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 (5/13/2010 1:31:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beetle

...I have a question about the production/replacement concept associated with the game. My understanding is that the production/replacement concept is based on historical #s. Is that correct? If so, how is the game influenced by events that occur within the game (i.e. the taking of a city that adds additional production/replacement capability)? Is there going to be a way to influence the units that are produced/replaced (i.e. there are more armor losses vs. infantry losses)?



At last a question instead of an opinion (sorry, ComradeP)!

There are two types of production in the game: historical production for aircraft and AFVs based on a fixed amount each turn and demand production for everything else based on the difference between the non-AFV TOE strength of a unit and its actual strength. Historical production can vary down by the loss or damage of factories but cannot vary up within a given scenario. Every aircraft and AFV has a build limit which caps the size its factory can grow to. For example, you can get less Panthers than were built historically if a factory producing them is bombed or overrun but you can never get more. Of course you could go into the editor and adjust the production output for a custom scenario but you would have to do this before beginning the scenario. Unlike some previous Grigsby games, there is no way to adjust production during a scenario.

When you capture enemy resources a percentage of those resources is added to your production system which allows you to produce more fuel (if oil) and supplies. Since everything except fuel is produced with supplies having more supplies makes building everything else easier.

Since aircraft and AFV production are fixed, suffering losses significantly in excess of historical will obviously result in weaker air and armored units. Of course, the reverse is also true. It comes down to a command decision on your part. Do I work my air and armored units very hard and risk wreaking them or play conservative to conserve my strength and risk not attaining my objectives?



ComradeP -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 1:56:41 PM)

OK, a question then: if the Soviets pack up basically every factory they can, except for those lost on turn 1, and assuming the Axis advance is more or less historical, do they have the resources to keep the factories operational, or will many have limited production until Lend-Lease supplies start to arrive in significant quantities? I guess the biggest variable in terms of Soviet factories is how many they move to the East prior to the Axis taking over the industrial centres the factories are located in.



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 3:00:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

OK, a question then: if the Soviets pack up basically every factory they can, except for those lost on turn 1, and assuming the Axis advance is more or less historical, do they have the resources to keep the factories operational, or will many have limited production until Lend-Lease supplies start to arrive in significant quantities? I guess the biggest variable in terms of Soviet factories is how many they move to the East prior to the Axis taking over the industrial centres the factories are located in.



Yes, assuming you move them such that the factories don't overload the population and resources of the city they will eventually return to full production but you want to move the absolute minimum number necessary. Not only does moving a factory disrupt its production but it also requires an enormous amount of your rail capacity. In 1941 especially, you really need that rail capacity to move your forces around.



ComradeP -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 3:11:47 PM)

Will moving more factories, eventually, result in (significantly) increased production, or is it not really worth moving as many factories as you can to the East (assuming you can place them in cities that have the manpower/resources for them to function) from a production perspective?

That specific feature still sounds like it could, by itself, provide the basics for a number of strategies, like moving a lot of men to the front, but fewer factories East or moving more factories East, but fewer men to the front.

Another question: what happens when reinforcements are scheduled to arrive on a hex that already contains a full stack, will they wait another turn or be placed in an adjacent hex or the like?



USSLockwood -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 3:18:01 PM)

I"m sure this has been asked a hundred times but here goes:
Is weather random or historical?



Zovs -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 3:57:08 PM)

quote:

Is weather random or historical?


Yes.

Or you get to choose which you would like to use.



janh -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 4:14:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw
There are two types of production in the game: historical production for aircraft and AFVs based on a fixed amount each turn and demand production for everything else based on the difference between the non-AFV TOE strength of a unit and its actual strength. ... Unlike some previous Grigsby games, there is no way to adjust production during a scenario.


Since you guys are still alpha, are you still planning to add this feature to the game? I liked the micromanagement to adjust production and replacements in the Gary Grigsby games a lot, and it gave the feeling that you can change things on the bigger scale. I don't know how other people feel about that, but for me it added significantly to the game play.




Derfel -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 4:19:35 PM)

I think that production is not going to be changed, but if it would be changed, it should be tied into the political points you have in the game.
IE you can either choose to change a general, or hope to get more tanks rolling your way.



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 4:30:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Will moving more factories, eventually, result in (significantly) increased production, or is it not really worth moving as many factories as you can to the East (assuming you can place them in cities that have the manpower/resources for them to function) from a production perspective?

That specific feature still sounds like it could, by itself, provide the basics for a number of strategies, like moving a lot of men to the front, but fewer factories East or moving more factories East, but fewer men to the front.

Another question: what happens when reinforcements are scheduled to arrive on a hex that already contains a full stack, will they wait another turn or be placed in an adjacent hex or the like?


