Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (Full Version)

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



Message

fbs -> Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (5/21/2011 5:05:44 PM)

I'm not trying to bash the game, just trying to understand if what we do in the game actually reflects what happened in the East front.

The way I see it, the attacker's best strategy is to push at one point then encircle a bunch of enemy units. That's a fine thing and I believe historical, but the fact that encircled units immediately lose a lot of their strength prior to combat, that I'm not sure. I think that it is historical that a surrounded unit will lose morale (less morale loss as more experienced they are), but to just cut short their combat value before combat happens... I mean, was that true?

From the defenders point of view you need to defend everything, because you don't want to be surrounded. Frederick II's quote of "he who defends everything defends nothing" does not seem to apply in the game. Given that an attacker can attack for a whole week until the defender can do anything other than automatic reserve calls, well, that seems to make good game but perhaps bad history. A critical point to me is that the Soviets and the Germans can retreat as they wish in 41 and 44, while in reality they were severely limited by their bosses. That allows the defender to play way better than their historical counterparts could, in the actual thing; that's fine, but does seem to make the defender's life easier. Some penalty for moving Soviet units eastward and German units westward should reflect the actual commander's difficulties better.

And then there's the military mindset that attack is good defense. That's hardly the case for the Soviets in 41, as the Germans are too strong. But in reality there were several attempts at attack in 41. Perhaps getting a few morale or admin points upon attacking would reflect better the pressure these guys had to make a successful attack to please their bosses - even when the strategic wisdom would be to build strong defensive positions instead. I mean, it's fine to have Hasty and Deliberate attacks, but I'm pretty sure that the actual thing also had probing attacks.

Now, that's my point of view. Back to the question... do you guys think that the game actually reflect the behavior of the East front, or does it sacrifice accuracy for fun?



Helpless -> RE: Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (5/21/2011 5:25:18 PM)

quote:

That's hardly the case for the Soviets in 41, as the Germans are too strong. But in reality there were several attempts at attack in 41. Perhaps getting a few morale or admin points upon attacking would reflect better the pressure these guys had to make a successful attack to please their bosses - even when the strategic wisdom would be to build strong defensive positions instead. I mean, it's fine to have Hasty and Deliberate attacks, but I'm pretty sure that the actual thing also had probing attacks.


Well, in IGOUGO with weekly turns counter attack also "happens" when your unit is providing ZOC and forcing enemy to spend MP and pay attrition, capture enemy hexes by isolating attacker's spearhead and fighting defense battles after all.

It applies to both sides - game turn ends when both players finished their turns and passed the logistic phases.



Panama -> RE: Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (5/21/2011 6:06:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

I'm not trying to bash the game, just trying to understand if what we do in the game actually reflects what happened in the East front.

The way I see it, the attacker's best strategy is to push at one point then encircle a bunch of enemy units. That's a fine thing and I believe historical, but the fact that encircled units immediately lose a lot of their strength prior to combat, that I'm not sure. I think that it is historical that a surrounded unit will lose morale (less morale loss as more experienced they are), but to just cut short their combat value before combat happens... I mean, was that true?


Immediate loss of strength and moral in any IGOUGO game turn does seem to be kind of illogical. If player 2, at the beginning of his turn, is at the same point in time as player 1 when he started moving how could you have lost strength or moral when you hadn't even been surrounded yet? If you are surrounded at the beginning of player 1's turn, ok. But not immediately. Even that doesn't make complete sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

From the defenders point of view you need to defend everything, because you don't want to be surrounded. Frederick II's quote of "he who defends everything defends nothing" does not seem to apply in the game. Given that an attacker can attack for a whole week until the defender can do anything other than automatic reserve calls, well, that seems to make good game but perhaps bad history. A critical point to me is that the Soviets and the Germans can retreat as they wish in 41 and 44, while in reality they were severely limited by their bosses. That allows the defender to play way better than their historical counterparts could, in the actual thing; that's fine, but does seem to make the defender's life easier. Some penalty for moving Soviet units eastward and German units westward should reflect the actual commander's difficulties better.


