RE: War in the East Q&A

RE: War in the East Q&A (Full Version)

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

Message

jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (12/29/2009 8:02:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thackaray Woah! Woah! Woah! Woooooaaaaahhhh there! So to be historical you have to be aggressive regardless of which side you play? This doesn't seem right. I would have thought an aggressive player would have an ahistorical game, i.e. do better than actual history. So how does the AI play - conservative/aggressive? And the other question is how badly does the AI cheat to make itself an effective opponent against a human? The whole concept of Blitzkrieg was to be ruthlessly aggressive and attack all out on the premise that a short, bloody war was always better than a long and ultimately bloodier one. The Germans did everything they could to win in the first six months of Barbarossa and as the German player you will be hard pressed to summon the nerve to match their aggressiveness. A conservative German might forstall defeat but he will never win. Likewise, the Russian player must take advantage of every opportunity to bleed the Axis. Before the winter of 41/42 those opportunities are far and few between but they do happen. Once the Russian winter sets in you've got to inflict as much damage as you can on the Axis forces and gain back as much ground as you can before the weather moderates again. To paraphase Arnold, "they'll be back." The AI is very aggressive, particularly when playing the Russian, and it supposedly doesn't cheat. I say supposedly because in any computer game I've ever played the side the AI is playing always seems stronger than it does when I'm playing that side. Maybe I'm just paranoid.

thackaray -> RE: War in the East Q&A (12/29/2009 9:59:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaw quote: ORIGINAL: thackaray Woah! Woah! Woah! Woooooaaaaahhhh there! So to be historical you have to be aggressive regardless of which side you play? This doesn't seem right. I would have thought an aggressive player would have an ahistorical game, i.e. do better than actual history. So how does the AI play - conservative/aggressive? And the other question is how badly does the AI cheat to make itself an effective opponent against a human? The whole concept of Blitzkrieg was to be ruthlessly aggressive and attack all out on the premise that a short, bloody war was always better than a long and ultimately bloodier one. The Germans did everything they could to win in the first six months of Barbarossa and as the German player you will be hard pressed to summon the nerve to match their aggressiveness. A conservative German might forstall defeat but he will never win. Likewise, the Russian player must take advantage of every opportunity to bleed the Axis. Before the winter of 41/42 those opportunities are far and few between but they do happen. Once the Russian winter sets in you've got to inflict as much damage as you can on the Axis forces and gain back as much ground as you can before the weather moderates again. To paraphase Arnold, "they'll be back." The AI is very aggressive, particularly when playing the Russian, and it supposedly doesn't cheat. I say supposedly because in any computer game I've ever played the side the AI is playing always seems stronger than it does when I'm playing that side. Maybe I'm just paranoid. I would say that's normal conservative offensive operations for most average player whatever side they play. For me, aggressive play is going beyond that. From what you mentioned about the Axis player being highly unlikely to reach the historical limits of advance that's already setting them on the road to defeat. The only thing that might keep a German player interested if they know they've got about a 10% chance to take Leningrad in the first 6 months, to hinder the Soviet player for the rest of the war. However, me being cynical, think that being unable to even reach the historical advance is going to put a fair few people off playing German for the whole war, as they know they've got feck all chance of winning at all. They'll see how they do upto the '41 Winter then give up, knowing the Soviets are going to walk over them in the Blizzard season and demolish the German offensive capability for the '42 Summer offensive. Has any tester playing as Soviets, played really aggressively, not just one or two local attacks before Winter '41? Then attacked aggressively rotating units so that they gain experience quickly, during blizzards in Winter '41. Take a quick break during the rain/mud period of April/May, rotate fresh units as required, then attack the Germans aggressively during the Summer of '42? Of course during this period, rotating Soviet Airforce units to gain experience, rest and gain reinforcements.

