RE: War in the East...

RE: War in the East... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series

Message

Zaratoughda -> RE: War in the East... (12/16/2008 4:31:03 AM)
OK, a number of questions here... First, if there is free movement, what's to prevent a player from attacking with a couple of units and if they don't succeed, just move them out of the way and attack with some other units. This was a major problem with Norm Koger's 'Age of Rifles'. If your attack got thrown back just attack with other units. I tried the Gettysburg scenario and the computer ended up attacking not once, not twice, but three times along these lines... and it came off as being really silly compared to games like SSI's Gettysburg: Turning Point. The whole thing with free movement, plotted movement (like in War in Russia) or 'attacks cause loss of movement points' (like in TOAW) is crucial to a game and the idea that combat units' attack ability is diminished the more MP they use, is interesting and may prove effective. But, there are lots of aspects to this whole thing. Z

Zaratoughda -> RE: War in the East... (12/16/2008 4:45:18 AM)
Next question (or comment, whatever)..... 10 miles per hex and weekly turns??? Hmmmm.... War in Russia was 20 miles per hex and weekly turns, so you would think that with 10 miles per hex you would have two turns per week. Also, Western Front, was corps/division level (not sure the scale) and, 4 day turns. Most of the scenarios in TOAW that have scales along these lines have half week (or less) turns. I recently sent an EMail to Rob Kunz, who did the series of scenarios, I believe there were like 8 of them, for TOAW, on the progress of Army Group Center. Here the unit size was division/regiment and 10 KM/hex (6.2 miles/hex) and.... daily (!) turns. I asked him if he had interest in doing the same series of scenarios for the new 2x3 eastern front game and he said he sure would but.... thinking about it now I am not sure these scenarios could be done with weekly turns. Someone posted in this thread that they would like a game that didn't take forever and I have the same feelings but, would prefer two turns per week and smaller scenarios for those of us that want the shorter games and, the campaign game at two turns per week for those that want a longer game (but, sheesh, even two turns per week is WAY faster than the daily turns of WitP). Anyways, you got my opinon on this one. Z

Zaratoughda -> RE: War in the East... (12/16/2008 5:16:00 AM)
One other thing.... I am just curious.... division/BRIGADE?? Hmmm.... most games/scenarios that I have seen at this level, for the Germans, have the infantry in divisions and the exceptional units (panzer and some motorized) in regiments with the divisional level batalions in the divisional HQ unit. So, where do BRIGADES come in here? Sounds like you are attaching the divisional level batalions to the regiments and calling them brigades. <g> Of course, for the Russians it is always a challange because their divisions were a lot smaller. Can usually get by with Russians at one level higher (e.g. corps instead of divisions) but some go with Russian divisions (at this level) and... then there are a LOT of them. Z

Lützow -> RE: War in the East... (12/16/2008 7:16:36 AM)
At a second thought I'm unsure about weekly turns also. This should work well for the great campaign but makes it harder to depicture smaller scenarios. Barbarossa was not the slowly attrition warfare we know from pacific theate but predominantly a series of decisive battles. That being said, you can hardly use same scale for Leningrad siege and Wintergewitter.

Zaratoughda -> RE: War in the East... (12/16/2008 10:18:12 AM)
For a game that does not take that long.... there should be a Barbarosa scenario that ends when the whether first turns bad. I did such a scenario for WiR in the last year and it was a 15 turn scenario..... if you went with half week turns it would be a 30 turn scenario and still that is not that bad. In any case, such a scenario would be good for playtest, as it could be played many times and if there is any play unbalance it could be weeded out. Z

benpark -> RE: War in the East... (12/16/2008 4:28:26 PM)
A week does seem too large a block of time, but I figured that it was developmentally fixed by now. Maybe not- so I'll add my voice to the list of wanting smaller blocks of time per turn. I hope that the game is geared toward the equivalent crowd as WiP was- die hard wargamers that don't mind a lot of units, detail and time spent with the game. If the game is going to be more of a light wargame, I'll be greatly disappointed as this is the area of my greatest interest historically. Don't be afraid to create the be all, end all, Alpha and Omega of Eastern Front wargames.

