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 (9/21/2009 1:55:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sentinel Six How does the game represent the damage and dislocation of German production capacity caused by the combined bomber offensive or loss of capacity through the Western Allies overrunning German territory? Game production is net of the effects of the Allied bomber offensive and Allied advance.

ComradeP -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/21/2009 7:19:15 PM)
-Can the BBC (not the Brits)/VVS bomb German industrial zones/production areas? -Do planes automatically get detached to the Reichsluftverteidigung, if so, is any part of the production flexible in that, although production totals are fixed in theory, detachment of more/better fighter aircraft+pilots means less impact of the Allied bomber offensive? -In 1944, with the Soviets approaching the German border, do (by that time) Luftflotte Reich units appear in the German OOB, if so, at what strengths? -If fighter units are withdrawn for the air war over Germany, at which strengths do they return if they did so historically? Can this be influenced in some way by the player (in other words: does the game always burn up a possibly elite Gruppe just because the rookies that were in the Gruppe in real life got smacked out of the air)? Same question for FlaK units and air command support units.

jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/22/2009 4:12:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP -Can the BBC (not the Brits)/VVS bomb German industrial zones/production areas? Yes, but unlikely to be very effective. -Do planes automatically get detached to the Reichsluftverteidigung, if so, is any part of the production flexible in that, although production totals are fixed in theory, detachment of more/better fighter aircraft+pilots means less impact of the Allied bomber offensive? No -In 1944, with the Soviets approaching the German border, do (by that time) Luftflotte Reich units appear in the German OOB, if so, at what strengths? How to handle transfers between fronts of Luftwaffe units has yet to settled upon. -If fighter units are withdrawn for the air war over Germany, at which strengths do they return if they did so historically? Can this be influenced in some way by the player (in other words: does the game always burn up a possibly elite Gruppe just because the rookies that were in the Gruppe in real life got smacked out of the air)? Same question for FlaK units and air command support units. Same answer, they have not determined this yet.

Iñaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/23/2009 9:31:22 AM)
Are units routed after combat or somehow limited in their capabilities after a defeat in combat?

Hard Sarge -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/23/2009 12:59:00 PM)
depends you can have held, retreat, route, surrendered and again, depends on what happened during combat, you may have a battle, where you lost 40 men, and no weapons or tanks, other battles you may lose 4000 men, 200 weapons and 50 tanks, and still hold the ground, but you are not going to be too strong the next turn on the attack which so saying, you have different unit stances, Ready, unready, refit, reserve, frozen, depleted so again, depending on what happens, your Ready Div, could go to a unready state/stance or even worse a depleted stance, you not doing much of anything, other then maybe following behind the line if that happens (you want to go to refit and try to build up the unit first) but for retreat, you may lose a little and retreat and still be okay, you may lose a lot and not be okay, or you may route if you take too much, were too weak, or just failed too many morale checks oddly, if you are vastly outnumbered, you seem to run away and take light losses

paullus99 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/23/2009 1:43:07 PM)
Another question - The Germans were fairly good at determining where & when a major Soviet attack was going to take place - they would (sometimes) be able to pull back outside of the range of artillery & be better prepared to absorb the attack. Is that modeled in any way? This was one important reason the Soviets used so much direct fire artillery (self-propelled), since there was no guarantee that the initial artillery barrages were going to do the job.

jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/23/2009 9:56:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paullus99 Another question - The Germans were fairly good at determining where & when a major Soviet attack was going to take place - they would (sometimes) be able to pull back outside of the range of artillery & be better prepared to absorb the attack. Is that modeled in any way? This was one important reason the Soviets used so much direct fire artillery (self-propelled), since there was no guarantee that the initial artillery barrages were going to do the job. At a 10 mile to the hex/one week per turn scale that manuever is too tactical to be simulated. Personally, I think the tactic was not nearly as successful as the German commanders would like us to think given the history of the War. I can't think of a single major Russian offensive it actually stopped.

Iñaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/24/2009 11:38:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge depends you can have held, retreat, route, surrendered and again, depends on what happened during combat, you may have a battle, where you lost 40 men, and no weapons or tanks, other battles you may lose 4000 men, 200 weapons and 50 tanks, and still hold the ground, but you are not going to be too strong the next turn on the attack which so saying, you have different unit stances, Ready, unready, refit, reserve, frozen, depleted so again, depending on what happens, your Ready Div, could go to a unready state/stance or even worse a depleted stance, you not doing much of anything, other then maybe following behind the line if that happens (you want to go to refit and try to build up the unit first) but for retreat, you may lose a little and retreat and still be okay, you may lose a lot and not be okay, or you may route if you take too much, were too weak, or just failed too many morale checks oddly, if you are vastly outnumbered, you seem to run away and take light losses Ok, but if you get route result, is the unit routed? By that I mean it is out of the player control, retreating on their won, for instance. You say there are different unit stances, those stances limit what the player can do with the unit. I assume frozen prevents you from doing anything with that unit until released, but what about unready? can you move or attack with an unready unit?

jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/24/2009 6:38:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar Ok, but if you get route result, is the unit routed? By that I mean it is out of the player control, retreating on their won, for instance. No, routed units have a zero combat value and reduced movement rate but otherwise are player controlled like any other unit. You say there are different unit stances, those stances limit what the player can do with the unit. I assume frozen prevents you from doing anything with that unit until released, but what about unready? can you move or attack with an unready unit? The only user selectable statuses are Ready, Refit, & Reserve. Players can shift units back and forth between these statuses. Frozen units are fixed in placed for a given number of turns usually specified by scenario. Unready units can be thought of as units re-organizing. They are less combat effective than ready units.

Ron -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/30/2009 6:23:42 PM)
Forgive me if this has been asked and answered already, been searching the thread(s) but couldn't find any more info. I was rereading the developer's diary from February(!) this year and the last couple pages really caught my attention this time. I would like to hear/know more about the Leader Initiative/Administration and Supplies and resulting Movement points allocated to units - this seems like a great concept. How does this play out in the game on average and does it change over time, ie does the USSR get better Leaders as the war progresses to reflect their learning? Does one have to 'husband' supplies before launching an offensive? What about the Motor Pool described? Is it fixed or can it be built up? What are the variables besides distance from the railhead? Thanks.

PyleDriver -> RE: War in the East Q&A (9/30/2009 10:36:42 PM)
Well thats like a full novel Ron, Jim (Jaw) can better answer that. But I can say everything you have brought up has been considered and still being tweaked...

Ron -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/1/2009 3:53:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PyleDriver Well thats like a full novel Ron, Jim (Jaw) can better answer that. But I can say everything you have brought up has been considered and still being tweaked... A full novel better expressed by the game? :) Sure and I understand things are still being balanced etc., however still looking forward to whatever is thrown out here, even a few chicken scratches on a bar napkin. :)

jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/2/2009 3:01:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Forgive me if this has been asked and answered already, been searching the thread(s) but couldn't find any more info. I was rereading the developer's diary from February(!) this year and the last couple pages really caught my attention this time. I would like to hear/know more about the Leader Initiative/Administration and Supplies and resulting Movement points allocated to units - this seems like a great concept. How does this play out in the game on average and does it change over time, ie does the USSR get better Leaders as the war progresses to reflect their learning? Does one have to 'husband' supplies before launching an offensive? What about the Motor Pool described? Is it fixed or can it be built up? What are the variables besides distance from the railhead? Thanks. Let's start with the movement rate part of your question. I'll give you a condensed explanation of how a unit's movement rate is determined rather than the novel version which we'll save for the manual. As always, remember that this game is in alpha so rules may change. All units have a base movement rate which can only be reduced by modifiers. The effects are cumulative in the following order: Fatigue - a direct subtraction based on average fatigue divided by 10; Leader Initiative - a check against leader's initiative rating failure of which reduces movement rate 20%; Leader Administration - a check against leader's admin rating failure of which reduces movement rate 20%; % of fuel (motorized) or supply (non-motorized) a unit has compared to its full requirement, a unit's final movement rate (as determined above) cannot exceed this percentage of the base movement rate. Leaders - Yes, they can improve (be promoted) with experience; Except by scenario, units can only be supplied to 100% of their requirements; The motor pool expands and contracts based on combat results and the distance units are from their railheads (you need more trucks to supply units far from their railheads). Vehicles (trucks, etc.) are needed by almost all units not just for supply.