PyleDriver -> RE: War in the East Q&A (12/29/2009 10:30:26 PM)
I'm not sure Jim responded where you understand what he said. He never said "road to defeat". I think he implied "road to success". That in a nutshell is what the Axis needs to do to win...Soviet aggressivness, it boils down in the first 2 years to take the Axis out of there tempo. If they just sit back and wait, then they lose. Oh and you need to throw everything you have at them the first winter...As far as AI cheats, their there, but there good cheats, not warped moves, but good, they make the game fun...

elmo3 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (12/29/2009 10:56:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thackaray ...However, me being cynical, think that being unable to even reach the historical advance is going to put a fair few people off playing German for the whole war, as they know they've got feck all chance of winning at all.... There is a PBEM game going on now between two testers where the Germans are well ahead of their historical advance. In another test the Soviets are doing better than history. Nobody is saying either side has no chance of winning.

Iñaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: War in the East Q&A (12/30/2009 8:05:35 AM)
I wonder, in a PBEM game in wich players are already playing in 1944, with Soviets about historical advance, or maybe a bit less, has the German player any chance to win the game?

elmo3 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (12/30/2009 11:16:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar I wonder, in a PBEM game in wich players are already playing in 1944, with Soviets about historical advance, or maybe a bit less, has the German player any chance to win the game? As has been mentioned, we're still in alpha right now. I don't believe anyone has played the full campaign that far yet. A '43 scenario is being built and I believe a '44 scenario will be built as well, both with historical starting positions. So when those are done and tested we'll have a better idea how to answer your question.

molchomor -> RE: War in the East Q&A (12/30/2009 1:55:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaw quote: ORIGINAL: molchomor Hi and thanks for keeping strategy gaming alive. I very fondly remember playing Second Front (WiR prequel) and to a lesser degree the sequel Western Front. Q: Are you really saying that I would not be able to control axis production (at least for tanks and planes) ? For me this would be a major gamebreaker as this was one of the highlight in Second Front IMHO. An option for manual production setting would be great for those of us who can do with the micromanaging. This added very much to the depth of Second front, rounding up & assigning those precious first Tigers to your elite Pz-Divisions for the assault on Leningrad, while giving the older models to the Italians on the quiet part of the front...And the feeling when you first could produce ME-262 planes, switching almost all aircraft production to that to try the idea proposed by Galland and so on... This was a strategy game within the game - the balancing of older models/higher production vs. newer models/lower production. Q: How will the west be represented, like in Second front where you had OKW and filled it with enough Divisions to "hold the line" ? Q: Will the element of "training" your airsquads in the east against "easy" opposition before transfering them to the west to fight off B-17s be similar ? You should not view WitE through the prism of SF/WIR or almost any other Gary Grigsby game. WitE is a division/corps (Soviets) level game with 10 mile hexes and week long turns. The game models combat down to the individual weapon level and every combat element (tank, plane, gun, squad etc.) is modeled in almost as much detail as a tactical game. The production of AFVs and aircraft is fixed to approximate historical production but all other production (various squad and weapon types) is "on demand" based on the difference between TOE strength and actual strength. The hundreds of TOEs provided in the game control the allocation of production so your Tiger tanks will go to the types of units which got them historically and not randomly distributed across the front. The War off the Eastern Front is only indirectly represented in the game with the arrival or withdrawal of units to and from the Eastern Front. Everything which happened off the Eastern Front is assumed to happen by the historical time table and only influence the Eastern Front to the extent they did so historically. If the Axis player defeats the Soviet Union he wins the game even if he does so in May, 1945 with the Allies on the Elbe. Although that may sound weird the chance of it happening are almost zero. Unless the Axis player has inflicted mortal damage on the Russian player by the end of 1942, the Soviet Union will at worse fight Germany to a standstill; more likely the Russians will begin pushing the Germans back by 1943. It is hard to predict more than that because so much depends on the playing style of the players. Conservative players will make for a dull game; aggressive players will have more fun and probably a more "historical" game. Thanks for the answers. This will for sure be a great game and I will for sure buy it when released! As far as I remember Second Front also had week long turns, divisions/corps, hexes of several miles and very detailed weaponry for all units (how many PAKs and self-propelled vehicles every unit had etc.). So correct me if I'm wrong but I see vast similarities here and - just would like to add my 5 cents on some "missing" elements in WiTE that really made SF great ! Not going to dwell much more on production (I see it already has a very popular separate thread). But in essence, the ability to try new strategies in SF really added in atmosphere and guaranteed replayability for several years - I hope some of these thing will eventually be implemented in an add-on to WiTE ! For me basic (optional) options for production, rotation of units, balancing/influencing the different fronts are all key strategic elements and I find it hard to understand how and why some of this is not in the game. E.g., you say that you do not implement (good thing IMHO - this ruined the "Western Front" game) "Hitler/Stalin orders". But, in reality you pretty much do (?) as you do not grant the player at least the option for better control: -Production for each model is fixed to historical data (=i.e. as ordered by Hitler who put his nose in everything) -Units get upgrades according to historical data (=i.e. as ordered by Hitler, SS units get best tanks etc., means e.g. I cannot give my brave Finns some nice upgrades as reward for their efforts?) -Units are withdrawn from the front according to historical data (=whims of Hitler, and presumably taking e.g. the precious tigers with them) -No possibility to rotate air units to/from the western front as you like for training purposes (as far as I can see at least.) -No possibility to alter the course of history on the rest of the fronts as in SF (e.g. reinforcing the western front with a couple of PzDiv to keep crucial production in '44 if Ruhr is threatened, assigning left-over/inferior equipment&units to OKW during 41-43 as this is enough to hold the more or less "static" front and to fight partisans etc.). These are some things that meant alot to me both in terms of immersion, replayability and added alot of strategic elements to the SF games.

Iñaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: War in the East Q&A (12/30/2009 2:52:31 PM)
Some naval questions 1.Are naval units included? 2. How are amphibious operations modelled? 3. Can you get supply through ports?

elmo3 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (12/30/2009 3:51:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar Some naval questions 1.Are naval units included? 2. How are amphibious operations modelled? 3. Can you get supply through ports? 1. No, although sea transport and amphib operations can both occur along with the possibility of naval or air interdiction of units moving by sea. 2. Shipping points and amphib points accumulate each turn based on controlled ports in each of the 4 sea zones, and those points can be used for transport or amphib ops. 3. Units on the coast may be supplied from a friendly port in the same sea zone. That is naval ops in a nutshell, but there are lots more details of course.

Joel Billings -> RE: War in the East Q&A (12/30/2009 6:33:57 PM)
Unlike SF/WiR, this game has 10 mile hexes (those games were 20 IIRC). I may be confusing my games, but I thought those games had container units that you filled up with various division and possibly brigade sized units (so in effect the units represented larger formations). In WitE, the standard on map unit is the division, although there are also on map units that are brigades. German divisions may breakdown into regiments, so you may be moving regiments, brigades or divisions (along with HQ's and air units). For the Soviets, you can build up Tank and Mech Corps (which are in some ways equivalent to German Divisions). We also allow the Soviets at certain times to build up Rifle and Cavalry Corps, which are in most cases simply 3 divisions put into one on map unit. This is mostly an abstraction to allow the Soviets to stack more raw infantry into a hex if they wish to. Of course, Soviet units tend to fight understrength, so often a rifle corps will only be as large as a German full strength infantry division (of course the Germans fight understrength as well). The bottom line is that this game with 4x the hexes, and many, many more units has much more going for it in terms of the actual land movement and combat. If you don't believe me, please listen to the testers. This game does not in any way "feel" like SF/WiR, except that it is a game covering the Eastern Front in WWII. For those that believe SF/WiR was the ideal way to approach the Eastern Front, you will be disappointed that this is not another SF/WiR. For those of you that love Eastern Front warfare, we hope you will love the game for what it is (the testers seem very happy so far, which is a good sign). I have to say it is weird to be competing with one of our old products, especially products from 15+ years ago.

jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (12/30/2009 8:43:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: molchomor Joel's comments did a great job of describing the differences between SF and WitE but I'd like to address some of your individual points in more detail. -Production for each model is fixed to historical data (=i.e. as ordered by Hitler who put his nose in everything) If you research the actual history of German AFV production you will see that most of the production changes allowed in SF are pure fantasy and the influence of Hitler far less than people image. -Units get upgrades according to historical data (=i.e. as ordered by Hitler, SS units get best tanks etc., means e.g. I cannot give my brave Finns some nice upgrades as reward for their efforts?) The constantly varying TOEs are so rich with historical detail that they more than make up for not having the ability to tinker yourself and there is always the editor if you still cannot resist the temptation. -Units are withdrawn from the front according to historical data (=whims of Hitler, and presumably taking e.g. the precious tigers with them) The withdrawals are usually driven by events off the Eastern front or by the need to make substantial re-organizations. For example, one of the withdrawals that occurs is the 1st Cavalry division leaves the Eastern front to be converted into the 24th Panzer division. -No possibility to rotate air units to/from the western front as you like for training purposes (as far as I can see at least.) Air units do not have to withdraw from the Eastern front to rest and train. -No possibility to alter the course of history on the rest of the fronts as in SF (e.g. reinforcing the western front with a couple of PzDiv to keep crucial production in '44 if Ruhr is threatened, assigning left-over/inferior equipment&units to OKW during 41-43 as this is enough to hold the more or less "static" front and to fight partisans etc.). Since production is allocated historically most of it is already going to the Eastern front prior to 1944 and those low quality units are in the West just not in the game. These are some things that meant alot to me both in terms of immersion, replayability and added alot of strategic elements to the SF games. Trust me, you will have more than enough on your plate just managing the war in the East and be thankful the designer hasn't burden you with even more decisions to make.

robarrieta -> Game Manual (12/30/2009 9:35:20 PM)
Hi. Has the game manual been drafted? If so, how in depth is the explanation of the game's mechanics? In other words, will explain things such as combat odds, supply calcs, combat modifiers, etc? Also, please, please, please do not make the manual anything like the worthless TOAW manual. Don't be shy with the details!

elmo3 -> RE: Game Manual (12/30/2009 10:10:45 PM)
At this stage the manual is undergoing many changes and is far from finished. No doubt it will be up to the same standards as other 2by3 manuals.

Rasputitsa -> RE: War in the East Q&A (12/31/2009 12:18:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joel Billings I have to say it is weird to be competing with one of our old products, especially products from 15+ years ago. They were, and still are, so very very good, but however weird, it must be nice to have that sort of pedigree. Happy New Year, roll on Q2. [:)]

Iñaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/4/2010 2:39:45 PM)
I was wondering, I have played TOAW for years, there are some very big Eastern Front scenarios created with that game, I myself did a couple and researched for anothers, there is a lot of interesting info there regarding OOBs, how easily can be to create an scenario in WITE using those data? Another question, breaktroghus were always the weak point in TOAW, they were difficult to achieve because of the strong ZOCs, otherwise required to keep enemy units engaged in a realistic way, this is always a difficult balance, how is that working in WITE? Finally, how important is supply in the game? In TOAW supply was very unrealistic, the enitire Wermacht could be supplied trhough a single supply point, is supply a quantitative measure? can units get shrot of supply because they extract it from the same supply point and got it dry?

elmo3 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/4/2010 3:54:03 PM)
IMHO the editor could be a bit more user friendly but it will be improved and better documented before launch I'm sure. Breakthroughs are certainly possible and it is quite historical to be able to pocket many Soviet units in the early turns of the '41 campaign for example. There are extra movement point costs for moving through terrain you don't already control but they are not prohibitive. Pretty sure we have posted some screen shots of breakthroughs and pockets here somewhere already. Supply is critical to success for both sides. I never played TOAW but it is not possible to supply your whole organization from a single source. You can have situations where some units are in supply and others are not based on many different factors.

Iñaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/7/2010 2:19:58 PM)
Another question, in many wargames any unit attacked that can´t retreat becuase it is surrounded, either completely or by enemy ZOCs, is completely destroyed, is that the case in WITE?

Great_Ajax -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/7/2010 3:27:40 PM)
Good seeing you again, Inaki. I am just getting to work with the editor and Lee is right about the user friendliness of it and it is more difficult to use than TOAW. However, it is very easy to build OOBs and the game comes with template TO&Es already so in that regards, it is much quicker. A nice feature of this system is that you can establish command hierachies within the game and the editor as well so you can set up Armies and Corps and what units are subordinate to them. Agreed on TOAW's breakouts. The ZOCs work better in this system and it is very easy to find a weak seam in the Russian lines in '41 and then exploit with a Panzer Corps into the rear. In fact, I am pretty agressive doing this to the point where I have dangerously extended these mobile units and Andy has smacked me a couple of times when I have done so. The mobile units are very dangerous so much so that Soviets in '41 can't really do anything to stop them until the Panzers start running out of fuel. I like to use the Panzer Corps more of an out maneuvering unit than one that engages in tough combat. Supply is critical in WiTE and is THE major factor that prevents the Germans from completely defeating the Soviets in '41. There are times when I have to sit out my mobile units for a couple of weeks while they draw fuel to prepare for another push. Once you get over to the Dnepr, fuel supplies really dry up as the rail system is a mess and you have to get your rail repair units to catch up with the front. You don't know how many times I have cursed at the screen for having no fuel to exploit a nice seam or find myself run dry after I have made a good breakthrough only to watch Andy slip his forces to the East and reconsolidate on another defensive line. I don't think there are specific supply points per say but the longer that a unit is away from Germany, the more supplies start to dry up. It is also important that a HQ remain near a working rail line to receive supplies and subordinate units have to be within so any hexes of their HQ to receive adequate supply. I am not familiar with the exact mechanics though. Trey quote: ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar I was wondering, I have played TOAW for years, there are some very big Eastern Front scenarios created with that game, I myself did a couple and researched for anothers, there is a lot of interesting info there regarding OOBs, how easily can be to create an scenario in WITE using those data? Another question, breaktroghus were always the weak point in TOAW, they were difficult to achieve because of the strong ZOCs, otherwise required to keep enemy units engaged in a realistic way, this is always a difficult balance, how is that working in WITE? Finally, how important is supply in the game? In TOAW supply was very unrealistic, the enitire Wermacht could be supplied trhough a single supply point, is supply a quantitative measure? can units get shrot of supply because they extract it from the same supply point and got it dry?

elmo3 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/7/2010 5:35:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar Another question, in many wargames any unit attacked that can´t retreat becuase it is surrounded, either completely or by enemy ZOCs, is completely destroyed, is that the case in WITE? ZOC's don't stop a unit from retreating. Whether a unit retreats, routs, shatters, or surrenders and whether it takes additional losses while retreating depends on many factors and involves a lot of calculations. To be honest I've never surrounded an enemy unit with 6 units to see what happens. Historically a lot of soldiers made it through enemy lines when surrounded and lived to fight on and I think this is modeled well with the current retreat rules.

Joel Billings -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/7/2010 11:23:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar Another question, in many wargames any unit attacked that can´t retreat becuase it is surrounded, either completely or by enemy ZOCs, is completely destroyed, is that the case in WITE? The answer is complicated. You can't retreat into an enemy controlled hex, but you can retreat into a hex that has an enemy ZOC extending into it (as long as it is considered a friendly hex). If a unit has nowhere it can retreat to, and it is isolated (ended it's turn cut off from supply sources), then it will be removed from the game, but some manpower and equipment will escape and return to the production pools. If it is not isolated, but has no where to retreat to then it will rout per the rout rules back to it's HQ or a nearby friendly town (after taking some extra casualties). So units that were not isolated at the beginning of the enemy player's turn cannot be destroyed because it doesn't have a place to retreat to, but will suffer from routing. Of course, to complicate things, there is "shattered", which could happen to any unit that is damaged sufficiently in combat and is weak enough as a unit that it disintegrates as a unit (with some manpower and equipment going back to the production pools).

Iñaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/8/2010 8:51:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joel Billings Of course, to complicate things, there is "shattered", which could happen to any unit that is damaged sufficiently in combat and is weak enough as a unit that it disintegrates as a unit (with some manpower and equipment going back to the production pools). You mean that even if not surrendered, any unit can evaporate (using TOAW language) and be removed from play because of excessive losses?

Helpless -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/8/2010 9:22:44 AM)
quote: You mean that even if not surrendered, any unit can evaporate (using TOAW language) and be removed from play because of excessive losses? It calls shatter in WITE.

Iñaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/15/2010 12:28:23 PM)
2 quick questions 1) Is there any advantage in winter for Soviet units? 2) As it is an IGOUGO system, is there any way to prevent cheating in PBEM by reloading turns?

elmo3 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/15/2010 12:55:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar 2 quick questions 1) Is there any advantage in winter for Soviet units? 2) As it is an IGOUGO system, is there any way to prevent cheating in PBEM by reloading turns? 1) Yes the first winter is very tough on the Axis, except for the Finns. 2) PBEM is not implemented yet.

ComradeP -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/15/2010 1:24:06 PM)
-Are losses "scaled" compared to the unit size of the attacking and defending stacks and units? In TOAW and in some cases in PzC, an attack by a huge amount of units against a single unit could in some cases result in a negligible amount of casualties for the defender and a high amount of casualties for the attacker. It was one of the TOAW things that I didn't like, next to how half a week worth of bombardment caused about 24 casualties (3 squads) and a few guys with a headache. Will 10 to 1 attacks be likely to crush the defender, or will they cause 20% casualties at every combat phase or the like? -If a broken up unit (regiments of a division) evaporates, what happens?

elmo3 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/15/2010 7:48:23 PM)
Yes overwhelming attacks can inflict heavy losses on the defender and force it to retreat/rout/shatter but there is a fair amount of randomness in the results so I would not say it's guaranteed. Not sure what you are asking regarding regiments of a division "evaporating"? Only the attacked unit(s) are affected. Any remaining regiments would still be able to fight. I'm assuming you are referring to a division being broken down into regiments with some not being attacked.

ComradeP -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/15/2010 10:26:52 PM)
I'll rephrase it: what if one of the regiments in a broken up division dies, but the rest do not?

elmo3 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/15/2010 11:00:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP I'll rephrase it: what if one of the regiments in a broken up division dies, but the rest do not? This is a very short question that would require a very long answer to give you all the details. Breakdowns and rebuilding units are handled differently for the Axis and Soviet units and cover a couple of full pages of text in the manual. Since the Axis side can't make new units they have to rebuild destroyed ones. When the regiment gets rebuilt it could recombine with the others to reform the division. Soviet buildup and breakdown of units is much more involved depending on the date and the unit involved. Their units are not rebuilt so any unit of the right size can be used to recombine into a parent unit. That is the short answer and as always is subject to change as we move toward launch.

mmarquo -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/17/2010 2:37:58 AM)
I for one hope that the victory conditions are modeled so that the Axis player can win if the game is played through 1944/45. It is very rare for any EF game to last that long because Axis players seem to "lose interest" once the blitz falters and they have to go on a 2/3 year mobile defense. But for me, this is the most fun. Clash of Arms, "War Without Mercy" keeps the 2 players engaged to the bitter end because the VP conditions are constructed well. Marquo [:)]

AZKGungHo -> RE: War in the East Q&A (1/18/2010 3:28:50 PM)
I'm with you Marquo. Playing defense against overwhelming odds, knowing you can't avoid defeat but fighting to see how long you can hold out against the odds - now that's my kind of game!! No quitting early!!

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.34375