Historical Accuracy of This Game

Historical Accuracy of This Game (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2

Message

PeteJC -> Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 1:42:42 AM)
Game looks great and getting ready to jump in and play. Before I do I was curious on getting input from folks that have played and may be veterans of this series. How historically accurate is the modeling of this game. For example, are logistics historically accurate, can units on average move too far given the week timeframe are certain unit types too powerful or are terrain effects on movement/combat off etc.. I know it has not been out long but any recommendations on how to set default modifiers for either side (new to this game but 45+ year WW2 wargamer). Thanks in advance for any thoughts, opinions or advice.

AdmiralHalsey -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 1:46:41 AM)
I don't think anything is capable of 'accurately' representing the Eastern Front. It is simply too complex. However, I am completely confident in saying the single most accurate representation of that conflict is the product offered for sale to you here. The level of detail and research is breathtaking. You won't find better till WITE3.

king171717 -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 1:48:55 AM)
Ya no game does the eastern front as good as WITE 2 does.

CapAndGown -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 2:10:15 AM)
I recently posted about how impressed I was with the way at least the initial set up of German and Soviet forces, combined with the more accurate map helped recreate the battle of Dubno-Brody. Watching a historical battle play out like that was quite pleasing.

56ajax -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 2:31:46 AM)
OOB is very accurate on T1 and when units enter the game. Manpower totals for each unit seem to be +/- 20 men of the known strength, which is excellent.

Dreamslayer -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 6:25:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 56ajax OOB is very accurate on T1 and when units enter the game. Manpower totals for each unit seem to be +/- 20 men of the known strength, which is excellent. I think you are too optimistic about it.

EddyBear81 -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 7:53:34 AM)
Honestly this question is surprising. What other game portrays large scale ww2 military operations better than the WitX series ? It is an open page in the history books ! OK, it's probably not 100% accurate, but the accuracy goes beyond what you can possibly know about ww2 (although you may be more knowledgeable in some details) The way I see it, is that WitE2 invites you to explore the history of some campaigns you never paid attention to, or units that you never heard of (I did not know what "RAD" unit were before WitE). What's more, you get a better understanding of the constraints that High Command had to deal with, and that better than reading "the Wehrmacht had logistical problems" in many history books. I can tell you without flaw the disposition of all Axis armies from north to south almost each month of the 4-year period. I did not know it before WitE. It's no hitorical discovery, but at least it's a game that taught me a lot about this time period.

malyhin1517 -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 8:22:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeteJC Game looks great and getting ready to jump in and play. Before I do I was curious on getting input from folks that have played and may be veterans of this series. How historically accurate is the modeling of this game. For example, are logistics historically accurate, can units on average move too far given the week timeframe are certain unit types too powerful or are terrain effects on movement/combat off etc.. I know it has not been out long but any recommendations on how to set default modifiers for either side (new to this game but 45+ year WW2 wargamer). Thanks in advance for any thoughts, opinions or advice. I also love this game very much for its correspondence to the story in many details, but I think that it is still far from perfect! My main complaints about the railway repair system, it looks very implausible and I expressed this during the beta test. In addition, I have questions for production. I believe that the unlimited production of machine guns and anti-tank rifles in the game leads to a significant increase in their number in comparison with the real history of the war, and this affects the results. In addition, I believe that the stroke length of a week is too long, there is no way to take measures against deep penetrations of motorized troops. In reality, measures to block the breakthrough began immediately, so a 24 hour stroke would be optimal. But I understand that then the length of the game would be too long and this is a reasonable compromise!

ast95 -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 5:18:12 PM)
I think WITE2 is close to perfect, and maybe (I hope!) will become perfect with patches. For IGOYOUGOHEX type game. Just wonder, why "World at War: Stalingrad" (1995!) type games doesn't exist anymore. With both sides planning then executing orders. It is much closer to reality and have less abstractions just by design.