Capt Cliff -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/8/2009 7:25:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaw quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Forgive me if this has been asked and answered already, been searching the thread(s) but couldn't find any more info. I was rereading the developer's diary from February(!) this year and the last couple pages really caught my attention this time. I would like to hear/know more about the Leader Initiative/Administration and Supplies and resulting Movement points allocated to units - this seems like a great concept. How does this play out in the game on average and does it change over time, ie does the USSR get better Leaders as the war progresses to reflect their learning? Does one have to 'husband' supplies before launching an offensive? What about the Motor Pool described? Is it fixed or can it be built up? What are the variables besides distance from the railhead? Thanks. Let's start with the movement rate part of your question. I'll give you a condensed explanation of how a unit's movement rate is determined rather than the novel version which we'll save for the manual. As always, remember that this game is in alpha so rules may change. All units have a base movement rate which can only be reduced by modifiers. The effects are cumulative in the following order: Fatigue - a direct subtraction based on average fatigue divided by 10; Leader Initiative - a check against leader's initiative rating failure of which reduces movement rate 20%; Leader Administration - a check against leader's admin rating failure of which reduces movement rate 20%; % of fuel (motorized) or supply (non-motorized) a unit has compared to its full requirement, a unit's final movement rate (as determined above) cannot exceed this percentage of the base movement rate. Leaders - Yes, they can improve (be promoted) with experience; Except by scenario, units can only be supplied to 100% of their requirements; The motor pool expands and contracts based on combat results and the distance units are from their railheads (you need more trucks to supply units far from their railheads). Vehicles (trucks, etc.) are needed by almost all units not just for supply. So motroized untis only check for fuel or do they check for normal supply as well as for fuel?

jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/9/2009 3:07:32 PM)
For purpose of calculating final movement rate, motorized units only check for fuel.

bwv -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/10/2009 3:25:49 PM)
What is the view of the game on the importance of Moscow? Does is support the conventional view that had the Germans not diverted forces south to Kiev and taken Moscow in 1941 "wins the game? Recently read that David Glantz strongly disagrees with this view and believes the Germans still would have lost if they had taken Moscow in 1941. Are there scenarios recreating various stages of Barbarossa? Such as after the fall of Smolensk, allowing one to play around with hypothetical strategies? An option for a fully mobilized German war production as a variant would be nice as well Also would like a scenario with a greater forward deployment of Soviet forces, in line with what the German planners expected

IronDuke_slith -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/11/2009 12:22:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaw Except by scenario, units can only be supplied to 100% of their requirements; The motor pool expands and contracts based on combat results and the distance units are from their railheads (you need more trucks to supply units far from their railheads). Vehicles (trucks, etc.) are needed by almost all units not just for supply. Couple of quick questions. My apologies if already answered. Does the supply system model supply build ups which might allow for a stockpiling at a local level leading to more frequent re-supply? In other words, a stockpile would allow for better re-supply, as opposed to say instances in 41 and 42 where the Germans were resupplying straight from the trains arriving from the Reich. Secondly, the Wehrmacht was a largely horse drawn force. For the vast majority of German units, the truck was a luxury, and what mattered was the state of the horse park. Are horses within the game as equipment and does their availability or otherwise impact resupply or the movement rate? regards, IronDuke

jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/12/2009 10:59:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke quote: ORIGINAL: jaw Except by scenario, units can only be supplied to 100% of their requirements; The motor pool expands and contracts based on combat results and the distance units are from their railheads (you need more trucks to supply units far from their railheads). Vehicles (trucks, etc.) are needed by almost all units not just for supply. Couple of quick questions. My apologies if already answered. Does the supply system model supply build ups which might allow for a stockpiling at a local level leading to more frequent re-supply? In other words, a stockpile would allow for better re-supply, as opposed to say instances in 41 and 42 where the Germans were resupplying straight from the trains arriving from the Reich. Secondly, the Wehrmacht was a largely horse drawn force. For the vast majority of German units, the truck was a luxury, and what mattered was the state of the horse park. Are horses within the game as equipment and does their availability or otherwise impact resupply or the movement rate? regards, IronDuke Player controlled build ups are not possible but build ups do occur because the supply system is not 100% efficient. The Germans begin 1941 over-supplied by scenario design. The 1942 scenario is not yet complete so I can't comment on whether they are over-supplied in that one but in a 1941 campaign game any supply build ups would require a prolonged period of inactivity to allow the front line units to reach full supply before any supply started accumulating at higher headquarters.

ComradeP -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/13/2009 7:02:24 PM)
How is German acquisition of "native" pack horses and other kinds of horses such as the Russian Don modelled? Do German horse stocks decrease and do they have to capture Ukrainian soil/parts of the SFSR to keep a steady supply of horses coming in?

jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/13/2009 9:00:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP How is German acquisition of "native" pack horses and other kinds of horses such as the Russian Don modelled? Do German horse stocks decrease and do they have to capture Ukrainian soil/parts of the SFSR to keep a steady supply of horses coming in? Horses are only represented in the game as part of the cost of a cavalry squad. All other use of horses is abstracted through the supply system by modifying non-motorized units movement rates by the amount of general supply they have relative to their requirement. In effect, the more general supply a non-motorized unit has, the more horses it has to move things.

jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/14/2009 12:52:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaw Player controlled build ups are not possible but build ups do occur because the supply system is not 100% efficient. The Germans begin 1941 over-supplied by scenario design. The 1942 scenario is not yet complete so I can't comment on whether they are over-supplied in that one but in a 1941 campaign game any supply build ups would require a prolonged period of inactivity to allow the front line units to reach full supply before any supply started accumulating at higher headquarters. I wanted to clarify my answer somewhat. If units are inactive and close to a supply source (usually a rail line), then supply will build up over time to exceed 100%. When such units become active being over-supplied will allow them to sustain operations longer as it will take a few turns to consume the extra supply and drop below 100% again. Therefore if you want to build up supply for an offensive you have to remain inactive (not attacking or being attacked) long enough for the supply to build up. The closer you are to a supply source the faster you can build up supplies. An interesting aside to this process is the role the air game plays. Whether you are on the strategic offensive or strategic defensive you want to conduct air recon frequently so you can spot enemy forces concentrating in quiet sectors of the front. Such concentrations are an indication that enemy units are being rested and bulked up on supply in preparation for an offensive.

Capt Cliff -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/14/2009 6:51:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaw quote: ORIGINAL: jaw Player controlled build ups are not possible but build ups do occur because the supply system is not 100% efficient. The Germans begin 1941 over-supplied by scenario design. The 1942 scenario is not yet complete so I can't comment on whether they are over-supplied in that one but in a 1941 campaign game any supply build ups would require a prolonged period of inactivity to allow the front line units to reach full supply before any supply started accumulating at higher headquarters. I wanted to clarify my answer somewhat. If units are inactive and close to a supply source (usually a rail line), then supply will build up over time to exceed 100%. When such units become active being over-supplied will allow them to sustain operations longer as it will take a few turns to consume the extra supply and drop below 100% again. Therefore if you want to build up supply for an offensive you have to remain inactive (not attacking or being attacked) long enough for the supply to build up. The closer you are to a supply source the faster you can build up supplies. An interesting aside to this process is the role the air game plays. Whether you are on the strategic offensive or strategic defensive you want to conduct air recon frequently so you can spot enemy forces concentrating in quiet sectors of the front. Such concentrations are an indication that enemy units are being rested and bulked up on supply in preparation for an offensive. Will there be supply depots that units can drawn from. Can the player create them?

