RE: How realistic is this? (Full Version)

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



Message

Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (4/29/2011 3:15:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Just one simple question for you redmarkus. How long did take to your opponent to take his troops from the Pola river to the Oyat?


IIRC it was two weeks. After one week I realised he'd flanked me and I prepared for an attack on Leningrad from the East by manning the Volkhov river line. The next turn he stormed up through the woods to link with the Finns and the rest is history :)



Panama -> RE: How realistic is this? (4/29/2011 3:32:42 PM)

Why do people expend so much energy asking if something done in the game could have actually been accomplished in the real world?

First of all, no turn based game can ever properly simulate a real world fist fight let alone an entire military campaign. Coming vaguely close is as good as it can get. One of the most obvious reasons is because side A moves without side B responding except in very limited ways. Then side B warps back in time and moves without side A, which has already travelled to the future, being able to respond except in very limited ways.

Then throw in the movement system for WitE and things get worse. Side A moves one unit and the entire rest of side A sees into the future, witnessing all combats and movements from one single unit. Then the next unit can warp back in time to respond to the future set out by that first unit making it's own future so the next unit can warp back in time to respond to. And it snowballs on down the line unit by unit. With side B only able to respond to all of this future vision with only a very limited ability to respond. Then side B does the entire time travel thing unit by unit.

The reason the vast majority of turn based wargames adhere to the move everyone then conduct combat is to avoid any more future vision than is necessary.

Trying to argue about whether or not one side or the other could have done this or that based on the mechanics of this game is not logical to the extreme. It just doesn't matter. WitE is even more of a game than most turn based wargames and not even close to a simulation.

Just play the game, have fun, that's how it was intended. [;)]

[;)]



Redmarkus5 -> Is this even vaguely realistic? (4/29/2011 3:46:07 PM)

Um... because it's a historical war game?

The generals on both sides of this war gamed the campaign before it took place and used the results to plan their operations. The German results were very close to the historical outcome in the opening phases of the campaign.

Accurate war gaming is an important art with many centuries of history behind it, and is widely regarded as a key to successful military operations as well as to a fuller appreciation of events.

Anyway, let me rephrase my question to suit you. Is this even vaguely realistic?

From what I know of Gary Grigsby's games and the war gaming community in general, just 'having fun' is not everything to many of his customers. Some of us want to develop a better understanding of historical events by playing various simulations and this requires a good degree of accuracy. Good examples of games that provide this, though with abstraction in all cases, of course, are the Squad Leader series as a board game and the Combat Mission series on the PC. The upcoming CMBN is a great example.

Those who 'just want to have fun' should certainly feel free to do that, but why should those who want greater accuracy have to keep quiet? Anyway, I'm planning to build a 'what-if the Germans had F16s and M1A1s' mod for you all ;)



Rasputitsa -> RE: How realistic is this? (4/29/2011 5:58:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama
Why do people expend so much energy asking if something done in the game could have actually been accomplished in the real world?

First of all, no turn based game can ever properly simulate a real world fist fight let alone an entire military campaign. Coming vaguely close is as good as it can get. One of the most obvious reasons is because side A moves without side B responding except in very limited ways. Then side B warps back in time and moves without side A, which has already travelled to the future, being able to respond except in very limited ways.

Then throw in the movement system for WitE and things get worse. Side A moves one unit and the entire rest of side A sees into the future, witnessing all combats and movements from one single unit. Then the next unit can warp back in time to respond to the future set out by that first unit making it's own future so the next unit can warp back in time to respond to. And it snowballs on down the line unit by unit. With side B only able to respond to all of this future vision with only a very limited ability to respond. Then side B does the entire time travel thing unit by unit.

The reason the vast majority of turn based wargames adhere to the move everyone then conduct combat is to avoid any more future vision than is necessary.

Trying to argue about whether or not one side or the other could have done this or that based on the mechanics of this game is not logical to the extreme. It just doesn't matter. WitE is even more of a game than most turn based wargames and not even close to a simulation.