wosung -> RE: War in the East... (12/16/2008 8:56:53 PM)
Well, honestly I like the scale of WIR and PW more than that of WitP. With the latter you just have not few meaningless boring turns, nevertheless with a clickfeast. Because: It's so detailed, and you better manage everything on your own instead of delegating to your PC. Sometimes I quit before the first turn, just because I am tired of moving all the subs out manually. And yes: I know about AE. I played all three extensively. But even now more WIR and PW than WitP. For me the former, after nearly 15 years, just got exactly the right space, time and unit scale. I only wish these two classical games could be remade with -global scale -politics, research and enhanced production -better interface, with player determined rules of engagement and command by HQ's Regards

Zaratoughda -> RE: War in the East... (12/17/2008 4:58:28 AM)
Yeah, really, can't see why they let these games (WiR and PW) just die. Maybe.... what they should do, is a new version of World at War.... this time integrating the hex map and corps level WiR, Western Front, and PW as well, all into a new monster game... covering all of WW2 at the corps/army level and weekly turns. Hmmmm.... lol.... this one would be interesting for sure but at best this would be something after the new east front game is completed. Z

benpark -> RE: War in the East... (12/17/2008 5:59:10 AM)
You can get that scale (corps and army) with lots of games that are out there. Hubert Carter's Strategic Command is one, there are others. A game that simulates only the Soviet-German conflict is where my interest lies. The more detailed, the better. If some find the detail of this scale and subject boring, you must have never played "Drang Nach Osten" in a garage for months on end (and enjoyed the heck out of it).

Helpless -> RE: War in the East... (12/17/2008 6:34:36 AM)
Even in WIR each turn was made of impulses, so you can plan some in turn reaction. Probably the same goes with new WIE, just with more "impulses" per turn. Although I got used to one day turns in WITP, it seems that longer control periods are more realistic for the front commander - you need to plan better, but game flow is faster and less forgiving..

wosung -> RE: War in the East... (12/17/2008 9:14:03 AM)
I never was interested in World at War or Strategic Command. Whereas WitP (one day turns, the need to manage every ship and sub unit and an overburdened AI which, since the days of PW, tends to get its Kido Butai always sunk north of New Guinea in the Grand Campaign) is too detailed for me, the former ones just aren't detailed enough. Like I wrote before: WIR and PW just got the right amount of detail for me. I love the fact that units are made up of number of inf squads, Arty, AT, that the tank bns of a Div/corps can have different equipment. Playing around with equipment production is just fun. In PW and WIR it's all based on quite realistic numbers. And it's still managable, entertaining and it doesen't take forever to be played out. And there seems to be tendency in wargame development, at least for WW2, to make either grand strategy games with relatively few details (like SC or WaW) or to stay tactical/operationally (like CM, COTA, TOAW, or, arguably WITP) This I can't understand. Because both WIR and PW must have been financially successful. They seem to be real classics, even now with not all dormant forums here at Matrix. Regards

DavidFaust -> RE: War in the East... (12/18/2008 12:22:59 AM)
quote: Even in WIR each turn was made of impulses, so you can plan some in turn reaction. Probably the same goes with new WIE, just with more "impulses" per turn. Although I got used to one day turns in WITP, it seems that longer control periods are more realistic for the front commander - you need to plan better, but game flow is faster and less forgiving.. WiR and WiF are 2 different games, your topic is about WiF but the topic talked about here is about the WiR remake

Helpless -> RE: War in the East... (12/18/2008 5:42:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kingtiger_501 quote: Even in WIR each turn was made of impulses, so you can plan some in turn reaction. Probably the same goes with new WIE, just with more "impulses" per turn. Although I got used to one day turns in WITP, it seems that longer control periods are more realistic for the front commander - you need to plan better, but game flow is faster and less forgiving.. WiR and WiF are 2 different games, your topic is about WiF but the topic talked about here is about the WiR remake No, my topic is not about WIF.. [;)]

