RE: War in the East Q&A

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: War in the East Q&A

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: War in the East Q&A

Page: << < prev 32 33 [34] 35 36 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/16/2010 6:30:18 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 991

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/16/2010 7:21:16 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 992

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/16/2010 7:51:18 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

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

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 993

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/17/2010 7:03:53 PM

SGHunt

Posts: 873
Joined: 1/20/2010
From: Lancaster, England
Status: offline

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

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 994

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/17/2010 7:17:06 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

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?

(in reply to SGHunt)

Post #: 995

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/18/2010 1:16:36 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 996

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/18/2010 10:57:44 PM

BvB

Posts: 187
Joined: 10/7/2001
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline

quote:

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

_____________________________

Enlisted during Nixon, retired during Clinton then went postal - joined the USPS, then retired from that during Obama.

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 997

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 12:50:56 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to BvB)

Post #: 998

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 1:17:41 PM

BvB

Posts: 187
Joined: 10/7/2001
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline

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."

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 999

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 2:23:38 PM

Great_Ajax

Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline

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

quote:

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."

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to BvB)

Post #: 1000

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 2:27:49 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

quote:

the first two turns in Barbarossa are half-week turns.

Only the first turn for both sides, right? The date given for turn 3 is July 3rd, 7 days from June 26th.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 8/19/2010 2:28:24 PM >

(in reply to Great_Ajax)

Post #: 1001

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 2:33:00 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

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?

Since you've been wargaming as long as I have I can throw out some titles that might give you a point of reference to where we are coming from. The kind of hypothetical options you are suggesting are more appropriate in a game like WAR IN EUROPE where you could indeed forgo the Balkan campaign and invade the Soviet Union earlier but WIE included all the economic, political, and military consequences of doing so. WitE is in the vain of SPI's original WAR IN THE EAST or GDW's FIRE IN THE EAST. It is what I would call a "grand operational" game rather than a strategic game like Grigsby's WAR IN RUSSIA game. WitE is by design limited in scope to only simulating the conflict as it historically unfolded. "Hard wired" into the game are a host of rules to do this ranging from the first turn being only 4 days long as opposed to the standard week for all other turns to an intricate schedule of reinforcements and withdrawals based on the historical timeline. Even if the editor were up to it, the amount of research and manipulation necessary to alter these built in features would hardly be justified by the results.

I would also ask when it comes to such hypotheticals, why bother? If you give either side an advantage they did not possess historically doesn't logic dictate that they will do better? It seems to me that it is far more interesting and fun to win by playing the hand you are dealt than by stacking the deck in your favor.

(in reply to BvB)

Post #: 1002

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 2:33:18 PM

BvB

Posts: 187
Joined: 10/7/2001
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline

ok, thanks. Fair enough. Sorry for not having seen that in the older posts. It is not important enough for all those extra head aches with the design and release...
As for stacking the deck, that was not my intention. I was considering things like what if the Soviets attacked first, what if the Germans waited till 1942 to start, or even starting around the time of the Finnish War... not trying to set things to help or hurt a side so much as experiment with alternative historical possibilities.
I fail to understand why some folks are so narrow minded. No research is needed to adjust an editor - that is up to the person playing with it. But the actual game code, if it can't handle it then that is the final word - not our different opinions on what the game should or shouldn't be.
PS: since there are alternate scenarios in the game to start later in the historical war and those don't involve the first turn rules, why couldn't an editor change the start to earlier and in that case not involve the first turn rules either just by clicking to turn them off?

< Message edited by BvB -- 8/19/2010 2:49:00 PM >

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 1003

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 3:24:24 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Baron von Beer, if you want to know what happens if the Soviets attack first, see my posts uptopic regarding Fire in the East and the Icebreaker scenario.

Same result here. It's boring and stupid. Simply by avoiding the surprise turn the Soviets win from the getgo and the conflict turns into a grinding war of attrition. They won't go anywhere, of course, and the Germans may even push them back some, but it's pretty much over as soon as it starts. Even as a self professed Red Army fan boy, there's nothing interesting about this. (The Nazi fanboys, of course, never even consider such scenarios. They're only looking at making things easier on the Wehrmacht, which is equally boring and problematic.)

And, of course, the game's entire mechanics cannot support it: it truly is fantasy in that sense. For example, the entire order of battle and reinforcement is premised on a strategic situation where the Red Army has to radically reorganize and simplify itself in the face of huge German gains, before then building up more complex military units later on in the war. Your whole order of battle becomes as rotten as Denmark and quite divorced from the strategic situation. Then there's the entire first winter rules which would hardly seem to apply again a German player who may not even get so far as the Dnepr.

