War In The East on sale at GOG.com

[Modernrocco]

The original Grigsby War in the East is on sale 60% off at the moment if anybody is looking for a deal on a great game.

[Vacillator]

Think I'm missing something as it is my kind of thing, but... I bought it on Steam round about December 2019.  I have 109 minutes played . 

A big reason for sure is that I started playing CM a few months later and now I do little else (with odd excursions into Sniper Elite 3 and 4 - recently completed - and now 5 is out, waiting for a sale).

[Modernrocco]

War in the East always intimated me abet with its grandiosity at a steep price but I'm finding real enjoyment in 3 hours of play and in the middle of my 2nd turn LOL, Taking little break from CM (Intensely waiting for the Final Blitzkrieg Add on ), but Always A CM Fan at heart. I Agree with you Sniper Elite series is a good one.

[Vacillator]

1 hour ago, Modernrocco said:

War in the East always intimated me abet with its grandiosity

There is that.  I used to play a lot of much smaller scale Talonsoft stuff (East Front etc.) but even that sometimes had 3 hour turns.

Think I should re-visit WITE though.

As for Sniper Elite, it's a 'little' unrealistic but great fun at times and makes a nice change every now and then. 

Give me a shout if you fancy a PBEM when the FB add-on comes out (or even something before).

 

[landser]

War in the East is an epic grand strategy game. I've done quite a few of the grand campaigns, for both sides and different point targets.

Perhaps grand operational game is more accurate.

It's a great what-if generator, allowing the player to pursue alternate-history paths. I only wish the player could opt to set the starting state instead of being limited to the historical start. I'd love to see what I could do if I were to mass AGC south of the marshes for example.

It impresses me with how complex it is while at the same  time hiding this complexity beneath the surface. Every shot fired in a battle phase is calculated.  Yet it does this under-the-hood stuff nearly instantly. Yeah, it's old and we should expect it to run well on modern hardware, but it's still tight design that distills massively complex calculations down to such minimal presentation.

The logistics and supply model is probably my favorite in any game of the sort. It's rather brilliant in my view. How it drives home the shoestring Barbarossa actually was, how essential railheads are to an army, how important headquarters units and their proximity are and, the effects of raputista, blizzards, partisans on supplying your front line units. You are even required to manage the rail conversion, hex by hex using far too few resources. Now, decide on which rail lines get the attention, and hope you didn't choose wrong! In one of my runs, the whole of Army Group South, and later Army Groups A and B, were dependent on a single rail line for supply. If partisans cut this at any spot along it's hundreds of miles the front line stops dead in its tracks.

Do not even think about this game unless you embrace the micro. In the grand campaign, every turn you are considering hundreds of counters. I remember the reorganization I undertook when Army Group South splits upon reaching Rostov. One of the game's mechanics is command overload, where HQ units suffer penalties if they have too many subordinate units. When this split occurred I saw an opportunity to reorganize and hopefully fix this command deficiency since we gained a new Army Group. Here's what I wrote in my AAR about this process, which some will never even have the chance to do. But it highlights the micro demands the game places on a thorough player

Quote

With the split of Army Group South in to Army Groups A and B, a welcome opportunity to reorganize the overloaded command structure of the Wehrmacht was available to me, Having a fourth Army Group could allow redistribution of the forces throughout my command and alleviate the penalties that come when an organization is over the command capacity. At the start, only Army Group North does not suffer from this, but the other two do, and especially so in AGS.


This is a major undertaking, and the player must embrace the micro to attempt it. I failed to mention it yet, but the very first move I made in this campaign was to replace Halder at OKH with Kluge. Model then took Kluge's vacancy in 4th Army. And as mentioned, many corps commanders have also been replaced.


The creation of Army Groups A and B saw Rundstedt shift to AGA and Halder made a return as commander of AGB. But only very briefly as it turned out. The man cannot catch a break. He was immediately cashiered and replaced with Kesselring, who left Luftlotte 2 for this assignment.