Ursa MAior -> RE: War in the East... (12/19/2008 7:39:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wosung I never was interested in World at War or Strategic Command. Whereas WitP (one day turns, the need to manage every ship and sub unit and an overburdened AI which, since the days of PW, tends to get its Kido Butai always sunk north of New Guinea in the Grand Campaign) is too detailed for me, the former ones just aren't detailed enough. Like I wrote before: WIR and PW just got the right amount of detail for me. I love the fact that units are made up of number of inf squads, Arty, AT, that the tank bns of a Div/corps can have different equipment. Playing around with equipment production is just fun. In PW and WIR it's all based on quite realistic numbers. And it's still managable, entertaining and it doesen't take forever to be played out. And there seems to be tendency in wargame development, at least for WW2, to make either grand strategy games with relatively few details (like SC or WaW) or to stay tactical/operationally (like CM, COTA, TOAW, or, arguably WITP) This I can't understand. Because both WIR and PW must have been financially successful. They seem to be real classics, even now with not all dormant forums here at Matrix. Regards Wholeheartedly agreed.

Phatguy -> RE: War in the East... (12/19/2008 8:12:28 PM)
Speaking of war in the east, there was a game many many moons ago that ran a pseudo-realtime campaign..Dont remember the game but it seemed interesting....Only got to early beta or even late alpha before it died.. Heard it was way too ambitious for those days...It needs to be done now as computers have advanced way past a good ole 486 with 8 ram which I think was someones test machine.

Lützow -> RE: War in the East... (12/19/2008 8:24:02 PM)
You're talking about 'Road to Moscow' ?

Jeffrey H. -> RE: War in the East... (12/19/2008 9:22:28 PM)
Looks like COTA to me.... http://pc.ign.com/objects/011/011163.html

Missouri Rebel -> RE: War in the East... (12/19/2008 9:36:16 PM)
I was sure interested in this when it was circulating. I wonder if these specs could have been the problem with the development; Minimum Requirements * Win 95/98 P120Mhz 32 MB RAM 4x CD-ROM Seems a huge task considering the hardware at the time. BTW, what sweet looking maps. mo reb

Lützow -> RE: War in the East... (12/19/2008 9:54:48 PM)
No idea, but there were almost similiar requirements for BoB/BtR (P133, 32 MB RAM) and those game had to manage a truckload of units as well. Having that said, I still remember how sluggish they ran on my P2 400.

Phatguy -> RE: War in the East... (12/19/2008 10:20:10 PM)
Yeah, RtoM was it..it looked wonderful..COTA is like a mini RtoM..wish it could be done now.....

Jeffrey H. -> RE: War in the East... (12/21/2008 10:10:49 PM)
I really think this would be a winner if it could be accomplished.

Josans -> RE: War in the East... (12/28/2008 10:47:14 PM)
Just to see how commanders, like WBTS, have a major role in this game it is an advance to any other computer games about East Front... [8D]

hgilmer3 -> RE: War in the East... (12/29/2008 3:26:13 AM)
I could easily finish a full campaign in WIR against AI in 2-3 days, if I played a lot. I'd like to see something along the lines of playing a campaignagainst the AI that takes 2-3 weeks, if played a lot. WITP, if you play a lot, still seems like it could easily take months, if you're doing it right. And I agree about Mr. Grigsby. I bought Pacwar and WiR when they came out and I played them a lot. I even bought Pacwar twice - the first time when it came out and the 2nd time when it was in just one of those CD cases as a greatest hits cheap game that was several years old by that time. Then I got the free version. [:D]

