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).
a) Pelton, unless you correct me, it seems that you are including the Soviet soldiers killed by Finlandian, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian bullets, and you do not include the Finlandian, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian soldiers killed by Soviet bullets. Why? Look at your figures for the last quarter of 1942, that show the worst-ever ratio for the Red Army, even when their Uranus offensive almost vaporized two Romanian Armies.
b) According to Krivosheev, as much as 1 million of Soviet soldiers that were recorded as missed when surrounded, were drafted again to the Red Army when the Soviets liberated their territory.
If you combine those two facts, perhaps the historical casualty ratio is not the 6:1 that you claim.
B is 100% none historical.
In late July 1941 Stalin gave Order 270:
"Any one who surrenders should be regarded as a malicious deserter whos family will be arrested and shot. ect ect. Those falling into encirclement are to fight to the last otherwise there familys are to be deprived of all assistance.
In other words once your were pocketed as a russian soldier there was no going back
The point that Cannonfodder made was that Pelton is not including everything in his major statement. When Pelton blames the Soviet actions for the non-historical losses, Cannonfodder responded with specific examples that showed that the loss ratio is caused by actions on both sides, not just the Soviet one. A runaway defense will release both sides from the attrition battle. When the Soviets run in 41 followed by the Axis fallback defense in the Winter, Soviet casualties are less - but then so are the Axis. The ratios are going to change - because neither sides are fighting a war of attrition but rather one of mobility.
I am not blaming anything on the loss ratio for 41 to March 1 42. Its basicly historical.
The 41 ratio is about right, the blizzard is over rated, BUT I do understand why and it seems to me historical based on tactics.
42 to 43 has nothing to do with tactics, it is what it is based on trends from many games and history.
historically it was 6 to 1 (42)and in game its 3 to 1.
There were no huge pockets during 42 so most of the fighting and loses were from basic combat results.
We are just not seeing this in game during 42 and 43.
DTurtle, thanks for the useful data point. So perhaps the thing that needs tweaking is that higher losses need to be inflicted in battle, and lower losses inflicted as a result of retreats? Without going through every minor engagement at a high level of detail, it seems to me that, in general, soldiers take casualties first and then run away second.
Perhaps someone needs to point out that World War II wasn't actually won by the Germans, and that a reasonable historical simulation of the war in a game isn't going to end in a German victory in every possible scenario.
The game is setup to let the russians be unhistorical and the German side is fixed to historical results.
The game should end all things being equal in may 45 and not 1944, because 2 by 3 has fixed the ratio's in 42 to 43 to 44 levels.
a) Pelton, unless you correct me, it seems that you are including the Soviet soldiers killed by Finlandian, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian bullets, and you do not include the Finlandian, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian soldiers killed by Soviet bullets. Why? Look at your figures for the last quarter of 1942, that show the worst-ever ratio for the Red Army, even when their Uranus offensive almost vaporized two Romanian Armies.
b) According to Krivosheev, as much as 1 million of Soviet soldiers that were recorded as missed when surrounded, were drafted again to the Red Army when the Soviets liberated their territory.
If you combine those two facts, perhaps the historical casualty ratio is not the 6:1 that you claim.
The only thing that saved Russia was Overlord. Germany had to move allot of troops to the Western front from 43 on.
Pelton
But then I read this....
Dude, you can't be serious. You just can't.
The Stalingrad debacle put the lid on the coffin that was built in Dec '41 as Barbarossa failed leaving the Germans with their pants down and no plan B. Kursk nailed the lid shut almost a full year prior to 6 June.
After 2 months hard fighting in Normandy bocage it was a race to the Rhein, could the Wehrmacht retreat beat the Allies advance to it. Great effort the south of France as well during Anvil.[8|]
Manpower required holding the Normandy front comparable to holding the Red Army in the east? Fugedaboutit.
2 million Soviets at the battle of Berlin might not have been "unending", but it was enough. I believe that is indisputable.
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe
"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
In 1943/1944 (even pre invasion Pelton) Germans started to employ children in the army..
Attachments
terrified..soldier.jpg (62.61 KiB) Viewed 319 times
AKA Cannonfodder
"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
Great pictures, Cannonfodder. Hard to believe that Pelton might be convinced of this own arguments.
My impression is that casualties numbers in the Eastern War are quite inaccurate, and often all over the place. They depend much on the sources of the authors, political twisting of numbers, the exact categorization etc. The Glantz figures Pelton cites are surely at the upper end, while contemporary, official Russian figures (Stalin era) are somewhere at the lower boundary. The truth is likely somewhere in between.
As for the German figures I know that there is, despite with the accurate bureaucracy we followed in the war, and the huge effort going into accounting for killed, captured and missing Landsers, still a significant unknown there. There is a Federal office still investigating the fate of missing soldiers, which some estimate could be almost 1Mio that are still unaccounted for. Which fraction of these was already considered in the "Wehrmachtsberichte", Army reports, or other loss reports -- a questions that doesn't sound easy to answer. I would guess the Soviets did probably not put so much value on documentation.
