A question about current state of balance and tactic

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

Schmart
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Canada

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by Schmart »

ORIGINAL: janh
The idea with the MP cost to the defender was along the same lines, i.e. binding the enemy like for example the role that the Armored Cavalry Regiments, scouts etc. had in the past, and possible even in present doctrine. Think of the 2nd ACR in Desert Storm. This effect is also absent with the present I-Go-U-Go system. Imagine that every deliberate attack, cost the defender the combat MPs (i.e. 2 or 3). You could half that penalty for hasty attacks, or double it or whatever in detail. To ensure the defending unit would still be able to disengage and move off a little within the 1-week time frame of the next turn, you could cap that "penalty" so that MPs for Inf are maximally reduced to say 10 and that of the rest to say 20. Then Soviet players would have some gain from attacking even if the losses were terrible, and the dynamics of 1941 might change dramatically. The disadvantage would be that the Axis would have to bite the same bullet later. But this "abstracted rule" would be plausibly based on the real world mechanisms.

I can't remember what it was called, but TOAW had a 'disengagement penalty' when moving the last unit in a hex that started adjacent to an enemy unit away and into friendly ZOCs. "Last unit in the hex" was the important part of the rule, as one could thus move in a high MP unit to evacuate the others first, and then pull out the high MP unit. I always liked this feature, as it gave a certain realism to withdrawing, and that disengaging from the enemy isn't always easy. It was based on various factors (IIRC moreso the difference between MP of the enemy unit(s) and your own. You could thus try to hold enemy units on the line by putting your high MP units adjacent to them. The reason being that for example, it's difficult for infantry to disengage from armour, but much easier for armour to disengage from infantry.), but sometimes the unit wouldn't disengage (or rather, lose so many MPs that it didn't have enough left to move away) and could suffer notable combat losses. In an extreme case, a weak unit could even shatter/evaporate trying to disengage. Usually, disengaging resulted in lost MPs and perhaps a small 'attrition' strength loss.
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 33612
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by Joel Billings »

Nice rule. I have to say though that some rules are better for humans than an AI. I can't imagine getting an AI to understand the subtleties of the last unit withdrawing rule.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
Schmart
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Canada

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by Schmart »

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Nice rule. I have to say though that some rules are better for humans than an AI. I can't imagine getting an AI to understand the subtleties of the last unit withdrawing rule.

Now that I think about it, I believe HQ units were exempt so ideally one would move in the HQ, evacuate the units, and pull out the HQ (obviously different HQ rules than WitE, and also being able to stack 9 units vs 3 changes the dynamic). Of course you still needed enough MPs to move the HQ in and out, lest the HQ unit can't pull back as far as the evacuated units. It often forced a player to keep HQs closer to the front (simluating HQ vulnerability and C&C distances), or at least having a trade-off between keeping HQs closer to the front or not.
User avatar
Tarhunnas
Posts: 2997
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:19 am
Location: Hex X37, Y15

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by Tarhunnas »

In early versions of TOW, the disengagement penalties were horrible. It was all but impossible to withdraw. Maybe they changed it later, I don't know, I stopped playing it rather fast. Don't say they didn't have some good rules, but I never liked it.
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
User avatar
M60A3TTS
Posts: 4855
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:20 am

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by M60A3TTS »

For all the complaining about the Soviet players withdrawing in the Summer of '41, just remember many Axis players do exactly the same thing come blizzard.

76mm is right on about Soviets defending cities.  Once isolated, the defenders are goners.  And even under normal combat, WiTE really doesn't simulate urban combat very well.  The PBEM game with SJ80 vs glvaca is a good example.  The Germans lost a few thousand men but in two attacks took Moscow, a heavy urban hex.  I mean really- tell me where the incentive is to fight for cities at the risk of getting hordes of divisions swallowed whole.   
I'm not saying they should be fortresses, but if cities had a higher intrinsic defense value and units in them were less susceptible to fatigue in the urban hex, and make them a source of supply such that if isolated they would support X # of units that could trace ZOC to that city week 1, .5X week 2, .25X week 3, then I'd have a reason to stay.
amatteucci
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 8:00 am
Location: ITALY

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by amatteucci »

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS
76mm is right on about Soviets defending cities.  Once isolated, the defenders are goners.  And even under normal combat, WiTE really doesn't simulate urban combat very well.  The PBEM game with SJ80 vs glvaca is a good example.  The Germans lost a few thousand men but in two attacks took Moscow, a heavy urban hex.  I mean really- tell me where the incentive is to fight for cities at the risk of getting hordes of divisions swallowed whole.   
I'm not saying they should be fortresses, but if cities had a higher intrinsic defense value and units in them were less susceptible to fatigue in the urban hex, and make them a source of supply such that if isolated they would support X # of units that could trace ZOC to that city week 1, .5X week 2, .25X week 3, then I'd have a reason to stay.
+1

Aurelian
Posts: 4084
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

For all the complaining about the Soviet players withdrawing in the Summer of '41, just remember many Axis players do exactly the same thing come blizzard.

