Well this discussion can be about SPI's version, DG version and the variants as well. These variants are of course the "un-official" LA and KC errata groups and the two versions of the electronic version (CWIE-1, and CWIE-II). I have and enjoyed the SPI version the most. I don't like (or think there is a need for) the KC/LA errata groups. I have the rules for DG's version but sometimes I think that version adds more confusion then SPI's. I have played the heck out of CWIE-1 but it has a lot of incorrectly interpreted rules. I have been a play tester for CWIE-II and by far it's the best because you can choose map and counter style along with rule sets (SPI or DG) as well as a host of optional rules and what have you.

Here is the text from SPI flat tray.


War in Europe is a corps/division level simulation designed to recreate the massive campaigns of 1939 to 1945.

The most striking feature of the game is the map. Over 25 countries are delineated with their various industrial and resource centers, major and minor ports, significant modularized in four booklets: The Standard Rules Booklet, plus Exclusive Rules Booklet for War in the West, War in the East, and War in Europe (which links the other two). These are supplemented by several square feet of charts and tables.

War in Europe is a three sided game, with Player's interests identified with the fortunes of either the Western Allies (Commonwealth and USA), the German dominated Axis, or the Soviet Union. Ideally there should be three Players.

Both the Axis and the Soviets must run their own war economies (beginning with 1939), choosing within certain broad limits what combat units to build. They must choose whether to build relatively expensive strategic units such as Air Points, Airborne capability, etc., or the more common ground combat units. The routine of production is executed in the Strategic Cycle, an event which occurs every fourth Game-Turn and includes, in addition to Production, the U-Boat War, Allied Reinforcement and, as the game progresses, the Allied Strategic Bombing of the German Production system.

Those Players who do not wish to envelop themselves in the full game can choose from a selection of Campaign Scenarios which pick up play at historic watersheds like D-Day or the start of Barbarossa, or even more abbreviated games in the form of limited historical scenarios using one to four maps. These dispense with the Strategic Cycle in its entirety and simulate the major events of the war, such as the Fall of France.

Views: 867

Replies to This Discussion


The CWIE CRT is the same as in the board game, so not sure what your referring to. Also, there is a new attrition model which total enhances the game, though those that are "traditionalist" will not like it all due to being more realistic then the old fashioned CRT.
IIRC, the CRT seems to severely punish the attacker at lower odds and it seems that you have to get at least 7:1 odds or higher to get a result that won't put a major hurt to the attacker.
Once you get to CRT 1, you can realistically make 4:1 attacks (with air support) but you need to be prepared to take losses.
Many, many years since I played WIE now, but in general I agree that the CRT was tough for the attacker. If you for instance gave the French free set-up they could make a more or less impenetrable defense to the Germans, turning the war into a WW1 struggle.
In the east the Germans were saved by the Soviet 6-hex supply range. My standard tactic against them was to attack every second hex in a defense line, thereby immediately isolating the remaining hexes (takes 5 hexes of the supply range just to get to the adjacent hex), making attacks against them less costly, or even possible to overrun.
Recon form the Front

The other option is inside the new CWIE-2. We developed an attrition model that if used properly can cause the France to lose in 5-8 weeks. We are also seeing historical ebb and flow on the Eastern Front as well with this new option. It does away with OOS attacks and chaining MSU and so forth.

Really excellent so far and by far the best option to this game. Albeit it's electronic and to port this to the board game would require a lot of math and record keeping. What you will see is 10-8 in Oct 41 that look and act like 5-4's, 4-6's and even 7-2's depending how oos they are and how much attrition they have suffered.

The if hit by fresh reserves (Soviet 4-4, 5-5 or 1-4 that have 0 attrition) then they crumble and break like sticks. Of course the reverse is true when to stop the offensive? Push too hard and those 0 attrition 5-5s will become 40% 50% or 80% attrition and then the Germans can strike back and reverse the tide. With Fog of War it makes for a new exciting game.
This is an interesting idea and this is where the strengths of computer games really shows. I have the CWIE that came out in 1997(?) and the idea of playing the entire war without having to take up the house with boards and counters is a seductive one. When are you looking to release CWIE-2?
I don't know the "official" release date. It was suppose to be Feb/March, but I have to redo a few of the scenarios/campaigns. There still is some work to do. I know that DG will not release it till the developer feels it's done. But little things here and there creep in. Anything I say is not official, just my view from a play-tester viewpoint.
The original SPI War in Europe game is a very good game. I think the players need to agree to a few house rules like not invading Libyia from Tunisia while the French are still active. How do you feel about the different counters the DG version has? For example, the 7-10's and the 6-10's? Ron
Well I own the SPI version and I like it best. DG version came after the CWIE version which incorporated some of the KC/LA errata stuff. I don't care for the KC/LA stuff it's not official and it breaks the original game.

