War in the East Q&A

[jaw]

You are arguing hypotheticals that have very little chance of occurring in an actual game without any experience playing the game yourself. You dismiss contrary views by people who have been playing the game for months as if they have no more relevance than our personal opinions of military history. We're trying to tell you how the game plays and your replies suggest we don't know what we are talking about.

Do you want to know about the game or debate military history? This is the Q&A thread for answering questions about WitE based on our experience and knowledge of the game. I don't doubt your knowledge of military history but military history is not what this particular thread is about.

[ComradeP]

You are arguing hypotheticals that have very little chance of occurring in an actual game without any experience playing the game yourself.

Which hypotheticals would that be? Most 1941 AAR's thus far have both bigger and smaller pockets, some of which are not in strategically significant areas. Pyledriver's AAR had several pockets which he did not reduce immediately because there was either no need to do so or the pockets were too strong. There's nothing hypothetical about discussing what happens in an AAR.

This is also not the first game covering the theatre, so it's unlikely that what happens in the game will be totally new for most people who've played a Barbarossa scenario in a game like TOAW or WiR. Like many others, I'm hoping the flaws of the TOAW or WiR system won't be in this game, which is also why I'm discussing things that could be problematic in those engines to see if they're a problem in WitE.

You dismiss contrary views by people who have been playing the game for months as if they have no more relevance than our personal opinions of military history.

What am I dismissing? I'm saying that people will treat pockets differently and that not everyone might think of pockets as either things that need to be reduced quickly or things that can be left alone for a few turns.

I'm not really dismissing anything Apollo says, as he doesn't seem to get what I'm saying due to what seems to be some miscommunication in the difference between WEGO and IGOUGO.

We're trying to tell you how the game plays and your replies suggest we don't know what we are talking about.

I'm saying there are different strategies for different moments, and that some possible strategies worry me because they could be gamey and/or exploitive. I'm not suggesting any of the testers don't know what they're talking about, and I'm wondering where you got that impression from as that wasn't what I was trying to say. I've said it a number of times before, and perhaps I should say it again: every problem or issue that can be identified and discussed now won't have to be discussed or solved later. I prefer to discuss those possible problems now rather than after release. I'm also not discussing specific game features, just possible situations that may or may not be problematic.

If those possible problems turn out to be not as problematic as others or me initially thought, that's good and you have an answer whenever someone asks about it again. If there is a problem, you could either be aware of it or not, if not it helps if it's mentioned. I want the game to be a success, in terms of playability, historical accuracy and sales figures. I'm not trying to sabotage anything.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Regarding pockets...


As I already wrote - what you see on map is not actually what is "real"!

The pockets you guys saw were made in Axis turn. Although there is appearance that those Soviet units are actually trapped they are not (and there is no immediate "penalty" for them being trapped).

Why is that?

Because the WitE is IGYG and there should be opportunity for the other side to counter react in it's own turn... [;)]


Thus, the encirclement is only truly encirclement if units in question are trapped for one opponent's turn and one friendly turn!


So, you might ask how this translates into gameplay? What happens in actual WitE regarding this?


Well... if, for example, Axis encircles Soviets in some pocket in Axis turn the visual clue is that those Soviet units are tightly encircled. But they are not (because of reasons I outlined above)!

If the Axis would try to attack them immediately in that same turn (when visual encirclement is made) most of those Soviet units would be able to escape.

Why would that be you might ask?

Well... this is to simulate the difficulty of making really tight pockets and historic significance that pockets did last more than one single turn (i.e. one week in game turns)!

If the Axis waits for another turn (and if, again for example the Soviets are unable to extract from dire situation or friendly Soviet units can reach to help them) then the pocket / encirclement if full (with all penalties that such encirclement brings).

So... it is all player's decision what to do... try attacking in one turn (and have enemy escape with most of "trapped" units) or wait and then do the "strangulation" of the pocket...