The scope of the changes I made are too broad to recount in detail here, but in general terms I looked to make each army group structure the same. That is, each one would get a Panzer Group and two infantry armies. With the recent arrival of XXXX Panzer Corps, we now had 11 Panzer Corps, so one Army Group would be shortchanged.

In the north on the Leningrad front, no changes were made to Leeb's AGN in terms of commands attached to them. Hoepner's 4th Panzer would remain, as would 16th and 18th Armies. Because of the terrain, and the fact we have been tied down near Leningrad, 4th Panzer would be the one shortchanged, with just two Panzer Corps.

Bock's Army Group Center on the Moscow front saw some shuffling. XXIV Panzer Corps, the one from 2nd Panzer sent to the rescue at Leningrad was reassigned to Hoth's 3rd Panzer, raising it to three Panzer Corps. AGC had three infantry armies, the 2nd, the 4th and the 9th. So the 2nd was reassigned to Army Group B. This left AGC with three Panzer Corps and two infantry armies

Kesselring's newly formed Army Group B was assigned the sector around Voronezh. The recently arrived XXXX Panzer Corps was attached to 2nd Panzer, bringing it to three Panzer Corps. 6th Army was reassigned from Army Group South to AGB. So now AGB had Guderian's 2nd Panzer along with 2nd and 6th Armies.

Rundstedt's newly constituted AGA would be assigned the southern front, the right wing, and given responsibility over the region around Denpro and Rostov. Kleist's 1st Panzer (three Panzer Corps) remained, as well as 11th and 17th Armies.

All satellite armies were reassigned to their national headquarters.

With these moves the rough cuts were complete. No Army Group was overloaded any longer. However some overloading remained at the Army level, especially in 9th Army, but also minor overloading in 16th and 18th as they continued to hammer at Leningrad. This should be worked out in time, but I can only wish I had one additional Army headquarters, which would solve all remaining issues.

In all it was a massive undertaking, down to individual divisions, brigades and regiments being shifted to various corps, corps to various higher headquarters, and additional changes were made to corps commanders as I continue to try and get my most capable men in the best positions. All of these moves costs a lot of admin points, over 200 having been spent on this reorganization. With mud coming I felt I could spare the points with few HQBUs being needed as panzer units would be pulled back to refit.

The strategy gamer/micromanager in me absolutely loved the whole process, and the penalties had been eating at me since June. To have it (mostly) sorted at this point is very satisfying. It should prove of some worth come winter, and in to the '42 campaigning season.

War in the East also shines in the operational sense, the massive encirclements you can pull off from concept to execution. Tying the noose around several enemy armies at once is heady stuff indeed.

On the other hand, it's not without its weaknesses as I see it. And top among these for me is the fact that the German side is strictly tethered to history. Only units present in the war are available, and departures and arrivals occur on a strict timeline to reflect actual history. But the Russian player has no such constraints, he can build new units, armies, air fleets and, well, everything. The German player can build nothing, not even a lousy HQ and this disparity in the rules is the biggest drawback in this game for me. Both sides should play by the same rules, even if the underlying resources and potential varies.

That's a long post but just skims the surface of what is one of the grandest war games of all. Every semi-serious wargamer should play it, but steer clear if you don't embrace micromanagement on a colossal scale.

The AAR can be seen here

https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4454240/1

Edited August 31, 2022 by landser

[Erwin]

I remember very much enjoying the original GG War in the East.  Found the later version rather harder and never got sucked in... and haven't bought the latest version... primarily as I got engrossed in GG's "War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition" (WITPAE).  I think I just enjoy sailing around with all those individual ships. 

 

[landser]

To add a little more to my post earlier... Although I am clearly warning potential players about the massive micromanagement involved in War in the East -- and most Grigsby games it must be said -- there are a number of alternative primer scenarios that are far less involved. The 'Road to' options like Smolensk, Minsk, Kiev and Leningrad. These are short scenarios lasting just a few turns that serve as tutorial campaigns so you can quickly (relatively) run out some different plans to crack them.