When Fred said that it was a very different time indeed. Does not have the relevance it once had.

As Pavel points out, it's IGOUGO. Crazy stuff is bound to happen. If you want everything to happen as happened historically then read the book. It's a lot cheaper. I personally like games that allow a lot of what ifs. It makes things more fun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

And then there's the military mindset that attack is good defense. That's hardly the case for the Soviets in 41, as the Germans are too strong. But in reality there were several attempts at attack in 41. Perhaps getting a few morale or admin points upon attacking would reflect better the pressure these guys had to make a successful attack to please their bosses - even when the strategic wisdom would be to build strong defensive positions instead. I mean, it's fine to have Hasty and Deliberate attacks, but I'm pretty sure that the actual thing also had probing attacks.


Too many Soviet players in East Front games thinks the best strategy is to retreat. That's hogwash. If you attack you weaken the Axis player, slow him down and the end result is that you've had fun in the process. The outcome isn't much different if you don't get crazy with it and you've caused the other guy untold headaches. That's the point of this game isn't it? To make the other guy miserable? [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Now, that's my point of view. Back to the question... do you guys think that the game actually reflect the behavior of the East front, or does it sacrifice accuracy for fun?


It's a toss up IMO. Can't really know yet for certain since the thing is still throwing out patches too often.



fbs -> RE: Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (5/21/2011 8:09:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

When Fred said that it was a very different time indeed. Does not have the relevance it once had.



But that's exactly my question. At France it was true that by trying to defend a long front the French didn't have mobile enough forces and made themselves vulnerable to breakthrough. During WW1 on the other hand both sides managed to successfully defend the whole front in the West, while the East front remained quite fluid. Now, in the game it seems that a fluid, WW1-style front is the worst thing for the defender, because he can be encircled very easily and then he is doomed. Ergo the game mechanics dictate that there are two defenses: you run, or you build an in-depth defense area through the whole front (i.e., WW1-style). That's fine as game mechanics - what I'm asking is whether that was the actual thing.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

As Pavel points out, it's IGOUGO. Crazy stuff is bound to happen. If you want everything to happen as happened historically then read the book. It's a lot cheaper. I personally like games that allow a lot of what ifs. It makes things more fun.



I'm not saying it should be less fun, or that it should count how many eggs the Germans have in the field kitchens. I think that some games capture the essence of their subject quite nicely, even while being relatively simple. I know that Harpoon was used in occasion at Annapolis as a teaching tool, and that some military academies used TOAW as a tool; I have seen some modified version of Total War being used in TV programs as demonstration of battles, and I think that by and large BoB/BTR, WITP and Steel Panthers captured nicely (although with limitations) the essence of what they tried to do, while World at War and HOI certainly didn't.

Meanwhile in WITE I'm not sure - not because of any faults of the game, but because I don't know or understand the East Front enough to judge if what we see is close to what happend.

ps: just to be sure, I think several things are modeled quite nicely in the game: population, production, refugees, repairs, rail capacity, truck capacity, leadership, weapon specs, engagement of support units, equipment pools, etc...; other things are way, way unrealistic but I understand as necessary simplifications: teleportation of support units, teleportation of HQ/AirBases, and perhaps a few more.



abulbulian -> RE: Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (5/21/2011 10:26:48 PM)

Considering what I know about the campaign I'd have to say unfortunately I've seen some combat results go against everything I've ever read or heard dealing with the history on this particular campaign.

I'm not going to say I know more than ANYBODY else on the topic in this forum, but I will definitely say I know as much or more than anybody on this forum. I've spent the last 20 years doing research for many reason on the subject. This includes reading over 200 books on WWII and attending many lectures on the subject. I'd welcome anybody that would like to challenged my knowledge.

