A Different Strategy?

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, Sabre21, elmo3

User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by Michael T »

The only way for the German to win at this time is to destory allot of industry during 41, then destory allot of Russians during 42 then hang on for a draw if your lucky vs an equal player.

Wouldn't you expect a game between equal players to be a draw? Also there is more than one way to win in 41, Pelton seems to think mad charges toward industrial centres is the only way to do it. I disagree.

Sure some points he makes are good. But others not so. Like the one above. If no one refutes it, it becomes accepted.

User avatar
Encircled
Posts: 2097
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Northern England

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by Encircled »

The announced changes for 1.05 look terrific and would seem to indicate a more balanced and better game will be around the corner,

If you are a German player, then yes, of course it will be more balanced!

Lets have a look at this from the perspective of a Soviet player

-Morale starts at 50 (good) but drops to 45 (not so good). So you have decent units turns 1-5 (most of which get encircled) and when you really need them, you have morale 45 units all along the front in the crucial mid to late '41 turns

-Less morale in the winter than currently, means a weaker Soviet counter offensive. If the German is mad enough to fight in the open, then that might be okay, but how many German players are going to do that?

-Airbase attacks nerfed, so untouchable Luftwaffe for god knows how long

-Soviet production drops by a 1/3, so you have a much slower rate of re arming the Soviet army

-Forts drop to Lvl 2, unless you build fortified zones at 16 VP each (thats 4 VP's less than a Tank Army ffs!)and are next the Germans. How many German players are going to politely wait next to your 1-1 infantry division whilst the Lvl 3 fort is built?

Add that to the nerfed Swamps, so Tanks can drive unhindered through the unpassable forest of Northern Russia to encircle Leningrad from about 1,000 miles away, and it doesn't look that great does it?

Oh, and add the plans to get rid of the 1 v 1 rule (without it, any German unit stronger than "5" will probably be invincible) and the ridiculous idea that OKW would send 2 to 3 motorised divsions to certain death just to grab some factories, and you have a game that will have German fanboys coming in their pants.


*DISCLAIMER* This is not actually what I believe, but I'm putting it together like certain German players would, exaggerating the problems and not listing enough examples of how this will affect the long term play in the game..

I hope the changes make '42 more interesting, but at the cost of destroying '41, '43, '44 and '45?, and thats where I have my concerns.

Lots and lots of testing required by us all to see the long term effects is required
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by Michael T »

-Soviet production drops by a 1/3, so you have a much slower rate of re arming the Soviet army

I am a little worried about this one too. But we shall see I guess.
Jakerson
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:46 am

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by Jakerson »

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Don't let yourself become influenced by the rants of one disenchanted player. WITE is a fun game and very winable for the Axis if your good enough. IMO it is maybe slightly in favour of the Soviets if they survive 41.

All I can speak about my experince.

I have won many scenarios and even my first campaign against human opponent while playing Axis side. I won it very stunningly I was able to destroy 95% of Soviet army and occupied virtually every hex of game map up to auto victory. More you kill Soviets easier it become to make new pockets in the future it is part of Game dynamic.

I think game gives Axis side better logistics that was historically possible but that is probably to make game more fun to play as axis.

I have also lost some games especially when I played my first games against human opponents it is easy to do very big mistakes and game truly punish you from those making it even harder to repair them later.
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by 76mm »

Obviously impossible to say how things will turn out at this point, but I'm rather concerned about the changes to forts and the production decrease. I think the fort changes should be accompanied by a reduction in the 1941 cost of FZs, right now they are crazy expensive.

If they get rid of 1:1 as well, then the balance in 1942 will certainly shift, with the Germans pretty much invulnerable in their fortified positions and the Russians unable to create effective defenses.
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by Klydon »

While the Russians may have a weaker army to fight in the blizzard, the fact that German level 3/4 forts will likely be few and far between should help out a lot as the Russians have no issues at all slicing through level 2 forts and below. That also means the Germans will not get the benefit of blizzard attrition reduction because there will be far fewer level 3+ forts.

I also agree trying to get 1942 "fixed" without messing up 1941, 43, 44, and 45 will be tough, but time and lots of testing will tell and I think the proposed changes get the game closer to the mark.

The Russian armaments issue will now require more careful monitoring/management on the part of the Russian player. Before, they typically had no real issues with both manpower and armaments being in plentiful supply in game for the most part.