The grand campaign, even with the shorter 260-point option, is a massive beast compared to these bite-sized scenarios. So if you think the game would interest you, but are hesitant to dive in to conducting the entire war, there are a number of easily manageable scenarios to play. In my case I did Road to Minsk, then, using what I learned, stepped it up to Road to Smolensk. I played this one several times until I had a solid plan and scored a decisive victory which took several attempts as I learned the rules and finer points.

What it did was give me multiple shots at the obvious double-envelopment in AGC's sector of the front. So that when I started the grand campaign I was able to get off to a good start. I resisted playing the others like Kiev and Leningrad so that these operations were novel to me and I would have to work it out on the fly with no practice in the GC.

Of course we have War in the East 2 now, so I don't expect many will be keen to give the original a go. But it's well worth your time if you like these grand operational/strategy games, or if you have a keen interest in the war in Russia. At the sale price it's a good deal on a fantastic war game.

[Artkin]

On 8/31/2022 at 1:15 PM, landser said:

War in the East

Well now you've convinced me; I'm interested. 

[Vacillator]

4 hours ago, Artkin said:

Well now you've convinced me; I'm interested. 

I think if you like the 'bigger' scale of running the whole East Front (or large sections of it if you prefer), this might be for you.  Also if you don't care about the old counter boardgame presentation (no criticism from me here, not sure what else you could do on that scale).  As I didn't get far I assume logistics is a big factor and I love logistics, but not in 109 minutes of game play .

For me the discovery very shortly afterwards of CM (years later than I now would have liked) meant that my purchase of War in the East was not money well-spent.  But CM is I think more my preferred scale.

[Artkin]

6 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

I think if you like the 'bigger' scale of running the whole East Front (or large sections of it if you prefer), this might be for you.  Also if you don't care about the old counter boardgame presentation (no criticism from me here, not sure what else you could do on that scale).  As I didn't get far I assume logistics is a big factor and I love logistics, but not in 109 minutes of game play .

For me the discovery very shortly afterwards of CM (years later than I now would have liked) meant that my purchase of War in the East was not money well-spent.  But CM is I think more my preferred scale.

I think it will help further my knowledge of the front. I've started doing somewhat serious reading into Army Group B, and now I've found it easier to read other books in the same setting. I've become accustomed to regiments and divisions like I used to be, with battalion in CM. So I feel this is just the next step. 

Also, as said, planning and executing encirclements is a lot of fun. I'm playing a 2v2 in CMBN right now where we pulled one off. It was pretty satisfying. 

[Vacillator]

2v2 is a mystery to me, but I know you have a liking for the MMP experience.  Okay, well 4MP .

[landser]

19 hours ago, Artkin said:

Well now you've convinced me; I'm interested. 

The quoted bit doesn't reveal much about what convinced you. Is it the prospect of encirclements that did it? It's rather like an art form in this game, as the pocketed units need only a single hex opened to 'national supply' to avoid isolation penalties. It's one thing to form a kessel, it's another matter to do it securely. And as I talked about in the AAR, your own units conducting the encirclements are often vulnerable to finding themselves isolated the next turn. Quite interesting indeed. This happened to me in the wake of the capture of Kiev as we tried to trap the retreating Red Army against the Dnepr. Luckily I had Kleist's 1st Panzer resupplying after the Kiev battles and they were able to swing the tide of the see-saw pocket battles to the south of the city, clearing the way to the Don bend.

Players will take different approaches to the game, and for me it became evident early in the grand campaign that my objectives in the first year shouldn't be geographical necessarily (aside from Leningrad) but instead to tie nooses around as many red formations as possible. It is said that in order for the German player to give himself a proper footing for kicking off the 1942 campaigning season he should aim to eliminate at least 4 million Russians in 1941. And to do that it requires encirclements. I really enjoyed this facet of War in the East. Envisioning, preparing, staging and executing these operations is good stuff.