Bamilus -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 5:35:26 PM)
You'll get people who say its terrible and the worst game ever because some things are abstracted or some unit is 1 hex shifted from where it was historically, but it's the most accurate you're going to get. None of the naysayers can point to a game (board or PC) that's more accurate on this front. I'm not saying the game is perfect, but many of the critics need to study wargame design (there's many good books and classes on it) and understand why abstraction is a thing.

sfbaytf -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 5:36:21 PM)
I don't know of any other game that covers the Eastern Front like this. I would say the same for War in the West and War in the Pacific. As for "accurately" representing the Eastern Front there are so many aspects to the conflict not modeled. The political and military interference by Hitler and Stalin isn't modeled and that had enormous impact on the conflict. Be that as it may, I don't know of any other computer game that models the theater as well.

malyhin1517 -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 5:45:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bamilus You'll get people who say its terrible and the worst game ever because some things are abstracted or some unit is 1 hex shifted from where it was historically, but it's the most accurate you're going to get. None of the naysayers can point to a game (board or PC) that's more accurate on this front. I'm not saying the game is perfect, but many of the critics need to study wargame design (there's many good books and classes on it) and understand why abstraction is a thing. Such claims arise precisely as a result of the fact that this game is so treated! Therefore, when you see something here that in fact was not, you ask to fix it. But the developers of course know better what and how can be done in the game. On the other hand, they then take into account many comments! For example, it was at my suggestion that stationary coastal defense batteries appeared in the game shortly before the release in Odessa, Sevastopol and Leningrad! :)

Zemke -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 6:20:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeteJC Game looks great and getting ready to jump in and play. Before I do I was curious on getting input from folks that have played and may be veterans of this series. How historically accurate is the modeling of this game. For example, are logistics historically accurate, can units on average move too far given the week timeframe are certain unit types too powerful or are terrain effects on movement/combat off etc.. I know it has not been out long but any recommendations on how to set default modifiers for either side (new to this game but 45+ year WW2 wargamer). Thanks in advance for any thoughts, opinions or advice. FOr the subject, I think it is the most accurate game to date, no question. It is NOT completely accurate or realistic, IMO. But we go with what we got. I also think 2by3 is working hard to make it as accurate as possible, but time and resources are always going to be limiting factors. THere is a TON of data thrown at you, and frankly, most of it is not important. You have to dig through a lot of information to find nuggets. The logistics report is a perfect example of data overload. You feel like the NSA sifting through American Citizens phone calls looking for a bad guy! The designers could do a much better job at presenting information to you as the Commander, not massive lists of numbers. And as I have pointed out in a previous post, is NOT how real Commanders get information. I have already posted my opinion that the logistic model is not accurate in how the flow of supplies is modeled. Individual units would not be getting supplies from the depot directly ALL the time, maybe in certain circumstances they would, but the doctrinal flow would be NSS to Depot through and to the HQs to the unit, with the unit or the Corp/Army pushing or pulling those supplies. There were exceptions, but that would have been the way it was done. I also think the Soviet Armored divisions at the start of the game are too strong in the Southern sector. Over 80% of their tanks never even made it off base due to lack of spare parts and poor maintenance and the ones that did run, most broke down before ever seeing combat. TO determine how close the game is historical, you would have to play both sides and try to mirror the moves of units and see how it played out. That would take a LOT of research. I doubt this has ever been done. The other measure would be casualties rates by both sides. Currently, my gut tells me they are low also, but I am only on my second campaign game, and still learning the system. I think German Air casualties are much too high for sure. Another note on casualties, the Russians seem to have about a 50/50 killed and disabled, which seems too high a ratio of killed, but maybe it is the retreating under pressure, programed in there not sure. Combat Prep Point build-up seems too slow. If it is designed to replicate planning and preparation for future combat operations, it does not take a Staff that long to make a plan, at least competent a staff. So not exactly sure what we are modeling with CPPs, if not Staff Planning. Having the resources for planned attacks is another matter, but I thought that was modeled in the logistics system. I don't think anyone who likes these kinds of games would say this is a bad game, just the opposite, it is the BEST out there, and has tons of detail. I have been playing it non-stop since it's release.

Bamilus -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 6:23:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: malyhin1517 quote: ORIGINAL: Bamilus You'll get people who say its terrible and the worst game ever because some things are abstracted or some unit is 1 hex shifted from where it was historically, but it's the most accurate you're going to get. None of the naysayers can point to a game (board or PC) that's more accurate on this front. I'm not saying the game is perfect, but many of the critics need to study wargame design (there's many good books and classes on it) and understand why abstraction is a thing. Such claims arise precisely as a result of the fact that this game is so treated! Therefore, when you see something here that in fact was not, you ask to fix it. But the developers of course know better what and how can be done in the game. On the other hand, they then take into account many comments! For example, it was at my suggestion that stationary coastal defense batteries appeared in the game shortly before the release in Odessa, Sevastopol and Leningrad! :) My comments weren't directed at you but rather the Peltons of the world (God rest his forum soul)

Gandalf -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 7:15:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bamilus <snip> My comments weren't directed at you but rather the Peltons of the world (God rest his forum soul) LOL, Is he, by chance, still around?