WitE handles a lot of aspects very well as it's not easy to build on game on the premise of recreating the invasion of the Soviet Union during 1941. To be brief as I don't have time to write a novel again about the deficiencies in land and air combat, there's unfortunately a lack of realism (for whatever reasons) in allowing certain outcomes, whether edge case results or not. I've seen many results that have me scratching my head and have seen posted results that do the same. Because I'm not privy to the code and understand the entire mechanics of combat in WitE (black box or not), it's very difficult for me to see where WitE diverges for realistic or how to fix it. I will simply say, the consideration of the ability of the German combat unit early in the war and how much of an advantage the had over their Soviet counterpart CAN NOT be underestimated. I think this game fall into that trap of apples to apples by 42. I've already offered some help months back, but my suggestion on this subject have obviously been ignored. I have been happy with my one victory of finally convincing the developers that blizzard pre v1.04 was just wrong in so many ways. Are the blizzard mechanics idle in v1.04, not really, but they are better.

My challenge to the WitE staff is to maybe spend a few $$ to put your combat mechanics to the test. I know a few professors that have contact with David Glantz. He might be convinced to convey his thoughts about how this game handles combat results. If you don't believe me you'd have to be insane to discount his thoughts and comments. If I were to design a game on this magnitude, it would be a no-brainier to get some of the best minds on the subject involved. Someday, it will be a dream of mine to build a game on this level on a particular WW2 campaign. That will be in my retirement years.

At present, I would like to do my part to help WitE improve in all areas. It's already the best computer strategy war game of all time. But that shouldn't mean to anybody that it can't get better!



Panama -> RE: Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (5/21/2011 10:37:20 PM)

The Allies had enough mobile forces to halt the Germans in France. They just didn't know how to use them. It's a far distance from having something and then using it properly.

Trying to explain the East Front to someone who hasn't read much on the subject would seem like I was talking in riddles. It is so full of contradictions that it is almost impossible to get a grasp on how it all happened. I would suggest that instead of trying to get an explanation on a forum you take the time to read some books.

Hitler Moves East and Scorched Earth by Paul Carrell are the ones I started with. They may be a bit aged but since they are both from the German perspective what they hold is still fairly accurate. They are told in a very good narrative/story format that holds your interest.

David Glantz has several. His are more a dry informational format. Sometimes difficult to get through without a nap or two. I'd start with When Titans Clashed for him. [;)]

Steven J. Zaloga is good for an informational souce that's not boring to read.

I'm sure others have their favorites.

I've managed to amass a fair library from purely academic subjects like The Soviet Defense-Industry Complex From Stalin to Khrushchev to purely coffee table books like Soviet Tank Units 1939-1945.

Because I had relatives that fought on both sides I am naturally drawn to this conflict.

Have fun, it's an interesting journey.



Ketza -> RE: Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (5/21/2011 11:31:10 PM)

This game and its combat results surely are testing the preconceived notions that many gamers had of the Eastern front.

The frustration I am starting to have playing Axis is I know against a very good Soviet player I havent got a snowballs chance in hell of doing better then the Germans did in real life (except maybe grabbing Leningrad) and more then likely I will do worse. This sometimes make it hard to actually play a turn but then I get into an operation I have been planning and find the motivation to continue. I plan on playing until Berlin falls in my game against 76mm just see if I can eeek out a minor victory in 1945.

The strange thing is I played WITPAE mainly as Japan and never had the same gloomy outlook.

Its rather odd. [8|]



fbs -> RE: Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (5/22/2011 4:48:03 AM)

By the way, any time we start a thread like this, I think it's important to emphasize the aspects the game got it just right.

I think production, lend-lease, pools, replacements, refits, repairs, upgrades/downgrades, migration, population, security forces, partisans, TOE, organization, technical specs, transportation capacity, leadership and ground combat model are all very nicely and historically programmed. I don't mean they are accurate, as being accurate depends on tuning the model, but tuning is just adjustments - I think the basic mechanics for those processes nicely reflect the real thing.

Kudos to that.



Tarhunnas -> RE: Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (5/22/2011 7:27:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

From the defenders point of view you need to defend everything, because you don't want to be surrounded. Frederick II's quote of "he who defends everything defends nothing" does not seem to apply in the game.