[Artkin]

3 hours ago, landser said:

The quoted bit doesn't reveal much about what convinced you. Is it the prospect of encirclements that did it? It's rather like an art form in this game, as the pocketed units need only a single hex opened to 'national supply' to avoid isolation penalties. It's one thing to form a kessel, it's another matter to do it securely. And as I talked about in the AAR, your own units conducting the encirclements are often vulnerable to finding themselves isolated the next turn. Quite interesting indeed. This happened to me in the wake of the capture of Kiev as we tried to trap the retreating Red Army against the Dnepr. Luckily I had Kleist's 1st Panzer resupplying after the Kiev battles and they were able to swing the tide of the see-saw pocket battles to the south of the city, clearing the way to the Don bend.

Players will take different approaches to the game, and for me it became evident early in the grand campaign that my objectives in the first year shouldn't be geographical necessarily (aside from Leningrad) but instead to tie nooses around as many red formations as possible. It is said that in order for the German player to give himself a proper footing for kicking off the 1942 campaigning season he should aim to eliminate at least 4 million Russians in 1941. And to do that it requires encirclements. I really enjoyed this facet of War in the East. Envisioning, preparing, staging and executing these operations is good stuff.

I was replying on mobile, so to do that in the first place is a huge hassle. I'm interested in troop locations, when they were formed (Tank armies formed in 1942) etc. A game like this will help put the war into better perspective for me. Being able to play it is another plus.

I laughed out loud when you said you replaced Halder as your first move. Brilliant stuff.

[landser]

Dead weight, that dude

Each commander has ratings -- Political, Morale, Initiative and Administrative. Also how well they handle certain formations and each has ratings for Mechanized, Infantry, Air and Naval. These ratings flow downstream, so the OKH headmaster is very important because his ratings have some affect on every German unit as he's sat on top of the pyramid. I assessed Kluge as superior where it matters for such a lofty position so Halder was sacked.

Getting your best men in to positions of command is a game within the game here. Real-war division commanders have no command in the game, only corps and army group do. So all of those division commanders in real life are sat cooling their heels when you start the campaign. Cashiering commanders and replacing them with someone better is a key thing in War in the East. Men like Balck and Rendulic start with no command and I certainly want them leading important formations. But the player is limited by admin points in the moves he can make, with opportunity cost high.  Further, the general's rank plays a part in which level formations he can lead, or more accurately, the cost in admin points for assigning him to a new command.

I really enjoyed this facet of the game, assigning these commanders to the right units in the most important spots, to improve the effectiveness of the troops under them, and it's plainly evident the effect it has when you get it right.

But yeah, Halder had to go.

[Artkin]

1 hour ago, landser said:

Dead weight, that dude

Each commander has ratings -- Political, Morale, Initiative and Administrative. Also how well they handle certain formations and each has ratings for Mechanized, Infantry, Air and Naval. These ratings flow downstream, so the OKH headmaster is very important because his ratings have some affect on every German unit as he's sat on top of the pyramid. I assessed Kluge as superior where it matters for such a lofty position so Halder was sacked.

Getting your best men in to positions of command is a game within the game here. Real-war division commanders have no command in the game, only corps and army group do. So all of those division commanders in real life are sat cooling their heels when you start the campaign. Cashiering commanders and replacing them with someone better is a key thing in War in the East. Men like Balck and Rendulic start with no command and I certainly want them leading important formations. But the player is limited by admin points in the moves he can make, with opportunity cost high.  Further, the general's rank plays a part in which level formations he can lead, or more accurately, the cost in admin points for assigning him to a new command.

I really enjoyed this facet of the game, assigning these commanders to the right units in the most important spots, to improve the effectiveness of the troops under them, and it's plainly evident the effect it has when you get it right.

But yeah, Halder had to go.

I've read through everything you have posted and this seems like a great game. I only know a few commanders, like Kluge and Halder. It will be satisfying to find out where they were historically. Thanks for everything you've posted

[landser]

My pleasure and if you give it a go I hope you find it suits you.

Quick correction -- in addition to corp and army group command, I left out the mid-manager army command. These three positions are manned in War in the East.