Just play the game, have fun, that's how it was intended. [;)]


I am not having so much trouble with the IGO/UGO system in WiTE as I thought I would have, after years of WEGO in WIR. It is common military practice not to commit all your forces, but to probe your enemy with some of your units, before finalising a plan and launching the main operations (all this taking place over a week of action). The defender is always playing catch-up, trying to find out what's going on and is going to be reacting later, or in the case of France 1940, Russians 1941, Germans 1944, not reacting at all, until the turn is over. No game can be a perfect in replicating real world events, but WiTE is pretty good.

However, it is a game about historical events and you would expect that a Tiger unit will perform, as far as possible, relative to a T34 unit, as their historical counterparts did. MiG 3 against BF109F, etc., etc.. The same applies to terrain effects, you would expect that the expenditure of MPs would reflect what was possible at the time, within a reasonable variation.

There will be exceptional events in war, both good and bad, so I can accept some spectacular, or surprising results, from time to time, nobody wants a game that always has average results. I don't know if the initial comment in this post is right, or wrong, but it must be worthy of discussion and historical accuracy is a valid basis for consideration.

It is only a game, but no harm in trying to make it as realistic as possible. [:)]



76mm -> RE: How realistic is this? (4/29/2011 5:59:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama
Trying to argue about whether or not one side or the other could have done this or that based on the mechanics of this game is not logical to the extreme. It just doesn't matter. WitE is even more of a game than most turn based wargames and not even close to a simulation.


Well, gee, then why not let the panzers drive across the Baltic, and let's get rid of all those pesky rivers, since it is extremely illogical to argue whether these kind of obstacles had any effect on military operations. While we're at it, I find the supply rules kind of annoying, so let's get rid of them.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Is this even vaguely realistic? (4/29/2011 6:51:49 PM)

The timescale looks a bit tight, indeed.

The 39th PzKorps actually got to Tikhvin, starting its operation from the Volkhov river on October 16th, 1941 and reaching Tikhvin by November 8th, 1941. German forces axis of advance went straight over what WiTE maps models as swamp with WiTE "mud" weather conditions in three WiTE turns. Your opponent covered three times that distance of much easier terrain, with much better weather conditions in one turns less.

You can check the map on page 84 here.

I'm sorry, but that looks quite plausible to me.

What killed you was the ability of those Finnish infantry divisions to sneak through the gap you left between your two divisions. I don't find that particularly realistic, to be honest.




Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (4/29/2011 8:47:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama
Trying to argue about whether or not one side or the other could have done this or that based on the mechanics of this game is not logical to the extreme. It just doesn't matter. WitE is even more of a game than most turn based wargames and not even close to a simulation.


Well, gee, then why not let the panzers drive across the Baltic, and let's get rid of all those pesky rivers, since it is extremely illogical to argue whether these kind of obstacles had any effect on military operations. While we're at it, I find the supply rules kind of annoying, so let's get rid of them.



LOL



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Is this even vaguely realistic? (4/29/2011 8:51:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

The timescale looks a bit tight, indeed.

The 39th PzKorps actually got to Tikhvin, starting its operation from the Volkhov river on October 16th, 1941 and reaching Tikhvin by November 8th, 1941. German forces axis of advance went straight over what WiTE maps models as swamp with WiTE "mud" weather conditions in three WiTE turns. Your opponent covered three times that distance of much easier terrain, with much better weather conditions in one turns less.

You can check the map on page 84 here.

I'm sorry, but that looks quite plausible to me.

What killed you was the ability of those Finnish infantry divisions to sneak through the gap you left between your two divisions. I don't find that particularly realistic, to be honest.




Point taken. However, it's the cumulative effects of ever lengthening supply lines and fewer and fewer roads that would take the toll, isn't it?