BTW, this rule cuts both ways - when Soviets attack later in war the Germans are those on defense and can benefit from this! [:)]



Leo "Apollo11"

[ComradeP]

That was discussed earlier, and it's a good feature.

Now, to finish the day with a question: if the Soviet units are attacked on the turn the encirclement is made, and are bumped (routed?) out of the pocket, can they move/rout "through" hexes with Axis units on them, or only through unoccupied Axis hexes (it being a pocket, the pocket would be surrounded by Axis hexes, either captured that turn or earlier)?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Now, to finish the day with a question: if the Soviet units are attacked on the turn the encirclement is made, and are bumped (routed?) out of the pocket, can they move/rout "through" hexes with Axis units on them, or only through unoccupied Axis hexes (it being a pocket, the pocket would be surrounded by Axis hexes, either captured that turn or earlier)?

Even when completely visually surrounded (but not actually in "true" pocket) when attacked in the same turn they would displace (rout) with retreat attrition.

This is to simulate the weak (and not "airtight" pocket).


But if, for example, they are attacked on next turn they would be considered "truly" surrounded (i.e. in pocked) and would suffer penalties (for isolation)! That time they would not rout and could could surrender or be destroyed...

This is to simulate strong (i.e. "airtight" pocket).


Leo "Apollo11"

[BvB]

I don't see why some folks are so dead set against allowing the editor to change the start date. If they don't want to use it, fine. But for those that want to experiment with earlier or later (1942?) why not? More flexibility, more fun. The biggest downside I see is an extra headache/work/release delay from the designer's point of view.
The May 41 what if I think is based on the original Barbarossa plan before the decision to go into Yugoslavia and help bail Italy out of Greece? For the sake of argument maybe even allow the editor to change the end or even be open ended. Or what if Japan went against Russia vs US in 41? Not likely, but whatever a player wants to explore, if it isn't too big of a headache for the designers, why not give the option in the editor?
Salute! Baron von Beergut

PS be glad to see this when it comes out. Loved it from the first release way back in the Apple II days when it had minimal graphics and the tedious adding replacements to each division one at a time! I forget but it seems like 1987 or so?

[jaw]

Grisgby doesn't do fantasy.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: BvB

I don't see why some folks are so dead set against allowing the editor to change the start date. ...

It was mentioned here somewhere that there are a lot of hardcoded special rules for the 6/22/41 first turn. Soviet surprise, Axis bonuses, and the turn is only 4 days as opposed to the normal 7 days. It would not make much sense to have an earlier start without those rules and then suddenly have them kick in on that turn a month or two into the game. The game is just too far along in development to go back and redesign it for that option.

[jaw]

Lee,

You are so much more understanding than me.[:D]

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: BvB

I don't see why some folks are so dead set against allowing the editor to change the start date. If they don't want to use it, fine. But for those that want to experiment with earlier or later (1942?) why not? More flexibility, more fun. The biggest downside I see is an extra headache/work/release delay from the designer's point of view.
The May 41 what if I think is based on the original Barbarossa plan before the decision to go into Yugoslavia and help bail Italy out of Greece? For the sake of argument maybe even allow the editor to change the end or even be open ended. Or what if Japan went against Russia vs US in 41? Not likely, but whatever a player wants to explore, if it isn't too big of a headache for the designers, why not give the option in the editor?
Salute! Baron von Beergut

PS be glad to see this when it comes out. Loved it from the first release way back in the Apple II days when it had minimal graphics and the tedious adding replacements to each division one at a time! I forget but it seems like 1987 or so?

If you really want this kind of open ended strategic/diplomatic game, you really should try something else. Advanced 3rd Reich, World in Flames, Hearts of Iron (ick, they really dropped the ball on this recently, but that's another rant) and the like. Games that actually have integrated economic/diplomatic subsystems to deal with these matters at the strategic level.