Kel -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 7:19:17 PM)
In fact, after playing and replaying a few turns on each side, I must say that at least during the 1941 summer, the flow of the frontlines has a much more balanced quality than in WITE 1. Dashes are possible, but armies that are supplied on gas fumes quickly lose momentum. I like very much the welcome feeling of gravity and "real warfare" inertia : teleportation is not an option. Integrating precisely (of course still with some rough edges) the logistical factor is, in my view, the first very good surprise of the game. As far as I know (and I have been playing wargames for 35 years now), I have never seen it so well done at this scale. The pleasure of this game comes in part of the very welcome shock between to timescales - the operational one and the strategical one. It reminds me a bit of the old Enemy at the Gates. Of course, more play is required to give a more thorough evaluation. And see if this kind of balance & playability can be maintained during the whole campaign. So far, so good.

56ajax -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/4/2021 11:24:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer quote: ORIGINAL: 56ajax OOB is very accurate on T1 and when units enter the game. Manpower totals for each unit seem to be +/- 20 men of the known strength, which is excellent. I think you are too optimistic about it. Firstly, Hi Dreamslayer, good to see you online. Secondly, yep you are probably right, I get over excited, so I should qualify my statement - every divisional size Soviet army unit is at its historical strength as at 22/6/41, according to Operation Barbarossa by Nigel Askey. I should know because I checked and it did my brain in. I cant speak for the Axis units.

Bamilus -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/5/2021 12:28:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gandalf quote: ORIGINAL: Bamilus <snip> My comments weren't directed at you but rather the Peltons of the world (God rest his forum soul) LOL, Is he, by chance, still around? No, he got banned years ago.

Rosseau -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/5/2021 2:32:43 AM)
I'm sure for good reason, but Mr. P did know his way around the first game and some great AARs, and his experience on WitE2 would be interesting, if not caustic! Because I mod the heck out of the game, I have not yet succumbed to the temptation of WitE2. Point is that the significant changes to OOB, logistics, etc., would likely not impact a "what-if" gamer like me. Secondly, God forbid, but after 20 years I am burnt out on the Eastern Front. War in Russia, Second Front, WitE, Strategic Command Blitzkrieg, to name a few. All excellent, but simply fatigued looking at that June 22, 1941 layout. But I am (finally) deeper into WitW, and with the graphics mods along, it is simply a lovely game.

neuromancer -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/5/2021 5:28:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf As for "accurately" representing the Eastern Front there are so many aspects to the conflict not modeled. The political and military interference by Hitler and Stalin isn't modeled and that had enormous impact on the conflict. Not to mention the internal politics. This is one thing I rather liked about Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa, it did make an attempt to model the political factor of the war. Despite the obvious abstraction that is necessary - there is no way to model the full complexity of human interaction - it gave me a deeper appreciation of the kind of juggling a commander would have to do to keep everyone going in the same direction, and that some people are going to be obstructionist out of petty spite. It would be nice to have a game that covered all the aspects at a high level of detail, but the simple truth is that writing the game engine would be a monumental if not impossible task, the complexity would be more than most people can handle, and it would probably end up taking longer to play that the actual war! There is another side to this. In these games we - the players - want to push all the counters around and essentially control the entire war, but realistically no one person had that kind of power. Maybe modern Command and Control along with GPS and modern recon would allow one commander that level of knowledge and control, but I doubt it. In WW2 Launching an offensive was setting all the pieces in place, and then hitting the button and hoping everyone does what they are supposed to. The exact location of units would be less than clear, commands could be confused and units would do something stupid (hold when they are supposed to move, attack when they are supposed to hold, etc.), and battles weren't able to predicted by saying "Well, my troops are attacking from 3 directions, and have a CV of 90, so with bonuses I get about a 120 CV, the defenders have about a 60 CV with their foxholes, so I should have a 2 to 1 strength advantage and should win!" Nope! Far, far less clear than that. So while wanting increased realism, people are conveniently forgetting that our god's eye view and level of control is itself incredibly unrealistic. It's a game folks, we can ask it to be as historically accurate as we possible in order to recreate the same sort of strategic and tactical decision making that was the situation at the time, but at the end of the day it is at best an abstract approximation. And that is the best we are going to get. But it sounds like this game is a pretty good abstract approximation of the East Front conflict of 1941 to 1945. [:D]