The other issue, not covered in depth in this thread, is this whole concept of both the Finns and the Romanians 'activating' when a German unit arrives adjacent to them. Are the Axis allies just sort of sitting there frozen but ready to spring into action, or are there political and logistical reasons for their delayed or non-intervention in the campaign? Again, this is a design decision that reduces accuracy and encourages strange player behaviour.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (4/29/2011 9:02:02 PM)


quote:



...it must be worthy of discussion and historical accuracy is a valid basis for consideration. It is only a game, but no harm in trying to make it as realistic as possible. [:)]



Absolutely.

A lot also hinges on how a game is marketed. You can search the Commander Europe at War, TOAW, Advanced Tactics, Decisive Campaigns and similar forums and you won't find much from me in terms of complaints about accuracy, even though you might find a few of my mods, scenarios or other such contributions for some of those games.

However, WiTE was marketed as an accurate simulation of historical circumstance, if not events. Here's part of the WiTE pitch from the Matrix site itself:

Gamers can engage in massive, dramatic campaigns, including intense battles involving thousands of units with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East represents a truly epic representation of the Second World War on the Eastern Front and is unparalleled in its scale, detail, and ambition!

The game was then priced accordingly. I think we are entirely within our rights to push for that 'ambition' to be achieved. We've also put in a lot of effort modding those parts of the game that can be modded. If the remaining problem areas were mod-able I would be working on that rather than complaining. But they are not so I have to wait on the devs to fix the issues...



kswanson1 -> RE: Is this even vaguely realistic? (4/29/2011 9:31:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

The timescale looks a bit tight, indeed.

The 39th PzKorps actually got to Tikhvin, starting its operation from the Volkhov river on October 16th, 1941 and reaching Tikhvin by November 8th, 1941. German forces axis of advance went straight over what WiTE maps models as swamp with WiTE "mud" weather conditions in three WiTE turns. Your opponent covered three times that distance of much easier terrain, with much better weather conditions in one turns less.

You can check the map on page 84 here.

I'm sorry, but that looks quite plausible to me.


I agree. The Red Army also traversed a fair bit of Wooded Swamp terrain within the Pripet Marshes during Bagration. This was done at what would be considered fairly rapid speeds by WiTE game standards. And in the real event the Germans and Russians were “playing” WEGO.

I don’t find the Leningrad encirclement is particularly unrealistic in this AAR. And the fact it required several turns to develop and execute suggests something about the defensive strategy employed to halt or at least slow the encirclement attempt. I would include in this period of development of the encirclement a turn where the German player probably had to sit tight to conduct an HQ buildup before even launching this attack. The mechanized troop’s assembly area during the build-up turn could have been detected by the sort of lavish air recon every Russian player should be taking advantage of. The intention of the German player could at least be surmised a turn before the encircling moving even started if air recon is being employed. But regardless, by your own admission, you allowed the encirclement to develop over a two turn period. That’s the real disaster. The players I typically play against would have flooded the area of the breakthrough with train born reinforcements in their phase of the turn in which the breakthrough actually occurred.

This has become a fairly routine move on the part of German players. Russian Players therefore have the hindsight from studying the plethora of After Action Reports provided on this forum that wasn’t available to our historical counterparts.

If – or maybe I should say WHEN -- a right handed hook around Leningrad is employed by Germans players, the Ladoga Lake ports become crucial to keeping supplies flowing to Leningrad. The adequate defense of these ports is therefore crucial to the defense of Leningrad itself. At this point in the game the ports really shouldn’t be left open to a German mechanized unit simply walking in without a fight of some sort. And as I am pretty in tune with the limitations of German Mech units during this stage of the 1941 campaign, it’s very likely that even one entrenched infantry brigade in one or both of these ports would have been all that was needed to stop a coup de main of the facility. It only requires one or two entrenched units in key locations to shut down or severally retard a German a mechanized hook at this stage of the game. In the Russian turn the German player gets to experience the joy of several new Red armies flooding the schwerpunckt area. After which it becomes a slow agonizing grind for the German to continue a push along this same axis of attack – particularly if the Germans have to attack through wooded swampy terrain rather than simply rapidly advance through the like when no Soviet units are present in the area.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Is this even vaguely realistic? (4/29/2011 10:46:35 PM)

That's a very detailed analysis of the game strategy and my poor defense, which I have already acknowledged. Unfortunately, you haven't really addressed any of the real life challenges that have been listed in this thread. The fact that WiTE players regularly do it is hardly evidence of its historical authenticity/practicality now, is it?