As far as Pelton and his armaments point, the easy way to refute it is prove him wrong. Show an AAR where the German player didn't bag 90-100 armaments, but that they still stand a good chance of winning the game, even by game standards of keeping the Russians out of Berlin. So far, it has been pretty much what he said so while it may be a bold statement, it could also be a key piece to what the Germans need to accomplish in order to have a chance at victory.

User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by Flaviusx »

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Obviously impossible to say how things will turn out at this point, but I'm rather concerned about the changes to forts and the production decrease. I think the fort changes should be accompanied by a reduction in the 1941 cost of FZs, right now they are crazy expensive.

If they get rid of 1:1 as well, then the balance in 1942 will certainly shift, with the Germans pretty much invulnerable in their fortified positions and the Russians unable to create effective defenses.

I flat out do not think FR are worth building in 1941 at 16 APs a pop. I'm undecided at this point whether the cost should be lowered in 41, however.

The point of the changes here are to make the Germans not sit in their invulnerable forts in 1942. (Which, point in fact, are now more vulnerable.) We're trying to get away from this whole maginot line 1942 business.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I flat out do not think FR are worth building in 1941 at 16 APs a pop. I'm undecided at this point whether the cost should be lowered in 41, however.

The point of the changes here are to make the Germans not sit in their invulnerable forts in 1942. (Which, point in fact, are now more vulnerable.) We're trying to get away from this whole maginot line 1942 business.

I generally agree about the 16 AP FZs, although they will become more valuable if they are the only way to build fortifs beyond level 2. I think the Sovs will have a hard time holding a line anywhere if they can't entrench beyond level 2.

As for the Germans, I think that most German players will have huge stockpiles of AP after the blizzard and will be able to build plenty of FZs, allowing them to fortify to level 3 and 4. Couple this with the decreased Sov production and particularly getting rid of the 1:1 rule, and I think the Sovs will be unable to make any dent in German lines, except where the Germans decide to leave their fortified positions to attack.

Is this what the devs are trying to achieve?
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by Flaviusx »

76mm, here's the thing: if the Germans are advancing, they are not fortifying. And unoccupied forts disappear very very quickly now.

Portions of the map may indeed settle down into trench warfare, particularly up north. But down south, maneuver is reintroduced for both sides, as the terrain favors movement.

If the Soviet can weather the storm, stretch the German out, and introduce his reserves, then the German is perfectly vulnerable to counterattacks.





WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by Peltonx »

My pts are made on data not feelings. I have tracked data from most of my games (12) to-date, unlike allot of poeple so I can comment on what is needed to "win" as the German based on data.

Check out Q-balls and Tarhunnases AAR and compare to Pelton vs ARSTAVIDIOS, Pelton vs Hoooper,

Its mostly about industry. Citys mean very little unless they have production in them. Manpower is effected very little for the Russian player even if the German takes all the major centers. The size of the Red army by turn 30 means little also. The production output hugely effects the Russian players army after 1941.

Pelton vs Larry Fulkerner
T-30 Loses
SHC 3.5 mil men 17000tanks 52000 art
GHC 550000 men 2200 tanks 4000 art
OOB
SHC 4.1 mil troops 2300 tanks 34000 art 7000 planes
GHC 3.5 mil troops 2700 tanks 37500 art 3300 planes
Destroyed all Factories in Leningrad and Moscow.
Destroyed 132 AP and 65 HVY
Resigned

Pelton vs Hoooper
T-30 Loses:
SHC 3.7 mil men 17000 tanks 51000 art 13000 planes
GHC 1.2 men 3450 tanks 10000 art 1500 Planes
OOB
SHC 5.4 mil troops 6000 tanks 62000 art 9500 planes
GHC 3.0 mil troops 2150 tanks 35000 art 3400 planes
Destroyed all Factories in Leningrad
Destroyed 76 AP and 37 HVY lowest arm score to date lossing.
Ongoing

Pelton vs Arstavidous
T-30 Loses:
SHC 3.1 mil men 16100 tanks 45700 art
GHC 1.1 men 3850 tanks 12300 art
OOB
SHC 5.8 mil troops 5900 tanks 61000 art 8299 planes
GHC 2.7 mil troops 2000 tanks 32000 art 3370 planes
Destroyed 140 AP and 57 HVY - I took Leningrad, but he had moved factories. Did not take Moscow.
Ongoing

Pelton vs Cyclops
T-30 Loses:
SHC 4.3 mil men 16600 tanks 58000 art
GHC 1.0 men 2950 tanks 8200 art
OOB
SHC 4.0 mil troops 3350 tanks 48500 art 4770 planes
GHC 2.5 mil troops 2400 tanks 35000 art 2255 planes
Destroyed all Factories in Leningrad and Moscow.
Destroyed 128 AP and 62 HVY
MIA turn 50

I have 2 others that will hit turn 30 this week
4 others quit before turn 30 and the first 2 games I played I did not keep records and both resigned before turn 50.
In all six I had over 100 armerments pts pocketed.