If Pelton wants historic casualty rating, he will have to follow a doctrine and strategy that was as well. Much as his opponent would need to. Which includes doing a lot of foolhardy stuff and repeating plentiful mistakes on both sides. A player fighting basically a hindsight governed, politically-unaffected war of mobility and endurance with post-WW2 doctrines rather than aiming for a short campaign fought for elimination and destruction (assuming war will be won by Christmas...) cannot expect to get to the exact same numbers.
The true test of the engine would be fighting out a war exactly following the historical script, i.e. moving all units and engaging in combat (roughly or exactly) at the contemporary times and locations. Since dice roles lead to a statistic distribution of events, one could do this a couple times over and then compare the average results to history to see whether the mechanics are correct, and the deviations in other games just due to player habits.
a) Pelton, unless you correct me, it seems that you are including the Soviet soldiers killed by Finlandian, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian bullets, and you do not include the Finlandian, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian soldiers killed by Soviet bullets. Why? Look at your figures for the last quarter of 1942, that show the worst-ever ratio for the Red Army, even when their Uranus offensive almost vaporized two Romanian Armies.
b) According to Krivosheev, as much as 1 million of Soviet soldiers that were recorded as missed when surrounded, were drafted again to the Red Army when the Soviets liberated their territory.
If you combine those two facts, perhaps the historical casualty ratio is not the 6:1 that you claim.
B is 100% none historical.
In late July 1941 Stalin gave Order 270:
"Any one who surrenders should be regarded as a malicious deserter whos family will be arrested and shot. ect ect. Those falling into encirclement are to fight to the last otherwise there familys are to be deprived of all assistance.
In other words once your were pocketed as a russian soldier there was no going back
Pelton
Pelton, many pocketed Soviet soldiers were hidden in forests, marshes, mountains,… haystacks, whatever …and many incorporated themselves into partisan groups and later again to the Red Army. What Stalin might or might not have done to their families does not alter this fact.
I have visited the web sources you cite. This http://es.scribd.com/doc/59330786/Stati ... ir-Own-Los is interesting. They cite the figures that Glantz provide taken mostly from Krivosheev. But the webpage adds some pieces of “information” (pffffff). First, that Glantz is a propaganda agent of Stalinism (an “Obama-type regime”) and that Soviet casualties should be multiplied by four…mmm, 50 million casualties? Is that not an “unending manpower” myth?
Pelton, you say nothing about why you do not include the Axis minor allies in your calculations. Perhaps if you do that your 6:1 ratio in 1942 is no longer true.
Besides, as others have already pointed out, maybe the Soviet players can manage themselves without the Kharkov and Crimean catastrophes of 1942. You only can draw conclusions comparing historical versus game casualties if both players follow the historical plans and movements.
ORIGINAL: Pelton
The game is setup to let the russians be unhistorical and the German side is fixed to historical results.
That was a design decision made obviously right from the start.
And I don't have a problem with that decision. The problem is that the Soviets have too much liberty and that has skewed the game into fantasy.
I believe the only way to get the game back to a rough equivalence (historically speaking) is to tie Sov morale with who holds cities. It is clumsy, but it is doable.
And I think something really needs to be done or this great game is going to fade into history well before it should, if it hasn't already.
Ratio of dead is 1.7 to 1
Now that I have allot of data as I do with my game vs Hoooper ( one of the 2 games that helped nerf 1v1=2v1)
The Ratio was 2.9 to 1 when I was in forts and 2.6 to 1 when I was retreating during the blizzard.
So 1.05 increased loses to Germans attacking and defending. End of story the math just don't lie.
Turn 90 - 100 Trends
88 armaments captured.
244,000 armaments in pool +30,000
Losses from turn 90 to 100
————————-Men————Guns———-Tanks——Planes
GHC—————–227,000————4,361———–729———340
SHC-—————-487,000———–-7,856———2,884-——3,491
Ratio—————2.1 to 1————1.8 to 1———4 to 1—10 to 1
OOB difference from turn 90 to 100.
Losses from turn 101 to 110
————————-Men————Guns———-Tanks——Planes
GHC—————–144,000————2,323———–500———204
SHC-—————317,000———–-6,119———1,900-——2,800
Ratio—————2.2 to 1————2.6 to 1———4 to 1—14 to 1
OOB difference from turn 101 to 110.
Losses from turn 110 to 120
————————-Men————Guns———-Tanks——Planes
GHC—————–151,000————3,421———–700———413
SHC-—————-328,000———–-5,811———2,000-——2,139
Ratio—————2.2 to 1————1.7 to 1———2.8 to 1—5.2 to 1
OOB difference from turn 110 to 120.
As can see seen from data Kamil is stepping up his attacks as he get more an more Infantry corp. I am defending behind the river line as best I can.
I have stopped most counter attacks because the ratio is 1.5 to 1 when I get a retreat, rout or shatter. Which is a joke, but is the design of the game.
Historically during 1943 the ratio was 4 to 1, but 2 by 3 has set ratio's to less then 1/2 of historical. So basicly as German player you can not counter attack at all, because there is no point. One of the many boxes the german side has been put into.