You only want to move factories when they are threatened by the Axis advance. In the short run, you will always have less production if you move a factory and in the long run if you move a factory that historically wasn't moved you will have less total production. Conversely, if you don't move a factory that was historically moved and the Axis do not capture the city you will have slightly greater production than historical. Obviously the worse case is to get a factory overrun by the Axis that they did not historically capture.

Reinforcements that would over-stack the replacement hex are delayed till the next turn.



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 4:33:20 PM)

There has already been a huge debate about "free production" (see the appropriate topic) that you can review but the short answer is that it won't be changed.



Ron -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 5:37:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

German sources are self-serving. Compare PANZER LEADER to any objective account of the battles around Smolensk. I'm not disputing that the Russians had command and control problems, just the "conventional wisdow" (German account) of what happened in the summer of 1942.




Wow, quite the sweeping blanket statement! Odd how the pendulum swings and sides are taken.



Beetle -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 6:06:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beetle

...I have a question about the production/replacement concept associated with the game. My understanding is that the production/replacement concept is based on historical #s. Is that correct? If so, how is the game influenced by events that occur within the game (i.e. the taking of a city that adds additional production/replacement capability)? Is there going to be a way to influence the units that are produced/replaced (i.e. there are more armor losses vs. infantry losses)?



At last a question instead of an opinion (sorry, ComradeP)!

There are two types of production in the game: historical production for aircraft and AFVs based on a fixed amount each turn and demand production for everything else based on the difference between the non-AFV TOE strength of a unit and its actual strength. Historical production can vary down by the loss or damage of factories but cannot vary up within a given scenario. Every aircraft and AFV has a build limit which caps the size its factory can grow to. For example, you can get less Panthers than were built historically if a factory producing them is bombed or overrun but you can never get more. Of course you could go into the editor and adjust the production output for a custom scenario but you would have to do this before beginning the scenario. Unlike some previous Grigsby games, there is no way to adjust production during a scenario.

When you capture enemy resources a percentage of those resources is added to your production system which allows you to produce more fuel (if oil) and supplies. Since everything except fuel is produced with supplies having more supplies makes building everything else easier.

Since aircraft and AFV production are fixed, suffering losses significantly in excess of historical will obviously result in weaker air and armored units. Of course, the reverse is also true. It comes down to a command decision on your part. Do I work my air and armored units very hard and risk wreaking them or play conservative to conserve my strength and risk not attaining my objectives?



Jaw- Thanks for the explanation of the production function.

Comrade P keep up the opinions (we need them)..[:)].

In the spirit of trying to keep the Q&A section to Q&A - could you tell me the thougth process behind only having the production go down from historical levels?

My logic (which may flawed) is that either external forces hindered production (i.e. your example of factories being bombed) or the production being siphoned off (i.e. another front needing the production). However, the other side could be argued...(factories being built, or other commands encountering success). Could you please provide a little insight into this thought?

Personnally, I would love to see you guys let the production be in excess or less than historical levels based on the difficulty level.

Thanks for the hard work.



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 7:32:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beetle


In the spirit of trying to keep the Q&A section to Q&A - could you tell me the thougth process behind only having the production go down from historical levels?

My logic (which may flawed) is that either external forces hindered production (i.e. your example of factories being bombed) or the production being siphoned off (i.e. another front needing the production). However, the other side could be argued...(factories being built, or other commands encountering success). Could you please provide a little insight into this thought?

Personnally, I would love to see you guys let the production be in excess or less than historical levels based on the difficulty level.

Thanks for the hard work.


To be technically accurate production can go both up or down compared to historical but it is difficult to get it to go up and difficult to get it to go down. To exceed historical production (and remember we are only talking about aircraft and AFVs) you have to not move a factory that was historically moved. For example, if you are confident that you can hold Leningrad and you leave all the Leningrad factories in place, you will get more production of what was being produced at those factories when they were historically moved (no production disruption from moving). If you leave the factories in Leningrad and you lose the city you will lose the subsequent production of those factories for the rest of the War.

It is also possible, but not very effective, to strategically bomb factories in an effort to damage them. The Germans have a limited strategic bombing capability at the beginning of the War but there is almost always something more important to do with those planes than strategic bombing. The Russians also have a strategic bombing capability but without air superiority it will be many months, if not years, before they can fly a strategic bombing mission with a reasonable chance of success; by that time the Russians will also have better things to do with their aircraft than bomb German factories, the bombing of which by the Allied Combined Bomber Offensive is already factored into the production system.

Given that in theory there is more than enough time and rail capacity to duplicate the historical factory evacuation and minimal chance of serious disruption from bombing, a fixed production system better simulates the actual capabilities of the respective war economies than any "free production" system would without an enormous amount of restrictive coding to prevent odd ball production distortions (the old switch all tank production to Panthers).