jaw -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/14/2009 9:59:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff Will there be supply depots that units can drawn from. Can the player create them? Supply dumps are part of the TOE of headquarters and are created when the headquarters is created (Russian) or the headquarters arrives as a reinforcement (Axis & Russian).

Capt Cliff -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/19/2009 7:22:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaw quote: ORIGINAL: paullus99 Another question - The Germans were fairly good at determining where & when a major Soviet attack was going to take place - they would (sometimes) be able to pull back outside of the range of artillery & be better prepared to absorb the attack. Is that modeled in any way? This was one important reason the Soviets used so much direct fire artillery (self-propelled), since there was no guarantee that the initial artillery barrages were going to do the job. At a 10 mile to the hex/one week per turn scale that manuever is too tactical to be simulated. Personally, I think the tactic was not nearly as successful as the German commanders would like us to think given the history of the War. I can't think of a single major Russian offensive it actually stopped. I tend to agree with JAW. It never prevented or defeated a Soviet offensive just minimized the causalties and prolonged the inevitable.

Fred98 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/19/2009 11:10:22 PM)
I use a 24” wide screen monitor What is the size of the map – that is, how many screens wide and how many screens high? -

Hard Sarge -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/20/2009 12:16:29 AM)
on which zoom level ? I got a 25.5 screen

Fred98 -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/20/2009 12:46:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge on which zoom level ? On each of the zoom levels. -

Zemke -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/21/2009 4:52:06 PM)
I apologies up front if this question has already been asked. I have be re-reading several Operation Barbarossa titles in anticipation of this game. Will the Germans be able to match the rate of advance that they were able to do historically at the start of the campaign, particularly in the North and Central? I ask this, because for some reason, most Eastern Front simulations tend to make it very difficult or impossible to match those historical advance rates, mostly because the Soviet units are too over rated, or maybe the German units are under rated. I hope that this game does not make this mistake of over rating the Soviet Army at the start of the campaign, but lets logistics, weather and attrition take it toll on the Germans as was the case historically, of course assuming the German player does not make any huge mistakes at the start of the game.

PyleDriver -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/21/2009 5:42:40 PM)
Well we have worked and worked on this. In testing Leningrad is, if the German player wants it, will fall. Moscow is another story. Do you chose to advance in bad conditions? I have found the best thing to do is take advantage of good weather, then shorten the lines an dig in. The Russian winter is burtal, however if you stop advancments and dig in October, the Axis can be in good shape in the spring. The great thing is that rail repair has caught up, and supply is in good shape...I'm in a game which I'm in, the spring of 42, I'm shorting the lines and drawing plans for the the summer, it's so fun...The LW has pounded the VVS also. Now the PzIVg's and StugIIIg's and PzIIIj's are hitting the front for the new year. We have the power now to do a knock out...Agian this game is not WIR2, it's a dream come true...

bwv -> RE: War in the East Q&A (10/21/2009 5:54:54 PM)
What is the view of the game on the importance of Moscow? Does is support the conventional view that had the Germans not diverted forces south to Kiev and taken Moscow in 1941 "wins the game? Recently read that David Glantz strongly disagrees with this view and believes the Germans still would have lost if they had taken Moscow in 1941. Are there scenarios recreating various stages of Barbarossa? Such as after the fall of Smolensk, allowing one to play around with hypothetical strategies? What about an option for a fully mobilized German war production? Also would like a scenario with a greater forward deployment of Soviet forces, in line with what the German planners expected

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.421875