This game is a spiritual descendant of games like Fire in the East/Scorched Earth and its near relations. Big, monster, operational level games that can take weeks and even months to play out (which will probably still be the case even in computer format) and where the grand strategic issues are simply baked into the game. There is no diplomatic system, no economic system, no decisionmaking at the national and strategic level.

Such games make poor platforms for alternate history experiments. And yes, people have tried to do so in the past, and I personally have done so with FitE specifically. It flatly doesn't work.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

That was discussed earlier, and it's a good feature.

Now, to finish the day with a question: if the Soviet units are attacked on the turn the encirclement is made, and are bumped (routed?) out of the pocket, can they move/rout "through" hexes with Axis units on them, or only through unoccupied Axis hexes (it being a pocket, the pocket would be surrounded by Axis hexes, either captured that turn or earlier)?

ComradeP,

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner but I usually don't go on the forum on weekends.

Your concerns about units disbanding their way out of encirclements prompted me to try it out myself even though I thought creating such a situation was extremely problematic. I began a 1941 Campaign as the Soviet player with the express purpose of trying to disband units either briefly free of encirclement or in danger of encirclement.

In my game I had the ideal opportunity when the Axis player (the computer) failed to close the Minsk pocket. I had at least a dozen units technically not encircled (i.e they had a path free of Axis ZOCs to the Soviet side of the map) although there were German units on three sides of them. To my surprise not a single one of these units was able to disband. Belatedly I decided to consult the rules (should have done that before responding to you) and lo and behold the chances of disbanding out of an encirclement danger are MUCH worse than even I imagined!

You see, to disband a unit two conditions have to be met: first, the unit must be at least 3 hexes from any enemy unit (for most pockets that would be difficult), second, and most importantly, the unit must be sitting on a rail line that is connected to a supply source (basically the East or West edge of the map depending on which side you're talking about). The chance that all the rail lines into a pocket won't be severed when the pocket is formed is very, very low. Unlike the ZOCs of encircling units which are not solid until the player's next movement phase, rail lines are severed the moment an enemy unit enters the hex.

The only chance for encircled or near encircled units to disband is if they can reach a rail hex that is connected to a supply source. Your fears of masses of Soviet soldiers and equipment escaping by disbanding are unfounded. Grisgby has already thought of that one.

[ComradeP]

It would potentially have saved us a heated debate if that had been posted earlier. No offense intended by my earlier statements though, should you have taken any. My enthusiasm just runs a little wild from time to time and I really do want this game to succeed, which is why I might be seeing problems where there are none.

Good to hear that it's so difficult to disband units and that my fears were unfounded, I've played a number of games where units would disband just before I could reach them, only to have their equipment added to a pool again and it can be just as annoying as having units composed of 8 guys, 2 cooks and a horse blocking your path in TOAW.

[jaw]

I hope you didn't take any offense either because I can go off half-cocked too often for my own good. [;)]

[SGHunt]

Pieter

Just had a few more hours playing time whilst on holiday - from a new boy's position, this game is just great and (I think) getting better and better.    I have some concerns about NKVD units and such hampering the movement of panzer divisions (by retreating with few losses and needing clearing again and again - the ant legion) but the core of the game play is just superb.   As I play more, I realise how simple it is to play and how difficult it is to play well.    And this is playing as the Germans in '41 when everything is going for you.   Notching the game up from Normal to Difficult has made such a difference to the challenge presented by the AI, and I have not yet even considered a PBEM.   Don't fret, old son, this one will not disappoint.

Stuart 

[ComradeP]

The game certainly seems like it won't disappoint Stuart, which would be a very nice change from being disappointed by many of the other major non-wargaming releases of late.

I'm guessing the NKVD units don't shatter due to their morale/ideological zeal?

-

Are there any developments to report on the debate of whether the TOE levels will stay at 50% minimum?

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I'm guessing the NKVD units don't shatter due to their morale/ideological zeal?

-

Are there any developments to report on the debate of whether the TOE levels will stay at 50% minimum?