DG never even fixed the maps just left them as is and added more un-play-tested rules and did not really think the project through.

The bright side is that supposedly DG will fix the maps and add in all the errata, but I don't think that they will completely fix everything. We have been trying to fix what is wrong with various part of the game, such as Russian production, the quick step defense, inadequate air war and a host of other small issues. But then you get the effect of another play-test group. However our little group has stuck to the original SPI version and tried to interpret the intent of the original designers instead of band-aids.
For me, the attraction of WAR IN EUROPE (and I also started with the original SPI version--have but not yet played the DG ("Second Edition") boardgame version) was in the scenarios. The design focus was on the operational land game and production with everything else being secondary and abstracted. The game system works well for the scenarios given its design emphasis and I have no major complaints. Where the system is less satisfying is the strategic/campaign games, and I include WAR IN THE EAST (2nd Edition) into that class. What shines is the production system, but other strategic considerations are just so abstract (the air war, the naval war, diplomacy/politics) as to be actually a detriment to the experience--particularly for WAR IN THE WEST and WAR IN EUROPE (less so for WAR IN THE EAST 2nd Ed given the situation). Other strategic games published since WAR IN EUROPE first came out have only highlighted these deficiencies and gained their own popularity because of it.

Despite this, the scale, graphical treatment, and the game as idea/concept is just too tantalizing to give up on, and so there will always be a core/corps of wargamers who will keep tinkering with the game. That is to be encouraged--and I can only hope that WAR IN EUROPE will keep improving with age and development. Say what you will about the DG version, but it was a huge plus to get Allied Production into the game--production was the best part of the original system and the 1st Edition was so disappointing for the Western Allied player without it. As for me, I'll continue to dream of the ultimate WAR IN EUROPE game experience because I'll be dead by the time GRAND EUROPA ever sees the light of day as a complete game system/set!

Excellent points. I don't have the DG version, but I have map scans and chart scans and the eRules.

With the play-test team of CWIE-II we discovered a lot of issues with CWIE-I that were programmer interpreted away from the original rules and we analyzed the KC/LA errata and found one set to be complete non-sense and we also keyed on Karl Gaarose (whom worked with SPI) and some of Niel Hart (?) stuff.

We developed two rule sets and a host of options for the electronic game. SPI and DG rules sets so that players can pick which they want. Also we included the optional rules and added in attrition warfare. We also added both the SPI and DG map/counter sets so users can pick their poison.

Also, even though I setup the scenarios and campaigns for the eastern front (or any for that matter) we are including edit in place so that let say Eric and I decide to play and Eric is the Soviets and wants to adjust his front line setup he may do so.

Supposedly all are changes, suggestions and tinkering are going back to DG for the 2010 or 2015 re-release of WIE (3rd edition). I am thinking and hoping that that release will be a complete revamp similar to the War in the Pacific one was.

Even with the original SPI game we have discovered several flaws that need to be address that was changed or added when SPI moved from WitE 1 to WitE 2.

Further more (not sure with the production release or a later patch) we are adding in the original WitE production like to the system.

Like you I will be dead and gone if Grand Europa is ever loosed on the earth. So I am still happy with my SPI version.

I think that War in Europe is one of the most definitive war games of our time. After it came out, the game made what monster gaming is today. Ron


Help Center

Latest Activity

Eric Walters left a comment for Larry Belmont
"Welcome to the CONSIMWORLD Social Website, Larry!  Yes, one doesn't hear much about this…"
Larry Belmont is now a member of ConsimWorld
Ian Schofield posted photos
Tom Marshall joined Ed Beach's group

Great Campaigns of the American Civil War

Fans of the GCACW series. Titles include: Stonewall Jackson's Way, Here Come The Rebels, Roads to…See More
Dave Smith joined Charlescab's group
Eric Walters commented on Jon Compton's group Gaming Modern and Hypothetical Conflict
"World War III is back!  A slew of games published on the long-abandoned topic with many more…"
Eric Walters commented on Eric Walters's group FIGHTING WINGS series games
"So happy with WINGS OF THE MOTHERLAND and the LPS/ATO Kickstarter campaign to reprint an updated…"
Eric Walters commented on Manabu Matsuura's group Talkin' GTS
"Still awaiting RACE TO BASTOGNE with baited breath, and then the game on Utah beach and the…"



CSW Related Links

© 2020   Created by John Kranz.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service