But they, (Axis), don't talk much about that.
Building a new PC.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by Michael T »


What I find amusing in these debates is the constant contradiction that Soviet fanboys have in history versus game. Here we have a guy claiming he needs a reason (in game terms) to fight for a city. Damn it all to hell that historically Stalin would have had him shot for abandoning any city at all.
 
Curiously now that 2BY3 are moving on to WITW we see some rules emerging that will hinder the structuring of a defensive line during a withdrawal. While I applaud this, surely such a rule should have been in WITE from day one as it helps model a critical factor in the Soviet chaos of 1941. Perhaps its because in WITW the rule will mainly hinder German units and not Allied/Soviets.
 
Sorry to get so negative but after spending so much time on WITE I am getting a little peeved that all these new features that I and many others have helped to progress are being left out of the game we all have been so passionate about.
User avatar
M60A3TTS
Posts: 4855
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:20 am

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by M60A3TTS »

ORIGINAL: Michael T


What I find amusing in these debates is the constant contradiction that Soviet fanboys have in history versus game. Here we have a guy claiming he needs a reason (in game terms) to fight for a city. Damn it all to hell that historically Stalin would have had him shot for abandoning any city at all.

And Hitler wouldn't have shot German commanders retreating or giving up Moscow in blizzard as Axis players do?
It works both ways Michael.
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

For all the complaining about the Soviet players withdrawing in the Summer of '41, just remember many Axis players do exactly the same thing come blizzard.

But they, (Axis), don't talk much about that.

They're only interested in aberrations when it's about the Red Army. Defying the laws of logistics (Germans on the move in 1941 that is), etc. etc. has always been perfectly normal to them... If only they could get to Gorky and Stalingrad before the winter of 1941...

They are indeed a really noisy lobby. A Wild Bunch, given the quantity of personal attacks, vitriol and even insults (!)... And I am not thinking about Michael, who has never shown a thuggish behaviour [:)]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
Tarhunnas
Posts: 2997
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:19 am
Location: Hex X37, Y15

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by Tarhunnas »

It seems that, behind all the mud-slinging at percieved fanboys of the "other" side, there is an agreement that there should be some kind of incentive in the game for taking and/or holding key terrain for both sides. [:)]
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
Aurelian
Posts: 4084
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

ORIGINAL: Michael T


What I find amusing in these debates is the constant contradiction that Soviet fanboys have in history versus game. Here we have a guy claiming he needs a reason (in game terms) to fight for a city. Damn it all to hell that historically Stalin would have had him shot for abandoning any city at all.

And Hitler wouldn't have shot German commanders retreating or giving up Moscow in blizzard as Axis players do?
It works both ways Michael.

Said claim that Stalin would of shot him for abandoning a city is false on its face. The only commander who was executed was Pavlov. Didn't stop the loss of all those cities on the way to Moscow or Rostov. The NKVD firing squads were silent.

Very amusing indeed.

Hitler didn't shoot his generals for that either. Rather they just got dismissed. Some, like Guderian, never held a field command again. (Something that doesn't happen in the game. *We* can always put him back.
Building a new PC.
Aurelian
Posts: 4084
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

For all the complaining about the Soviet players withdrawing in the Summer of '41, just remember many Axis players do exactly the same thing come blizzard.

But they, (Axis), don't talk much about that.

They're only interested in aberrations when it's about the Red Army. Defying the laws of logistics (Germans on the move in 1941 that is), etc. etc. has always been perfectly normal to them... If only they could get to Gorky and Stalingrad before the winter of 1941...

They are indeed a really noisy lobby. A Wild Bunch, given the quantity of personal attacks, vitriol and even insults (!)... And I am not thinking about Michael, who has never shown a thuggish behaviour [:)]

As I said in a different thread. Put in all the Stalin rules you want. But then you have to put in Hitler rules too. That works for me.
Especially as that as the war went on, Hitler interfeered more and more, while Stalin went the other way.

