Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Smaller/shorther scenarios?

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 >> Smaller/shorther scenarios?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Smaller/shorther scenarios? - 9/28/2010 5:16:06 PM

TPM

Posts: 349
Joined: 2/8/2007
Status: offline

My apologies if this has been addressed in another post...I'm wondering if this game will include smaller (i.e., shorther) scenarios that can be played in an evening or two? This game looks awesome, and I would love to get it, but I have limited time/attention span(!) to play long drawn out games that have thousands of units (my problem, not the game's!). So, are there limited scenarios like Case Blue, or 11th Army in the Crimea, etc.? Thanks.

Post #: 1

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios? - 9/28/2010 5:57:26 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

The scenario list is not final yet but yes there are plans for shorter scenarios. Check out the Road to Leningrad AAR as one example.

< Message edited by elmo3 -- 9/28/2010 5:58:37 PM >

_____________________________

We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester

(in reply to TPM)

Post #: 2

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios? - 9/28/2010 6:00:24 PM

Flaviusx

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

The game comes with various smaller scenarios, including Road to Minsk, Road to Moscow, Road to Kiev, Typhoon and Road to Leningrad. (All being intensively tested and perfected as we speak.) It contains campaign games for Barbarossa, 1942, 1943, 1944, and a grand campaign for 1941-45. It also includes an editor and I'm sure many more scenarios will be created post release, both by the developers and the players -- I personally would love to see a Stalingrad one, and may take a personal crack at putting together a Battle for Kiev 1943 scenario, as I have information for this from an old scenario I did for the Europa games.

Pretty much any kind of battle you can think of in the Eastern Front can be worked in here.

(in reply to TPM)

Post #: 3

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios? - 9/28/2010 6:04:53 PM

WriterJWA

Posts: 73
Joined: 6/24/2009
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

How about a hypothetical scenario that sets the initial national boundaries pre-1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? It would be interesting to see how Barbarossa would have played out if Germany had taken all of Poland in '39 vice half of it.

_____________________________

Jay
USMC '98-'06
0311-4341

"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Omar Bradley

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. "
- Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 4

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios? - 9/28/2010 6:10:48 PM

Kulturhund

Posts: 18
Joined: 9/25/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The game comes with various smaller scenarios, including Road to Minsk, Road to Moscow, Road to Kiev, Typhoon and Road to Leningrad. (All being intensively tested and perfected as we speak.) It contains campaign games for Barbarossa, 1942, 1943, 1944, and a grand campaign for 1941-45. It also includes an editor and I'm sure many more scenarios will be created post release, both by the developers and the players -- I personally would love to see a Stalingrad one, and may take a personal crack at putting together a Battle for Kiev 1943 scenario, as I have information for this from an old scenario I did for the Europa games.

Pretty much any kind of battle you can think of in the Eastern Front can be worked in here.

So many goodies... and did I mention the wait is killing me

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 5

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios? - 9/28/2010 7:44:06 PM

jaw

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: WriterJWA

How about a hypothetical scenario that sets the initial national boundaries pre-1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? It would be interesting to see how Barbarossa would have played out if Germany had taken all of Poland in '39 vice half of it.

In that case how do we know there would have even been a Barbarossa if Germany had to leave a substantial garrison to defend Poland in 1940? Worse case scenario finds Germany bogged down again in the West as the Red Army re-organizes and re-arms. Half of Poland was a small price to pay for taking the largest army in the world out of the equation in 1940. Not even Adolf Hitler could turn down such a bargain.

(in reply to WriterJWA)

Post #: 6

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios? - 9/28/2010 9:16:46 PM

WriterJWA

Posts: 73
Joined: 6/24/2009
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: WriterJWA

How about a hypothetical scenario that sets the initial national boundaries pre-1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? It would be interesting to see how Barbarossa would have played out if Germany had taken all of Poland in '39 vice half of it.

In that case how do we know there would have even been a Barbarossa if Germany had to leave a substantial garrison to defend Poland in 1940? Worse case scenario finds Germany bogged down again in the West as the Red Army re-organizes and re-arms. Half of Poland was a small price to pay for taking the largest army in the world out of the equation in 1940. Not even Adolf Hitler could turn down such a bargain.

I don't believe it would have been necessary to strongly garrison Poland in '40, much like it wasn't necessary to strongly garrison Germany's western border in September '39. France and Great Britain could have made a good showing against Germany in '39 if they had committed when Germany invaded Poland, but didn't. Germany didn't see fit to focus too much on the half of Poland they owned when they invaded France in '40. Why would they have needed more troops to garrison a border that, as the opening moves of Barbarossa showed, was guarded only notionally, anyway? There was really no army to take out in '40.