Even if the developers provided you with an open ended game editor to support such things, nothing good would come from it. The end results would lack the integrity of the historical and original design and play very strangely indeed. You could make up anything you want but at the same time fatally compromise the integrity of the game and lack all the loving detail and research that went into it.

This is not a grand strategy game. I wish people stopped trying to turn it into one, it won't work for that any more than its boardgame predecessors did.

Edit: also, what is the effect of all this on Lend Lease? On US entry? (And, for that matter, US strategy after entering.) On neutrals? On the war in Africa? Etc. Nobody really knows nor is the game equipped to make adjustments for such things.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 8/19/2010 3:57:20 PM >

(in reply to BvB)

Post #: 1004

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 3:42:54 PM

BvB

Posts: 187
Joined: 10/7/2001
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline

ok, so before I annoy you guys any further, we know what the editor can't do.
So what can it do and what is it's purpose? Maybe only for setting up small parts of the battle area? Such as if someone wanted to do the 1945 Hungary area or 1941 Moscow or that sort of thing?
In a board game since it is in your hands you can tinker to your heart's content to experiment as I suggest.
I just thought one could take the game engine as is and be able to change anything one wanted. Regardless of whether one agrees or not with the options I suggested trying, the bottom line is, it sounds like the editor is limited in scope and ability. And as you guys have suggested, it shouldn't be done if it would complicate the release or take time away from tweaking things in the current design.
I am more likely really to take small battle portions from the game as is to use as a source for setting up tactical battles in other games. Salute to your efforts and good luck in the game

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 1005

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 4:04:34 PM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

@BVB, when I first became a tester, one of the first questions I asked about the editor was could I produce the exact same option you suggested, and I was told politely, but firmly what you have been told.

Like you, I was disappointed, but since then I have focused more on what the game does do, and not worry too much about what it doesn't do, I think there will many hours of enjoyment to be found in the things that you can edit.

The real hope for all of us who would like to explore the type of "what if" you suggest is for 2by3 to produce "War in Europe" using the same engine as WITE.

(in reply to BvB)

Post #: 1006

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 5:01:37 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

It's going to be years before we see anything like a War in Europe from this game engine. I would think they'd have to produce a western front game separately first. And then do a complete overhaul of diplomatic and economic engines before putting the two together in one game, since neither of these really exist at present.

Simulating freeish production at this game scale is going to be a huge design challenge. The historical orders of battle impose a certain design discipline on the game but become increasingly implausible as you expand the scope of the game to cover the entire theater and strategic options multiply.

I don't particularly think that War in Europe succeeded in meeting that challenge, btw. My own view is that divisional level games don't work well here for this sort of thing, and you have to kick it up a notch or two (to corps level and up) to really get something that flows smoothly and is playable. That is, move it up to the World in Flames/A3rd Reich level. There's a sort of Heisenberg uncertainty principle at work here, the more micro the game is, the harder it is to model the macro issues.

(in reply to karonagames)

Post #: 1007

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 5:12:47 PM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

I can dream, can't I?

_____________________________

It's only a Game

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 1008

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 5:56:49 PM

Great_Ajax

Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline

Within the June 1941-May 1945, you can do anything on the Russian front. What to do a hypothetical campaign where the Soviets attack in 1942? Fantasy scenario where the Germans win in Normandy and release all of the units in the West to the Eastern Front? Knock yourself out as it can be done. You can narrow down the boundaries to focus on smaller scenarios. See the threads on the Road to Leningrad and Road AARs. There are several smaller sized scenarios already (not sure which ones will be released). The good news is that you can build campaigns and scenarios directly from the editor without having to know any programming/scripting.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: BvB

ok, so before I annoy you guys any further, we know what the editor can't do.
So what can it do and what is it's purpose? Maybe only for setting up small parts of the battle area? Such as if someone wanted to do the 1945 Hungary area or 1941 Moscow or that sort of thing?
In a board game since it is in your hands you can tinker to your heart's content to experiment as I suggest.
I just thought one could take the game engine as is and be able to change anything one wanted. Regardless of whether one agrees or not with the options I suggested trying, the bottom line is, it sounds like the editor is limited in scope and ability. And as you guys have suggested, it shouldn't be done if it would complicate the release or take time away from tweaking things in the current design.
I am more likely really to take small battle portions from the game as is to use as a source for setting up tactical battles in other games. Salute to your efforts and good luck in the game

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to BvB)

Post #: 1009

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 5:58:55 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

I was wondering if there was any mechanisme, directly or indirectly covering vehicle breakdowns?