I have done as many other exp German players have tried the Defend from 42 on and it just don't work no matter the tactics. The Russian player simply uses the 1v1=2v1 rule to bleed the German army between turns 70 and 90.
Then at that pt its over game set match by 44.

The German player must destory allot more industry then histirocal under 1.04 to have a chance for a draw or better.

Q-ball vs Tarhunnas is very close to historical in production destoryed (arm/HVY) and Tarhunnas loses are close to historical also. The results are clear, Q-ball will be in Berlin by 44 under 1.04. 1.05 will help Tarhunnas some, but is not going to save him.

So yes based on data the game is stacked in the Russian favor all things being equal.

If you don't blitzkrieg and bag close to 100 arm pts your not going to have a chance as the German player for atleast a draw. Patch 1.05 will in my option about balance the game.

I think that the Russian production level might have to be tweaked again and the game engine at some pt, but over-all it should about 90% right.

Pelton
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by Peltonx »

The fort rules will keep the front more fluid until 43. I thk at this pt it will be hard for both sides to do much.

The Red army will still beable to bleed the German army, it is just going to take longer then 1.04.

There is not a level 4 or 5 fort that cant be taken with some art and eng's. German or Russian. So any fort belt can be pushed back. The size of the red army come late 43 will be huge, UNLESS the german player was able to destory allot of industry during 41(more then historical) and destory allot of units during 42.

The German player is still going to have to play the perfect game and the Russian player make a few mistakes during 41 and 42 to have a chance for a draw or win under 1.05.

The thing I really like about 1.05 is that if the German player does much better then historical and the Russian player doesn't know the game mechanics or plays poorly then the German player will have a chance to VP during 43.

Also all things being equal the Russian player that plays good should still be able to get a least minor victory under 1.05 if he loses Leningrad and does about historical as far as production lost.

Pelton
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by Peltonx »

Under 1.05 I beleive usersatch it might be possible, but you still have had to destory atleast 100 arm pts during the 41 summer.

Under 1.04 bleeding the Russian dry thing was 100% not possible even if you destoryed 140 arm pts as I have done in some games.

Under 1.04 you had to destory atleast 100 arm pts AND capture atleast 150 units during 42.

Pelton
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by Michael T »

Pelton your concept at how to play this game is so completely different to mine that it is pointless to debate you. Secondly I neither have the time or inclination. I prefer to spend my time playing. I can only say I have played 7GC as German and 5 GC as Soviet and won all against a range of opponents of varying skill. Your take seems very mathematical and stats based. Mine is more about the art of war and a feel for what is happening. It works for me. Bottom line is you have strong views about things that I think are *sometimes* a little biased/exaggerated. I am just letting other players know there are other points of view.
User avatar
heliodorus04
Posts: 1653
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Nashville TN

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by heliodorus04 »

I share some concern with 76mm that 16 AP fortified zone creation is prohibitive and becomes a major strategic consideration.

Maybe it will turn out to be worth doing in only a few areas, and it's fine in terms of tradeoff balancing (AP versus defensive strength). Maybe FZs cost creation will have to be reduced (and while we're at it, can we DECREASE the cost to motorize a division, and INCREASE (slightly) the cost of HQ buildup?).  It might also be that the Soviet pays 16 up to (to be arbitrary) August 1st 1941, and 4 AP thereafter, or some such.

But overall, Fort effectiveness had to be addressed downward, so now we'll see.  It'll make me look forward to playing the Soviet again if it's challenging.
Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: A Different Strategy?

Post by Redmarkus5 »

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The game is wieghted heavly in the Russian favor and the VP conditions are a joke to say the least. As long as the Russian player simply trains out Arm PTS and runs from the Germans during 41 they win. The German player can capture Leningrad/Moscow/Tula to Rostov and still get steam rolled in early 44.

Brother, I have been saying this since Day One. I hope the devs are listening to you... I am not a good enough player to get anywhere as the Axis in '41, but playing as the Soviets I rarely break a sweat.
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
Post Reply

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