Beetle -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 11:05:05 PM)

Jaw - Thanks for the explanation

One other question...if I read the other forums correctly, it appears that the game is still in the Alpha Testing phase. Is that correct? Is there a rough estimate of when Beta Testing begins?

Thanks a ton



janh -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 11:30:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw
Given that in theory there is more than enough time and rail capacity to duplicate the historical factory evacuation and minimal chance of serious disruption from bombing, a fixed production system better simulates the actual capabilities of the respective war economies than any "free production" system would without an enormous amount of restrictive coding to prevent odd ball production distortions (the old switch all tank production to Panthers).


Your concerns are shared, and yet with the German production "as was" playing any scenario beyond 1943 sounds like little fun, particularly as German player. As a Russian you have the means to just overrun the Germans at any cost, and the latter can't even fine tune his economy and maybe introduce Speer's changes already a year earlier to get AFV, etc. production up to speed. It sounds like very little fun for the German player to know that he essentially can't even achieve a draw in 44 anymore without the ability to bump up production or maybe accelerate development of new tank and plane types by focusing research early on (like in WITP-AE). Anyway, you guys make the development decisions and hopefully have considered what your target audience is looking for in terms of features in order to buy. If nobody else cares for that, it of course wouldn't make sense to invest development time in that.



Joel Billings -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/13/2010 11:59:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beetle

Jaw - Thanks for the explanation

One other question...if I read the other forums correctly, it appears that the game is still in the Alpha Testing phase. Is that correct? Is there a rough estimate of when Beta Testing begins?

Thanks a ton



Soon. We are working on getting PBEM in the game now, and then sound and music. By the time these are in we should be at beta, or so close that you could consider us at beta. Because of the long Alpha phase, I expect beta to be short. The game may not be at beta, but it's been very playable for a very long time.



karonagames -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/14/2010 11:29:37 AM)

@Janh

War in the East is an "Alternate History Creator" that focuses on trying to simulate the logistic and command and control problems that the historical commanders on the Eastern Front had to deal with. It will allow players to explore many of the strategic "What ifs" that have been discussed by historians and armchair strategists for many years. The economic and research based "what ifs" are not the focus.

With regards to the game not being "fun" for the Axis player beyond 1943, this has been the subject of much debate amongst the testers, which we hope will be addressed by the victory conditions which will be designed to incentivise the Axis to continue the fight to the bitter end, and enable them to feel a sense of achievement after committing the huge amount of time needed to play all 205 turns.

The main issue for 1943 onwards, due to the influence that hindsight will have on the alternate history created by the game, is not whether the Axis can research and produce enough "super" weapons, but what use they can make of the 30 divisions they did not lose at the end of 1942 because they did not make the strategic mistakes made by the historical commanders. The challenge for the Soviets will be to build an army capable of defeating a stronger axis opponent by or before the historical timeline.

I for one look forward to seeing how that alternate history will unfold and the AAR that will accompany it.



SGHunt -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/14/2010 12:08:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

...all 205 turns.


(Salivating) There are at some of us out here who will need little incentivising! I may not do it that many times (that's a lot of hours of play), but I guarantee I'll play this one to the end at least once and probably twice - once for each side.

I'll be holed up in Berlin with my last shattered corps taking as many of them with me as I can... Now, if I can just cut my way through to the American. Where are the wonder weapons we were promised?[;)]

Stuart



ComradeP -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/14/2010 12:11:43 PM)

Also: the Soviet player will also be faced with the same more or less historical production ("more or less" because you might evacuate more factories than the Soviets actually evacuated), which means that until mid-late 1943, your army won't consist of huge numbers of T34 units, but your T34 units will be mixed with various kinds of poorly designed/low production quality light tanks.

Likewise, your aircraft designs might be fairly good but you won't have the quality pilots to match with those designs. You'll also be stuck with lots of mediocre planes that might be able to fight on equal terms with a Me109, which makes you happy that the Luftwaffe fighter designs more or less stopped modernizing (with numbers of new types not becoming available in any significant quantity) during the War in the East.

Not to mention that the Soviet player will also need to rely on Lend-Lease for most of its trucks and virtually all of its APC's, because the Soviet player can't tune Soviet motorized transport production either. As you can see in some of Hard Sarge's screenshots, that will also mean your motor pool isn't a pretty sight through most of the game because you don't have nearly enough trucks for the huge army you will have in the field.

The historical setting gives penalties to both sides.

A question: will the game ship with a document detailing where the factories are, what they produce, what their upgrade path is and (indicated by an asterisk or the like) whether they were evacuated in case it's a Soviet factory? That would be really helpful. Of course, the community could also create such a reference sheet but it would be nice if its included with the game.



Beetle -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/14/2010 12:40:03 PM)

@ Joel

I know that I am not the only one eagerly anticipating the release. Thanks for the information.