Advance patrols of the German army were in eyeshot of Moscow at the height of Barbarossa. I wonder what those hundreds of kilometers lost in the split of Poland might have done for the advance.

_____________________________

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 7

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios? - 9/28/2010 9:19:59 PM

AZKGungHo

Posts: 509
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

But that added space also worked to the German advantage, since Stalin insisted that the border be guarded, it made it easier for the Germans to make those first large encirclements. As usual, these things tend to offer advantages to both sides, not just one.

_____________________________

"In Arduis Fidelis"
Louie Marsh

Books:
Once A Raider� http://tinyurl.com/89mfnnk
Getting Real - http://tinyurl.com/7zhcjlq
Websites:
www.usmcraiders.com
discipleup.org

(in reply to WriterJWA)

Post #: 8

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios? - 9/28/2010 9:34:43 PM

WriterJWA

Posts: 73
Joined: 6/24/2009
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

I'm inclined to believe, given the apparent state of the Polish military, that those encirclements could have been made regardless eastern border location, and in the time allotted. In the case of a country like Poland or France, you neutralize the defenses, then the invaded country has been beaten ... especially if a capital is taken. Consider the encirclement of the AEF in '40 and the fall of Paris. It's basic Clauswitz. Take the defending army out of the equation, and it doesn't matter if you have troops in every province of the invaded country.

_____________________________

(in reply to AZKGungHo)

Post #: 9

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios? - 9/28/2010 9:45:43 PM

jaw

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: WriterJWA

I don't believe it would have been necessary to strongly garrison Poland in '40, much like it wasn't necessary to strongly garrison Germany's western border in September '39. France and Great Britain could have made a good showing against Germany in '39 if they had committed when Germany invaded Poland, but didn't. Germany didn't see fit to focus too much on the half of Poland they owned when they invaded France in '40. Why would they have needed more troops to garrison a border that, as the opening moves of Barbarossa showed, was guarded only notionally, anyway? There was really no army to take out in '40.

Advance patrols of the German army were in eyeshot of Moscow at the height of Barbarossa. I wonder what those hundreds of kilometers lost in the split of Poland might have done for the advance.

The British didn't have a single division on the Continent in September of 1939 and the French Army's military planning focused on repelling a German invasion not conducting one of their own so Hitler's gamble paid off but it was still a big gamble.

Germany didn't have to strongly garrison Poland in 1940 BECAUSE of the non-aggression pact. As for the German/Soviet frontier being "notationally" guarded, I wouldn't exactly characterize a couple dozen tank divisions and few score of rifle divisions as notational. If you really want to see a variant, when you get the game skip the first turn entirely for both sides and see how well the Germans do without their first turn surprise. I think you'll be amazed how well this notational Red Army fights.

(in reply to WriterJWA)

Post #: 10

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios? - 9/28/2010 9:58:49 PM

Flaviusx

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

I highly disfavor counterfactuals and alternate history for this particular game and will just leave it at that.

There's literally dozens of possible actual historical scenarios waiting to be made. It'll be a long time before you exhaust those possibilities and have to start doing goofy AH stuff.

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 11

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios? - 9/28/2010 11:36:33 PM

TPM

Posts: 349
Joined: 2/8/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The game comes with various smaller scenarios, including Road to Minsk, Road to Moscow, Road to Kiev, Typhoon and Road to Leningrad. (All being intensively tested and perfected as we speak.) It contains campaign games for Barbarossa, 1942, 1943, 1944, and a grand campaign for 1941-45. It also includes an editor and I'm sure many more scenarios will be created post release, both by the developers and the players -- I personally would love to see a Stalingrad one, and may take a personal crack at putting together a Battle for Kiev 1943 scenario, as I have information for this from an old scenario I did for the Europa games.

Pretty much any kind of battle you can think of in the Eastern Front can be worked in here.

This sounds awesome...thanks for the reply guys, can't wait for this sucker to come out!

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 12

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios? - 9/28/2010 11:57:37 PM

hgilmer3

Posts: 530
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

Joel just posted a scenario list above. Sounds like you're going to get what you want.

(in reply to TPM)

Post #: 13

RE: Smaller/shorther scenarios? - 9/29/2010 8:22:16 PM

SGHunt

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

I'm with Flav on this. The games starts to be ahistorical from the first move you make, but it always starts from the most historical position it can be geographically, in terms of men, equipment, strategic positions etc. It stays as historical as it can be modelled in terms of supplies, reinforcement, upgrades etc. That's the whole challenge for me.

(in reply to hgilmer3)

Post #: 14