Panama -> RE: How realistic is this? (4/29/2011 11:18:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama
Trying to argue about whether or not one side or the other could have done this or that based on the mechanics of this game is not logical to the extreme. It just doesn't matter. WitE is even more of a game than most turn based wargames and not even close to a simulation.


Well, gee, then why not let the panzers drive across the Baltic, and let's get rid of all those pesky rivers, since it is extremely illogical to argue whether these kind of obstacles had any effect on military operations. While we're at it, I find the supply rules kind of annoying, so let's get rid of them.



As long as you're using liberal amounts of time warp, why not? [:D]



Ridgeway -> RE: Is this even vaguely realistic? (4/29/2011 11:46:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

That's a very detailed analysis of the game strategy and my poor defense, which I have already acknowledged. Unfortunately, you haven't really addressed any of the real life challenges that have been listed in this thread. The fact that WiTE players regularly do it is hardly evidence of its historical authenticity/practicality now, is it?


Isn't the problem that we do not know what would have happened IRL, because the Germans never actually tried the "right hook". They got to L-grad the simple way -- plowing straight ahead.



76mm -> RE: Is this even vaguely realistic? (4/30/2011 4:03:14 AM)

quote:

Isn't the problem that we do not know what would have happened IRL, because the Germans never actually tried the "right hook". They got to L-grad the simple way -- plowing straight ahead.


Of course, but to my mind, the Germans were hardly unfamiliar with flanking/indirect maneuvers, and the fact that they just plowed straight into Lgrad might indicate that didn't think that the right hook was plausible, or at least very difficult. Just sayin...



Mynok -> RE: Is this even vaguely realistic? (4/30/2011 4:22:41 AM)


They might have done it but didn't they move 4th panzer to the central front for Typhoon? So it may have been a choice of what should we do rather than what could we do.




Ridgeway -> RE: Is this even vaguely realistic? (4/30/2011 4:38:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

Isn't the problem that we do not know what would have happened IRL, because the Germans never actually tried the "right hook". They got to L-grad the simple way -- plowing straight ahead.


Of course, but to my mind, the Germans were hardly unfamiliar with flanking/indirect maneuvers, and the fact that they just plowed straight into Lgrad might indicate that didn't think that the right hook was plausible, or at least very difficult. Just sayin...


Why take the long way when the short way is easier? IIRC, they were to L-grad by around the end of July, and had surrounded it (although not in compliance with WITE mechanics[;)]) by early Sept.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Is this even vaguely realistic? (4/30/2011 8:13:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

Isn't the problem that we do not know what would have happened IRL, because the Germans never actually tried the "right hook". They got to L-grad the simple way -- plowing straight ahead.


Of course, but to my mind, the Germans were hardly unfamiliar with flanking/indirect maneuvers, and the fact that they just plowed straight into Lgrad might indicate that didn't think that the right hook was plausible, or at least very difficult. Just sayin...


Why take the long way when the short way is easier? IIRC, they were to L-grad by around the end of July, and had surrounded it (although not in compliance with WITE mechanics[;)]) by early Sept.


If you read Raus (commander of 6th Panzer) you can hardly go with the concept of 'easier'. The Germans made a maximum effort to get where they did historically and it was a huge achievement. The idea that they could have gone twice or three times the distance had they simply opted to just doesn't wash, IMO.



randallw -> RE: How realistic is this? (4/30/2011 8:23:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

A lot also hinges on how a game is marketed. You can search the Commander Europe at War, TOAW, Advanced Tactics, Decisive Campaigns and similar forums and you won't find much from me in terms of complaints about accuracy, even though you might find a few of my mods, scenarios or other such contributions for some of those games.