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/14/2010 1:09:54 PM)

Another thing that people forget is how small a portion the tank strength of an army represents to its total strength. In Pyledrivers' current AAR of the '42 Campaign he has about 2,800 AFVs. Given an average strength of 4 men per AFV they represent roughly 11,000 men out of an army of over 3 million. In the game, as in the real war, it's the infantry, backed up with tons of artillery, that does most of the fighting (and dying) and their creation is not historically fixed in the production system.



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/14/2010 1:18:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP


A question: will the game ship with a document detailing where the factories are, what they produce, what their upgrade path is and (indicated by an asterisk or the like) whether they were evacuated in case it's a Soviet factory? That would be really helpful. Of course, the community could also create such a reference sheet but it would be nice if its included with the game.


You can press a hot key to see a list of the cities, then drill down to see what factories are in each city. You can also press a key to highlight factory cities on the map. Upgrades are based on the unit itself so you would have to look at a unit to see what it upgrades to. For example, if you click on a Panzer IIIh you will see that it upgrades to a Panzer IIIj.

As for a master reference sheet of all these upgrades, it doesn't currently exist to my knowledge but they are always adding new or enhanced displays with each new version so it may eventually be there.



wurger54 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/14/2010 1:29:19 PM)




quote:

I'll be holed up in Berlin with my last shattered corps taking as many of them with me as I can... Now, if I can just cut my way through to the American. Where are the wonder weapons we were promised?


THAT'S the spirit!!! [:D]



karonagames -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/14/2010 4:55:16 PM)

Correction there are 210 turns to the historical game end - this can be extended if the soviets have not achieved their "instant win" victory conditions.



SGHunt -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/14/2010 5:55:52 PM)

Now that it has become a 'live' issue (because of Jon's AAR), did we ever get an answer to the question that someone asked about the railway line that crosses an impassable hexside over the Volga Reservoir NW of Moscow?   I presume only entrained units (and rail repair units?) can cross this hexside, and then only when the railine is converted? 

Thanks



SGHunt -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/14/2010 6:07:46 PM)

... and another for Joel:

quote:

He realized he had special defense zones set up that were not defending key cities from the south but mostly from the west. Next time you play it won't be quite so easy to pocket troops in those key cities like Tula and Voronezh coming from the south


Do ask Gary from me not to overdo it!   I have a nasty suspicion that Jon is doing as well as he is because he knows what he's doing, based I've no doubt on some pretty bloody experiences (witness Elmo's first winter!)  I think Special Defense Zones facing W, NW and SW will be quite enough, thank you. [;)] 

BTW what are special defence zones?   Do they represent fixed emplacements, trench systems, mines, wire and such?  Or do they act like the fortification units that Elmo employed in his Barabarossa AAR?

What impact do they have?   Do they increase the fortification level or the combat value?  

Are we there yet? [:)]

Thanks again
Stuart



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/14/2010 6:26:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Jaeger

Now that it has become a 'live' issue (because of Jon's AAR), did we ever get an answer to the question that someone asked about the railway line that crosses an impassable hexside over the Volga Reservoir NW of Moscow?   I presume only entrained units (and rail repair units?) can cross this hexside, and then only when the railine is converted? 

Thanks


You must use rail movement (entrained) to cross that hexside which obviously implies the correct gauge.



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/14/2010 6:40:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: von Jaeger

... Do ask Gary from me not to overdo it!   I have a nasty suspicion that Jon is doing as well as he is because he knows what he's doing, based I've no doubt on some pretty bloody experiences (witness Elmo's first winter!)  I think Special Defense Zones facing W, NW and SW will be quite enough, thank you. [;)] 

BTW what are special defence zones?   Do they represent fixed emplacements, trench systems, mines, wire and such?  Or do they act like the fortification units that Elmo employed in his Barabarossa AAR?

What impact do they have?   Do they increase the fortification level or the combat value?  

Are we there yet? [:)]

Thanks again
Stuart



I'm not certain about my answer here because I have not yet loaded the most recent version of the scenarios but in the version I have in front of me there is a string of hexes west of Moscow containing Fortified Regions and entrenched to fort level 3 that may be this defense zone. There is nothing about the special defense zone in the latest version of the rules I have but that version is now almost a week old so that's not saying much.



jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/14/2010 6:47:10 PM)

Now that I look at Joel's post I don't think he is referring to any physical defense but to programming logic to help the computer cope with flanking attacks on particular areas of the map. [&:]



SGHunt -> RE: War in the East Q&A (5/14/2010 7:57:20 PM)

Thanks - over to Joel for some more on this perhaps?   My sense is that all the big cities, when under threat, had the entire population out digging big AT ditches, making tank traps and pill boxes, and digging miles and miles of inter-connected trench systems.



Page: <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.844727