The higher a unit's experience/morale the more likely it is to retreat rather than shatter. There is no ideological zeal rule per se.

I don't detect much desire on Joel's part to change the TOE level minimum. I personally think setting it any lower is not historically justified. The understrength units people refer to were by circumstance not design.

[BvB]

ORIGINAL: jaw

Grisgby doesn't do fantasy.

If that is true then why did he do Reforger 88 and North Atlantic 86? Weren't those hypothetical what if type games, or fantasy?
Why are they so different from someone wanting to experiment with the hypothetical of invading in May 41 by never having gone into Yugoslavia/Greece? Or the what if they waited till 1942 to invade?
Baron von Beergut

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: BvB


If that is true then why did he do Reforger 88 and North Atlantic 86? Weren't those hypothetical what if type games, or fantasy?
Why are they so different from someone wanting to experiment with the hypothetical of invading in May 41 by never having gone into Yugoslavia/Greece? Or the what if they waited till 1942 to invade?
Baron von Beergut

I would argue that there is a difference between a hypothetical situation regarding events that might or might not happen in the future and postulating a completely different historical background for an historical event.

If the Germany had not invaded Yugoslavia and Greece would the British have had the time to consolidate their position in Greece and what impact would that have had on German operations in Russia and in general? We don't know which is why we don't go there. The premise on which WitE is built is that everything that happened off the Eastern Front BEFORE and after the start of Barbarossa has and will happen exactly as it did historically. If you can't accept that premise then I would not recommend the game to you.

[BvB]

We disagree, no problem. But why totally prohibit my point of view? I am arguing for more flexibility in the editor.
I have wargamed since the mid 1960's and bought almost every Grigsby game since the early 1980's, including his first Apple II version of this game. I would probably buy it regardless. If you argue on the technical aspect that it would be too difficult to allow such options then I cannot argue. But to say this is to be a purely historical game with no chance for any what if situation, then why buy the game at all? Why not just continue to play the older versions?

"Grisgby doesn't do fantasy.I would argue that there is a difference between a hypothetical situation regarding events that might or might not happen in the future and postulating a completely different historical background for an historical event.

If the Germany had not invaded Yugoslavia and Greece would the British have had the time to consolidate their position in Greece and what impact would that have had on German operations in Russia and in general? We don't know which is why we don't go there. The premise on which WitE is built is that everything that happened off the Eastern Front BEFORE and after the start of Barbarossa has and will happen exactly as it did historically. If you can't accept that premise then I would not recommend the game to you."

[Great_Ajax]

As has been discussed before, there are a lot of things that are hardcoded into the game such as the German surprise rules, Axis minor surrender rules and that the first two turns in Barbarossa are half-week turns. Changing these would probably have unforeseen impacts elsewhere that would have be significantly tested and then the new bugs that these changes bring out will have to be fixed. It sounds simple, but then you would have to wait another 3-4 months for all of these issues to get ironed out just to change the scope a little bit.

Trey

ORIGINAL: BvB

We disagree, no problem. But why totally prohibit my point of view? I am arguing for more flexibility in the editor.
I have wargamed since the mid 1960's and bought almost every Grigsby game since the early 1980's, including his first Apple II version of this game. I would probably buy it regardless. If you argue on the technical aspect that it would be too difficult to allow such options then I cannot argue. But to say this is to be a purely historical game with no chance for any what if situation, then why buy the game at all? Why not just continue to play the older versions?

"Grisgby doesn't do fantasy.I would argue that there is a difference between a hypothetical situation regarding events that might or might not happen in the future and postulating a completely different historical background for an historical event.

If the Germany had not invaded Yugoslavia and Greece would the British have had the time to consolidate their position in Greece and what impact would that have had on German operations in Russia and in general? We don't know which is why we don't go there. The premise on which WitE is built is that everything that happened off the Eastern Front BEFORE and after the start of Barbarossa has and will happen exactly as it did historically. If you can't accept that premise then I would not recommend the game to you."