs that hampered Russian aviation, it was poor tactical doctrine in Air-to-Air combat. They were just as bad in dogfights flying Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-40's and P-39's as they were with I-153's and -16's.

You are spot on Ametysth.

The Soviets had great planes by the middle of the war, the La-5/7 and Yak-3 were great aircraft, but pilot training/quality combined with horrible centralized control doctrine gave the Germans a huge advantage, (Granted there were some exceptional Soviet pilots).

I truly believe this is the one area the Germans always had an advantage until the very end of the war. The problem is the Eastern Front was huge, combined with a huge growth in the Soviet Air Force, the Luftwaffe had no hope of providing protection/support anywhere near what they could in the West. Most German ground units hardly ever saw the Luftwaffe and only the most important ground operations were supported...in general.

I am sure this is a mistake, but I never even mess with air, except to ensure the bases are in range to support my ground units.
"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
User avatar
CarnageINC
Posts: 2208
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Rapid City SD

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM

Post by CarnageINC »

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

ORIGINAL: Ametysth

Besides, it wasn't old designs that hampered Russian aviation, it was poor tactical doctrine in Air-to-Air combat. They were just as bad in dogfights flying Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-40's and P-39's as they were with I-153's and -16's.

You are spot on Ametysth.

The Soviets had great planes by the middle of the war, the La-5/7 and Yak-3 were great aircraft, but pilot training/quality combined with horrible centralized control doctrine gave the Germans a huge advantage, (Granted there were some exceptional Soviet pilots).

I truly believe this is the one area the Germans always had an advantage until the very end of the war. The problem is the Eastern Front was huge, combined with a huge growth in the Soviet Air Force, the Luftwaffe had no hope of providing protection/support anywhere near what they could in the West. Most German ground units hardly ever saw the Luftwaffe and only the most important ground operations were supported...in general.

I am sure this is a mistake, but I never even mess with air, except to ensure the bases are in range to support my ground units.

Exactly! The one advantage the Germans had is so off in the game that I feel until its properly addressed that it should be shelfed until it is properly fix. Not to knock the developers but I really don't expect a super improvement any time soon.

This idea will turn off a few players, I can live with that but it will help focus solely on the ground war which is the main focus for the game anyways. Yes there are arguments about the Shturmovik's but the Luftwaffe looses the Stuka's which were a great tank killer (which doesn't do diddly now) until the Soviets gained air superiority late in the war through shear numbers.
Post Reply

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