knilli -> RE: War in the East... (12/30/2008 5:07:57 AM)
Hi all! After years of just passive reading it is time now to be a bit more active :) As I am a bit older, I play "War in Russia" or "Second Front" now for quite a time (since release in the 90's). And I am looking forward to "War in the East". I read the information about the details in the upcoming game and have some Questions. That might be a bit into detail but because of personal reasons I am interested in it. 1. I read that only southern Finland will be included. I personally would like to have the Norwegian/Finish Front included, mainly because some of my Family had the "pleasure" to spent some time there (during the war). Will it be possible to cut the supply from Murmansk? Not like in WiR by conquering Leningrad and advancing further. I mean with airplanes. Like Strategic Bombing Missions? Therefore i would like to see it included to give the 3rd German Mountain Div the change to make the last 50 km's :) 2. Same with the south. Will it be possible to cut allied supply from Persia, if this is included. 3. How does the economical part of the game work - if included? Is it the same as in WiR? (like cities with factories for planes and tanks? and if so can i change to allied models and then back. example in WiR: to italian airplanes. So far I can change production to them but not back anymore) and do I have access to factories of the german allies? And a general: Thank you very much for your games! I had a lot of fun over the years! Knilli

DavidFaust -> RE: War in the East... (12/30/2008 7:45:04 AM)
quote: 1. I read that only southern Finland will be included. I personally would like to have the Norwegian/Finish Front included, mainly because some of my Family had the "pleasure" to spent some time there (during the war). Will it be possible to cut the supply from Murmansk? Not like in WiR by conquering Leningrad and advancing further. I mean with airplanes. Like Strategic Bombing Missions? Therefore i would like to see it included to give the 3rd German Mountain Div the change to make the last 50 km's :) I do not believe that Murmansk can be cut from supply by just using airpower. quote: 2. Same with the south. Will it be possible to cut allied supply from Persia, if this is included. I dont think this will be included quote: 3. How does the economical part of the game work - if included? Is it the same as in WiR? (like cities with factories for planes and tanks? and if so can i change to allied models and then back. example in WiR: to italian airplanes. So far I can change production to them but not back anymore) and do I have access to factories of the german allies? German allies have factories but as this game is in very early alpha the economical part of the game has not been decided on.

knilli -> RE: War in the East... (12/31/2008 9:26:15 AM)
thx for your answers! still...i would love to see the upper part of finnland included. as i said....the last 50 km @persia...bummer ;) @economy: thx! something to look forward to hear in the future.

Shupov -> RE: War in the East... (3/30/2009 2:24:56 AM)
The following table for Soviet arms production is extracted from "Thunder in the East" by Evan Mawdsley (2005). Mawdsley was able to gain access Soviet war archives recently made public .............................Entered Service......Entered Service ...........................6/22/41-12/31/41..........1942 AT................................2500....................20500 AA................................3400....................6800 Artillery.................... ...10100..................30100 Katyushas.....................1000....................3300 Heavy Tanks.................1000....................2600 Medium Tanks...............2200....................13400 Light Tanks...................2400....................11900 Fighters........................6000....................10700 Attack Aircraft ..............1400....................7200 Bombers.......................2500....................4100 These numbers include Soviet production and lend-lease. They appear to be for the most part higher than the War in Russia Soviet production numbers. For example, assuming that "medium tanks" are primarily T-34, the number entering service in 1942 averages 515/per week. This is much higher than the game provides. Will War in the East reflect higher Soviet armaments production than War in Russia?

Yank -> RE: War in the East... (3/30/2009 2:44:03 AM)
It would be great if Matrix could start up a forum for the new Grigsby East Front game. A product page with a few screenshots would be even better.

Missouri Rebel -> RE: War in the East... (3/30/2009 3:04:57 AM)
I am hungry for ANY news on this title. I have such high expectations. I just hope that one can designate targets for EVERY combat and not like WITP where taskforces cannot be directed. I want total control. mo reb

wworld7 -> RE: War in the East... (3/30/2009 3:30:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yank It would be great if Matrix could start up a forum for the new Grigsby East Front game. A product page with a few screenshots would be even better. When it is much closer to being finished I am sure they will create one.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.953125