The Axis players have been thunderingly silent on that. Strange when they claim balance issues.
Building a new PC.
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

It seems that, behind all the mud-slinging at percieved fanboys of the "other" side, there is an agreement that there should be some kind of incentive in the game for taking and/or holding key terrain for both sides. [:)]

This will make sense when the pace of advance is NOT irrational. Until it is not fixed don't count on me, with some exceptions, because they might suit my strategy [:D]

This said, I have had two issues, which I aired: 1) Soviet blizzard is not rational (the old patches, but I still think it is not rational, I'm a weirdo, you see) and 2) Germans were too weak in 1942 (other patches: forts mattered + higher soviet morale).

In other words, as a Soviet player I was speaking about issues which concerned, favoured the Soviets. Not the other way around, which is without exceptions (well maybe there are one or two) the modus operandi of the Wild Bunch...

Well, now it's true that I'd kill to have a [Soviet] historical OOB. I hate those pesky APs. Death to them! [:D]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
Schmart
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Canada

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by Schmart »

ORIGINAL: Michael T


What I find amusing in these debates is the constant contradiction that Soviet fanboys...


Care to name some names? I don't know who it is that you're talking about. Vague insults like this confuse the matter, resulting in mis-judgements and mis-communication...
User avatar
RCHarmon
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:41 am

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by RCHarmon »

Lets be fair here.

The Soviet running in 1941 and the Axis running in the blizzard of 1941 are totally different.

I don't think the Soviet player wants to run and several Axis players are willing to lose the Lvov pocket to see a more historical Soviet combat ability(with the understanding that they use this combat ability and not just run). The Soviet can make several mistakes and will be okay. The Soviet player can bend and bend and bend they will never break.

The Axis player in the blizzard doesn't want to run, but must out of necessity. The Axis player is not allowed any mistakes. The Axis player has no options.


I can expound on this much further, but if we are all honest then we must admit that each side is in earnest and both want the same things.


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

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by Michael T »

Aurelian, the reason not many Soviet generals were shot for giving up cities is that the said cities were not given up for the *fear* of being shot. It's common knowledge that orders from above about not one step back were backed up by the NKVD hit squads. I really should not have to spell this out [8|]
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by Michael T »

Guys any of you who have read my comments over the past months would realize that I advocate both Hitler and Stalin rules. Not just one or the other.
 
Name names! Come on you know who you are [:)]
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by Michael T »


The Kiev debacle in 1941 is the perfect example. Everyone knew of the impending disaster bar Stalin and Stavaka, the Generals on the spot wanted to withdraw. They did not. Why? Fear of Stalins wrath and the firing squad. Result 600,000 POW's. The same deal at Stalingrad. I would love to see a rule where the loss of key cities would result in the permanent or temporary removal of key leaders. How many players would abandon Kiev if it meant losing Zhukov and several other top notch leaders. Same boat for Hitlers crew during the blizzard and beyond.
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: A question about current state of balance and tactic

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: Michael T


The Kiev debacle in 1941 is the perfect example. Everyone knew of the impending disaster bar Stalin and Stavaka, the Generals on the spot wanted to withdraw. They did not. Why? Fear of Stalins wrath and the firing squad. Result 600,000 POW's. The same deal at Stalingrad. I would love to see a rule where the loss of key cities would result in the permanent or temporary removal of key leaders. How many players would abandon Kiev if it meant losing Zhukov and several other top notch leaders. Same boat for Hitlers crew during the blizzard and beyond.

Michael, Stalin's ruthlessness is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact [8D] What you say is undoubtedly true.

BUT, and that's a big BUT:

On the game as it is, if the Soviet lose those many forces, Moscow, Leningrad, hell, everything, will fall. And still, it's curious, despite these nonsense pockets, Moscow, Leningrad were still in Soviet hands in the real thing. And please, don't tell me you German players know better than professionals (Wehrmacht). In the real word, logistics, exhaustion mattered. In the game apparently not.

Therefore the conclusion is obvious: we can't have these will to fight unless the whole thing is well simulated (a rational pace of advance that is; and I don't think swallowing -as you skillfully did- the 16th Stavka army on the very first turn is rational). Again, on game terms, if you allow the Germans to swallow those many historical (yes) forces, you are DOOMED. And you know it [8D]

This will to fight is a dead horse if real life conditions (well known as the conflict is there for anyone to see) don't apply, sorry. Well, at least to me.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
Post Reply

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