However, WiTE was marketed as an accurate simulation of historical circumstance, if not events. Here's part of the WiTE pitch from the Matrix site itself:

Gamers can engage in massive, dramatic campaigns, including intense battles involving thousands of units with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East represents a truly epic representation of the Second World War on the Eastern Front and is unparalleled in its scale, detail, and ambition!

The game was then priced accordingly. I think we are entirely within our rights to push for that 'ambition' to be achieved. We've also put in a lot of effort modding those parts of the game that can be modded. If the remaining problem areas were mod-able I would be working on that rather than complaining. But they are not so I have to wait on the devs to fix the issues...


Sometimes the marketing of a product sets a bar too high for the engineers to reach. I can't recall seeing a piece of software released
where the packaging describes it as flawed.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: How realistic is this? (4/30/2011 9:51:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw


quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

A lot also hinges on how a game is marketed. You can search the Commander Europe at War, TOAW, Advanced Tactics, Decisive Campaigns and similar forums and you won't find much from me in terms of complaints about accuracy, even though you might find a few of my mods, scenarios or other such contributions for some of those games.

However, WiTE was marketed as an accurate simulation of historical circumstance, if not events. Here's part of the WiTE pitch from the Matrix site itself:

Gamers can engage in massive, dramatic campaigns, including intense battles involving thousands of units with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East represents a truly epic representation of the Second World War on the Eastern Front and is unparalleled in its scale, detail, and ambition!

The game was then priced accordingly. I think we are entirely within our rights to push for that 'ambition' to be achieved. We've also put in a lot of effort modding those parts of the game that can be modded. If the remaining problem areas were mod-able I would be working on that rather than complaining. But they are not so I have to wait on the devs to fix the issues...


Sometimes the marketing of a product sets a bar too high for the engineers to reach. I can't recall seeing a piece of software released
where the packaging describes it as flawed.


My company develops software for government clients. You should try telling that to them ;)



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Is this even vaguely realistic? (5/2/2011 10:39:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
Point taken. However, it's the cumulative effects of ever lengthening supply lines and fewer and fewer roads that would take the toll, isn't it?


Something that nags me regarding the supply system in WiTE is the ability of HQ's to transport supply and fuel dumps so easily. I'm pretty sure your opponent did an HQ buildup and his PzKorps got something like 200 fuel dumps or so. Which were transported across 10 hexes or more. I find very unrealistic this ability to transport all that material, in general, and especially cross country. Yet another point that I am critical with is that supply status does not preclude planned offensive actions. I think that supply should be taken into account for units to qualify for "Ready" status and therefore able to move & attack.

Maybe I've missed some essential section of the manual, but I think that HQ's on the move should be transferring its dumps and depots to nearby towns or HHQ's. The more it moves, the more it has to leave behind. Then the MP-based resupply level would really hit hard players doing these kind of "Panzer General"-esque maneuvers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
The other issue, not covered in depth in this thread, is this whole concept of both the Finns and the Romanians 'activating' when a German unit arrives adjacent to them. Are the Axis allies just sort of sitting there frozen but ready to spring into action, or are there political and logistical reasons for their delayed or non-intervention in the campaign? Again, this is a design decision that reduces accuracy and encourages strange player behaviour.


Indeed, that's what I saw in your screenshot. He rushed to reach the "touchdown" line not really worrying about the flanks. But it was an scenario: these kind of "rushes" and stuff are as old as tabletop wargaming is.

Unfortunately, this kind of "rushing" would also reward greatly a player in the campaign. Pocketing has a too deterministic effect on pocketed units combat effectiveness. I find this to be a bit against the "spirit" of WiTE that, from my point of view, is that of variability and uncertainty. Your opponent isolated a chunk of Russia as big as Belgium. Plenty of resources there to sustain a modern army for a limited time at least.

EDIT: Agh, I just re-read what I wrote earlier and it was even difficult for me to understand it [sm=dizzy.gif]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.546875