That applies very much in the game, especially as the Soviets in 1941. The key to a successful Soviet defense is to concentrate deep defenses against the most dangerous threats while taking a chance with weaker defenses elswhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

And then there's the military mindset that attack is good defense. That's hardly the case for the Soviets in 41, as the Germans are too strong. But in reality there were several attempts at attack in 41.



Again, an important aspect of a Soviet defense in 1941 is to counterattack whenever the opportunity for good odds exist. A meek Soviet player will just give the Germans a free rein.

Overall I would say it is the best game yet on the subject, and above all, it has IMHO a very good mix of realism and fun factor. I enjoy it immensely, and haven't played anything else since I bought it in december. Given that the players will always have the benefit of 20 20 hindsight compared to the historical commanders, which will inevitably skew any game compared to reality, I think that the game does an excellent job of recreating the campaign in the East.



Mehring -> RE: Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (5/22/2011 9:26:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas Overall I would say it is the best game yet on the subject,
Lot's of improvements still to make, but yes, the best I've found in 30 years.



kswanson1 -> RE: Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (5/22/2011 3:51:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Considering what I know about the campaign I'd have to say unfortunately I've seen some combat results go against everything I've ever read or heard dealing with the history on this particular campaign.


I have to agree...particularly when the 41-42 blizzard effects have kicked in. The Germans -- historically speaking -- were able to launch effective counter attacks during the winter of 41-42. It was only by counter attacking that the Germans were able to counterbalance some of the standfast orders they were being given by der Führer.

What I am typically experiancing in WiTE is an inability to effectively counterattack even a Soviet tank brigade. I can mass an entire corps of infantry plus from the same corps structure and using deliberate attacks I still cant toss even a lowly tank brigade out of a hex. The typical tactic is for the soviet player to attack a hex with several infantry divisions, than advance a tank brigade into the vacated hex. Since I cant seem to mass enough CV to force a retreat on these tank brigade infiltrations, my only option is retreat. If I standfast, I get encircled. This is fairly routine combat results from what I am seeing in a couple of my PBEM games. Sorry, but I don't buy that Russian tank brigades had this sort of defensive staying power -- blizzard or not.



Tarhunnas -> RE: Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (5/22/2011 4:58:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kswanson1


quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Considering what I know about the campaign I'd have to say unfortunately I've seen some combat results go against everything I've ever read or heard dealing with the history on this particular campaign.


I have to agree...particularly when the 41-42 blizzard effects have kicked in. The Germans -- historically speaking -- were able to launch effective counter attacks during the winter of 41-42. It was only by counter attacking that the Germans were able to counterbalance some of the standfast orders they were being given by der Führer.

What I am typically experiancing in WiTE is an inability to effectively counterattack even a Soviet tank brigade. I can mass an entire corps of infantry plus from the same corps structure and using deliberate attacks I still cant toss even a lowly tank brigade out of a hex. The typical tactic is for the soviet player to attack a hex with several infantry divisions, than advance a tank brigade into the vacated hex. Since I cant seem to mass enough CV to force a retreat on these tank brigade infiltrations, my only option is retreat. If I standfast, I get encircled. This is fairly routine combat results from what I am seeing in a couple of my PBEM games. Sorry, but I don't buy that Russian tank brigades had this sort of defensive staying power -- blizzard or not.


Surely you are not talking about winter in 1.04?? I am doing lots of successful counterattacks. The trick is to have rested panzer reserves in cities or towns behind the front, then you can whack a stack of three tank brigades. This is a shot from my recent AAR where three infantry divisions pushed back three Soviet tank brigades. This was against a very weakened Soviet army I should add, but still, counterattacks are a definite possibility now, even in blizzard.


[image]local://upfiles/37384/377F93DDE5DF4DE78AD92C67E87E47C4.jpg[/image]



Ketza -> RE: Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (5/22/2011 5:05:11 PM)

Two things that help the Axis in Blizzard is Counter often and Use your air force. In many cases you will give a lot more casualties attacking then you will defending.



76mm -> RE: Does the game reflect the East front behavior? (5/22/2011 7:57:47 PM)

I like the game alot but scratch my head about encircled units immediately losing almost all of their CVs; sure seems that this should be a more gradual process.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125