cdsys -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/5/2021 3:32:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: neuromancer quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf As for "accurately" representing the Eastern Front there are so many aspects to the conflict not modeled. The political and military interference by Hitler and Stalin isn't modeled and that had enormous impact on the conflict. Not to mention the internal politics. This is one thing I rather liked about Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa, it did make an attempt to model the political factor of the war. Despite the obvious abstraction that is necessary - there is no way to model the full complexity of human interaction - it gave me a deeper appreciation of the kind of juggling a commander would have to do to keep everyone going in the same direction, and that some people are going to be obstructionist out of petty spite. It would be nice to have a game that covered all the aspects at a high level of detail, but the simple truth is that writing the game engine would be a monumental if not impossible task, the complexity would be more than most people can handle, and it would probably end up taking longer to play that the actual war! There is another side to this. In these games we - the players - want to push all the counters around and essentially control the entire war, but realistically no one person had that kind of power. Maybe modern Command and Control along with GPS and modern recon would allow one commander that level of knowledge and control, but I doubt it. In WW2 Launching an offensive was setting all the pieces in place, and then hitting the button and hoping everyone does what they are supposed to. The exact location of units would be less than clear, commands could be confused and units would do something stupid (hold when they are supposed to move, attack when they are supposed to hold, etc.), and battles weren't able to predicted by saying "Well, my troops are attacking from 3 directions, and have a CV of 90, so with bonuses I get about a 120 CV, the defenders have about a 60 CV with their foxholes, so I should have a 2 to 1 strength advantage and should win!" Nope! Far, far less clear than that. So while wanting increased realism, people are conveniently forgetting that our god's eye view and level of control is itself incredibly unrealistic. It's a game folks, we can ask it to be as historically accurate as we possible in order to recreate the same sort of strategic and tactical decision making that was the situation at the time, but at the end of the day it is at best an abstract approximation. And that is the best we are going to get. But it sounds like this game is a pretty good abstract approximation of the East Front conflict of 1941 to 1945. [:D] That might be a game suggestion for extra hard game play, remove some of the god view, fog of war option to remove the cv (offensive and defensive) from the UI (so not visible on counters...). You would have to judge by the number of men, the equipment, fatigue... how strong your troops are compared to your target (so you would have to play more with your gut feeling and experience ;-) ). Maybe even remove the cv numbers and the ratio from the battle result screen (just hold, routed...). Maybe a team play feature will help to simulate internal politics. If you could give team members independent scores for winning battles and make them negotiate with their OKH/STAVKA player for resources, replacements and priorities... Maybe that way they would compete among themselves for the fame/glory, not only the overall war goal ;-) And promoting/demoting team members from core to higher command positions or vice versa could help create political tension within a faction. But back to the original question. I still have to see another game that has this level of detail. So big thumbs up to the dev and production team.

sfbaytf -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/5/2021 5:18:48 PM)
This game is without a doubt the most detailed and accurate depiction of the Eastern Front you can get on a PC as far as I know and as OP stated you have to go with what you got. I do find it interesting to read some of the tips for playing the game and comparing to what I do know about the Eastern Front. For instance its suggested that when winter comes you pull back German forces to keep them better supplied. A perfectly valid suggestion and smart way to play the game. However in real life would Hitler allowed that? I'm not an expert on the subject, but my understanding is his orders was "not one step back". Another thing is the Soviet doctrine. Its was oriented towards taking the offensive. In WitW you have to make some attempt at bombing UBoat pens and V-weapon sites or give up VP's. Be interesting if there was an option to force the Soviet player to make some attempts at counterattacks in the opening of the war instead of turtling up... But hey it is what it is and its all good to me. Its challenging enough as is. I'm going to take a look back at some of the old SPI board war gaming rules as they often took account of the political factors and see is there is a way to ad-hoc incorporate them into a h2h game.