2 weeks into Barbarossa, 3rd Pz div had 128 out of 198 tanks out action. Most to breakdowns. Sure most would come back over time, but the breakdowns certainly diluted german strength, making it over time all the "easier" to stop the advance. Same thing later on with russian advances in later years.
One could say that you fall victim to own pace of advance. As far as i understand supply rules, from what is availble here on the forums. It might be factored into that. Just wondering, if specific rules are covering that.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to karonagames)

Post #: 1010

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 6:14:50 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

El Hefe, what on earth does the Red Army look like in 1942 if given a chance to sit tight that long?

Bear in mind the historical order of battle for this time period includes, to wit:

1. Massive spam of weak rifle divisions with reduced TOE compared to the prewar organization.

2. No new mechanized divisions and ultimately a replacement of existing tank divisions by brigades.

3. Massive spam of weak cavalry divisions.

4. Eventual introduction of corps which which more less equaled western divisions. (Certainly so for mobile units, and in practical terms also for rifle corps which rarely were built up to TOE strength.)

5. Vast changes in the artillery organization, with arty becoming more and more centralized in high command reserves, eventually grouped into divisions.

All of these things were in response to the 1941 invasion. It is by no means clear that any of them would've occurred if the war got delayed to 1942.

The editor may allow you to construct such a scenario, but I for one would be very skeptical about the results.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 1011

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 6:24:09 PM

Great_Ajax

Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline

I really don't know but surely the Soviets would be in better shape than they were in 1941 and there would be no surprise on the side of the Axis. I was just listing possibilities of what could be done with the editor. I bet someone will do this scenario though.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

El Hefe, what on earth does the Red Army look like in 1942 if given a chance to sit tight that long?

Bear in mind the historical order of battle for this time period includes, to wit:

1. Massive spam of weak rifle divisions with reduced TOE compared to the prewar organization.

2. No new mechanized divisions and ultimately a replacement of existing tank divisions by brigades.

3. Massive spam of weak cavalry divisions.

4. Eventual introduction of corps which which more less equaled western divisions. (Certainly so for mobile units, and in practical terms also for rifle corps which rarely were built up to TOE strength.)

5. Vast changes in the artillery organization, with arty becoming more and more centralized in high command reserves, eventually grouped into divisions.

All of these things were in response to the 1941 invasion. It is by no means clear that any of them would've occurred if the war got delayed to 1942.

The editor may allow you to construct such a scenario, but I for one would be very skeptical about the results.

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 1012

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/19/2010 6:36:04 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Somebody will try it, no doubt, but blech. The OOB will be pure speculation.

(in reply to Great_Ajax)

Post #: 1013

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/20/2010 1:13:15 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

Yes, vehicle reliability and breakdowns are taken into account.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 1014

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/20/2010 8:08:58 PM

lbadal99

Posts: 15
Joined: 8/20/2010
Status: offline

All, I have been following the forums on this game and it looks like a real winner - a small question regarding detail of the game is around unit TOE - specifically with captured equipment. Historically the Germans in 1941 captured a huge amount of Russian equipment (Artillery Guns, AT Guns, trucks, tanks, Machine Guns, Rifles, etc.....) and started to redeploy these to hteir units throughout 1941/1942 (most in Russia and some in North Africa). In looking at some of the detailed screenshots it does show breakdown of equipment very well, but I am wondering if any captured equipment can be redeployed to german iunits out of a captured equipment pool.

I understand this will not necessarily change the outcome of the game but will historically represent what the germans used to get as far as they did. I believe by late 41 they had a large pool of Russian trucks that were relatuively reliable to help them manage some sort of logistics. AT and Artillery guns were also widely used by Late 41/into 42 and 43 to help stem the losses and outfit units.

Can anybody comment on whether the development team could incorporate this functionality?

_____________________________

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 1015

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/20/2010 8:13:27 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

the use of Captured stuff is in the game

_____________________________

(in reply to lbadal99)

Post #: 1016

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/20/2010 8:52:43 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

here

from the production screen you can see what has been captured, and what is in use

(number in stock/pool, number captured, and the last one, is the number of units using them)

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 1017

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/20/2010 8:54:06 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

to make this easy to show, lets look at the Panther G

only one unit is using them

you can click on that one, to go to the commanders doc and get more details

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 1018

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/20/2010 8:55:46 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

there we see that the 5th Guards Mech Corps is using 32 of the captured Panthers

clicking on the hex numbers will take us to that unit

and we see the unit page details

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 1019

RE: War in the East Q&A - 8/20/2010 8:58:28 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

they are way out in front and out of the main supply lines, so they don't look to be getting much in replacements, so maybe a good reason why they have put what they are taking, to use

also you can do a mouse over of the unit, and it will show you the details in a icon form

hope that helps to show and explain how the game uses captured good

(AA and Arty get the most use)