The bad:
My OOB has dropped 100,000 men and Kamils has increased by 303,000.
With no counter attacks my moral is slowly dropping.
The positive:
At this tempo it will take Kamil about 140 turns to break the German army and there are only 105 turns left in game. Kamil will need to atleast double the tempo to 10 attacks per turn. I will not counter attack unless I have to, the effects are only negitive.
Big plus for me is my gun count is going up and so is my armament pts in pool, 544,000. For the next 10 turns I am going to jack up Gun/AT/AA TOE to 100%.
Kamil's gun and tank counts did not increase much even at the slow tempo, hopefully the armament hit will has an effect if the tempo increases.
I am tring for a draw, thats why I moved behind the rivers during summer of 1943 and not try to hold them until summer of 1944. From looking at other games come 1944 the German army is so weak and the russian so strong that the Reds have no issue crossing them.
So basicly I am tring to conserve my manpower for as long as possible. Holding land is not important until 1945. I am tring to keep from getting ground down as long as possible.
I need to use what little space I have to my advantage.
The same was true for the Russian side, if your not blindly following the Stalin myths. Millions of women servered in the Russian army in support roles. The Russians had old men and children servering also.
An open mind sees both sides not just one side.
You can't refute the facts.
80 million Germans
170 million Russians
Are you refuting this fact with Stalin myth's?
The combat Ratio from 42 to early 44 = 4.2 to 1
Are you refuting this fact or refuting it with more Stalin myths?
The facts are the facts
The Germans were bleeding the Russians dry by a 2 to 1 ratio based on population size and combat ratio's
The only thing that saved Russia was the Western allies.
Germany could not win a 2 front war, but could based 100% on facts and not myths win a 1 front war vs Russia.
Its very hard for poeple to accept this historical fact, because of the 45 years of Stalin propaganda that the world was spoon feed from 45 to 85.
Now that the wall has come down and historians can get past the myths to the facts, its more then clear that Russia could not have possibly taken on Germany alone.
It was a team effort of which Russia suffered the most by far. There was no way the Western allies could have defeated Germany alone and the same goes for Russia. ( other then the A-bomb, hehe)
The basic facts are the facts and can not be attacked on their merit.
But poeple will generally attack the messanger when they can't refute the facts.
Pelton, you say nothing about why you do not include the Axis minor allies in your calculations. Perhaps if you do that your 6:1 ratio in 1942 is no longer true.
Besides, as others have already pointed out, maybe the Soviet players can manage themselves without the Kharkov and Crimean catastrophes of 1942. You only can draw conclusions comparing historical versus game casualties if both players follow the historical plans and movements.
You can also add in the minor allies if you like, but this only changes the yearly ratio by .2 to .4 depending on where you get your info.
Your still looking at a ratio better then 4 to 1. Even at 3 to 1 Germany was winning the war of atrition.
alfonso thats why I listed many sourses and did not cherry pick. we can all cherry pick a few odd ball things on any topic.
the majority of the data supports at least a 4 to 1 ratio from 42 to early 44 and russia's and germany population.
Yeah WitE is hardly a simulation of historical WWII Eastern Front combat. It is a fantasy game on so many levels; I have shelved it for now. I think the final straw for me was reading the comments from Helpless defending the air aspect of the game saying there is nothing wrong. Along with logistics, if that isn't one of the biggest elephants in the room I don't know what is. Having to kindly ask my Russian opponent to please don't obliterate the Luftwaffe before the first blizzard is pathetic. There are other games out there that *do* try to simulate WWII combat, sadly WitE isn't one of them at this point. Disgruntled this morning? Yes! )
Yeah WitE is hardly a simulation of historical WWII Eastern Front combat. It is a fantasy game on so many levels; I have shelved it for now. I think the final straw for me was reading the comments from Helpless defending the air aspect of the game saying there is nothing wrong. Along with logistics, if that isn't one of the biggest elephants in the room I don't know what is. Having to kindly ask my Russian opponent to please don't obliterate the Luftwaffe before the first blizzard is pathetic. There are other games out there that *do* try to simulate WWII combat, sadly WitE isn't one of them at this point. Disgruntled this morning? Yes! )
WitE is not that far of the mark.
The game has come a very long ways and in general 2 by 3 is tring to imporove the game.
My biggest fear is that allot of the ills of wite will get dumped into witw and the other projects 2 by 3 is working on.
The game engine is limited in what can be changed.
I beleive that wite is the best Eastern front game to date and the AI is one of the best of any game to-date.
WitE is in need of a major over-haul, but I just don't see it happening any time soon.
The early war part of the game is 95% right, but the mid and late war is far off the mark. I beleive it can be fixed, if 2 by 3 is willing to look over the historical data and the many AAR's that are getting to the mid and late war.
2 by 3 is not going to change anything if poeple do not point out the clear short comings of the game publicly.
This hurts the bottom line and thats what any company is all about in the end.
WitP is a very good historically based game, but it took years to get right. WitE is only a year old.
Hopefully it will keep getting better and none of the bad issues will not get put into witw.
)