neuromancer -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/6/2021 1:52:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf I do find it interesting to read some of the tips for playing the game and comparing to what I do know about the Eastern Front. For instance its suggested that when winter comes you pull back German forces to keep them better supplied. A perfectly valid suggestion and smart way to play the game. However in real life would Hitler allowed that? I'm not an expert on the subject, but my understanding is his orders was "not one step back". Short answer, no. I think the generals would have liked to, but it was simply not an option. quote: Another thing is the Soviet doctrine. Its was oriented towards taking the offensive. In WitW you have to make some attempt at bombing UBoat pens and V-weapon sites or give up VP's. Be interesting if there was an option to force the Soviet player to make some attempts at counterattacks in the opening of the war instead of turtling up... This is very true. IIRC (and I could be wrong) the SW mechanized destruction was because of ill conceived orders to go on the offensive when the formation was simply not capable of acting as a cohesive unit at that scale. It did illustrate the need to restructure such units into more manageable sizes, and did stall the 1st Panzer Group for a bit, but it mostly got a lot of soldiers killed or captured, and lost a lot of equipment they could ill afford to lose at that point. Some games (board games at least, don't recall it in a computer game) do include such requirements for Stalin ordered attacks, but in practice they end up with the Soviet player sacrificing a few of their weakest units in pointless attacks instead of actual offensives that would have satisfied the Big Man himself. Still for what it is, its looking pretty good.

Dreamslayer -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/6/2021 8:29:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 56ajax Firstly, Hi Dreamslayer, good to see you online. Secondly, yep you are probably right, I get over excited, so I should qualify my statement - every divisional size Soviet army unit is at its historical strength as at 22/6/41, according to Operation Barbarossa by Nigel Askey. I should know because I checked and it did my brain in. I cant speak for the Axis units. Hey there, 56ajax. We can argue about certain units, TOE's, command structure etc. But how about the other case that people avoid? I'm talking about the game rule that make a full mess for morale/exp of Soviet units in June 41 scenarios. How we can talk about "historical accuracy" but let the such random factor to be in the game?

loki100 -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/6/2021 8:44:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer ... We can argue about certain units, TOE's, command structure etc. But how about the other case that people avoid? I'm talking about the game rule that make a full mess for morale/exp of Soviet units in June 41 scenarios. How we can talk about "historical accuracy" but let the such random factor to be in the game? not sure what the concern is - the game needs some mechanism to achieve two goals - reflect the Soviet command chaos in the opening days and limit the scope for perfect German openings with every battle pre-scripted to give exactly the right result. to me, that rule is a good compromise?

Dreamslayer -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/6/2021 9:08:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 not sure what the concern is - the game needs some mechanism to achieve two goals - reflect the Soviet command chaos in the opening days and limit the scope for perfect German openings with every battle pre-scripted to give exactly the right result. to me, that rule is a good compromise? This "Soviet command chaos" could be simulated by other ways - there are already some options that can be used for it - reduce ammo, fuel, supply for such units, reduce MP etc. There are already tons Soviet generals that has low skills. For non-prescripted battle results there is game system that uses various checks. And if you so like a random - make same morale/exp thing for Germans too. Its not so funny when you can find that in two different games the same unit can has morale/exp difference 1-24.

loki100 -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/6/2021 9:23:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 not sure what the concern is - the game needs some mechanism to achieve two goals - reflect the Soviet command chaos in the opening days and limit the scope for perfect German openings with every battle pre-scripted to give exactly the right result. to me, that rule is a good compromise? This "Soviet command chaos" could be simulated by other ways - there are already some options that can be used for it - reduce ammo, fuel, supply for such units, reduce MP etc. There are already tons Soviet generals that has low skills. For non-prescripted battle results there is game system that uses various checks. And if you so like a random - make same morale/exp thing for Germans too. Its not so funny when you can find that in two different games the same unit can has morale/exp difference 1-24. actually that is good - I tested 3 openings of the GC and there is the sort of variation that means a German player will probably either have to over-allocate to key combats or accept the occasional hold result

malyhin1517 -> RE: Historical Accuracy of This Game (4/6/2021 10:51:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 quote: ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 not sure what the concern is - the game needs some mechanism to achieve two goals - reflect the Soviet command chaos in the opening days and limit the scope for perfect German openings with every battle pre-scripted to give exactly the right result. to me, that rule is a good compromise? This "Soviet command chaos" could be simulated by other ways - there are already some options that can be used for it - reduce ammo, fuel, supply for such units, reduce MP etc. There are already tons Soviet generals that has low skills. For non-prescripted battle results there is game system that uses various checks. And if you so like a random - make same morale/exp thing for Germans too. Its not so funny when you can find that in two different games the same unit can has morale/exp difference 1-24. actually that is good - I tested 3 openings of the GC and there is the sort of variation that means a German player will probably either have to over-allocate to key combats or accept the occasional hold result It is bad that the Russians had experienced divisions of the old formation and had divisions of the new formation. They differed sharply in both experience and weapons. As far as I remember, this in the game is also given to random!

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.65625