DC3 Blog post (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns Series >> Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue



Message

marcpennington -> DC3 Blog post (4/26/2013 6:00:54 PM)

For those who haven't seen it, Vic talks about DC3 Clash of the Titans:

http://www.vrdesigns.nl/?p=523

Count me as an instant purchase. Though my 2 cents would be to keep the game focused on just '41 to keep the hand crafted and thought out feel of the previous DCs without having to cover too much ground at once, and at the scale of divisions and 30 KM hexes, maybe a half week turn rather then a week turn might work better, based on issues that WiTE makes obvious in the longer time frame.

All that said, though, I'm excited.



Keunert -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/26/2013 8:18:40 PM)

first day purchase here too. i am excited!



DBeves -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/26/2013 9:30:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

For those who haven't seen it, Vic talks about DC3 Clash of the Titans:

http://www.vrdesigns.nl/?p=523

Count me as an instant purchase. Though my 2 cents would be to keep the game focused on just '41 to keep the hand crafted and thought out feel of the previous DCs without having to cover too much ground at once, and at the scale of divisions and 30 KM hexes, maybe a half week turn rather then a week turn might work better, based on issues that WiTE makes obvious in the longer time frame.

All that said, though, I'm excited.


"I am not sure yet if i am going to focus on Barbarossa only or do the whole war, I think i’ll do the whole war."

Wel I for one sure hope he does. That will be very, very good news. This maybe the last chance we get to have a full eastern front wargame (apart from shcwerpunkts game which is a little different). WiTE was a massive disappointment - which I think was down to design not inherent issues in the nature of the task. If his past games are anything to go by Vic is more than up to the challenge.



wodin -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/26/2013 10:09:12 PM)

Bigger scale..not for me I'm afraid. Still sure it will be great.



marcpennington -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/26/2013 10:49:25 PM)

"

Wel I for one sure hope he does. That will be very, very good news. This maybe the last chance we get to have a full eastern front wargame (apart from shcwerpunkts game which is a little different). WiTE was a massive disappointment - which I think was down to design not inherent issues in the nature of the task. If his past games are anything to go by Vic is more than up to the challenge.
[/quote]

My feeling is that the Eastern Front is so enormously complex, with so many changes of momentum, that one really needs to focus in on a subset of it to give all the various dynamics in play proper attention. Further, keeping the focus limited, for example running it from June 1941 through the end of the Russian winter counter attacks, would hopefully allow for the creation of nuanced rules and effects without having to worry on how these rules would play out in say 1943, when the nature of the warfare had drastically changed. In DC terms, look at how different the Blitzkrieg scenarios and Case Blue feel in terms of movement rates, attack powers, etc. Or, look at how WiTE often has to make due with rather crude solutions given that it models such a long period (First Winter rule, surprise rules, the mess of OOB changes etc.) I think if WiTE had totally focussed on just getting the '41 blitzkrieg and Russian counter-attack phases right, the results would have been a much more satisfying experience, though I strongly feel WiTE is a great game in its own way. And another argument for a narrower time frame done right is that I don't think it's an exageration to say that 90% of people who play WiTE only do the first year of the war anyway based on the AARs and such.

I'd rather just see something smaller but more refined and (again) "hand-crafted". Plus there's always the possibility of developing games on other years later ('42 is basically already done), and then trying to stitch them together once the very different basics of each period are there.



DBeves -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/27/2013 9:23:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

"

Wel I for one sure hope he does. That will be very, very good news. This maybe the last chance we get to have a full eastern front wargame (apart from shcwerpunkts game which is a little different). WiTE was a massive disappointment - which I think was down to design not inherent issues in the nature of the task. If his past games are anything to go by Vic is more than up to the challenge.

quote:


My feeling is that the Eastern Front is so enormously complex, with so many changes of momentum, that one really needs to focus in on a subset of it to give all the various dynamics in play proper attention. Further, keeping the focus limited, for example running it from June 1941 through the end of the Russian winter counter attacks, would hopefully allow for the creation of nuanced rules and effects without having to worry on how these rules would play out in say 1943, when the nature of the warfare had drastically changed. In DC terms, look at how different the Blitzkrieg scenarios and Case Blue feel in terms of movement rates, attack powers, etc. Or, look at how WiTE often has to make due with rather crude solutions given that it models such a long period (First Winter rule, surprise rules, the mess of OOB changes etc.) I think if WiTE had totally focussed on just getting the '41 blitzkrieg and Russian counter-attack phases right, the results would have been a much more satisfying experience, though I strongly feel WiTE is a great game in its own way. And another argument for a narrower time frame done right is that I don't think it's an exageration to say that 90% of people who play WiTE only do the first year of the war anyway based on the AARs and such.

I'd rather just see something smaller but more refined and (again) "hand-crafted". Plus there's always the possibility of developing games on other years later ('42 is basically already done), and then trying to stitch them together once the very different basics of each period are there.


Well, as I say - my view of WiTE was that it wasnt the fact it had to simulate those things but that it chose the wrong way to do so. The only other thing I would say about your post is that Vic has strongly suggested this will be the Last game in the series so modelling later stages of the war is unlikely to happen. Givern that and vic skills I would like to see him have a go at the whole war - you never know - he may get it right - then everybody wins.



RayWolfe -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/27/2013 9:29:08 AM)

I too would prefer the current scale and smaller chunks of the eastern war. .... and it's a better marketing opportunity, what, at least 4 or 5 games worth. We would all buy Barbarossa and Bagration probably in two chunks each or AG Centre, AG South and AG North.
Yes, more manageable and would play closer to the historical than will be achieved by a monster where something going ahistorical would lose all credibility for the rest of the game.



wodin -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/27/2013 1:41:15 PM)

I agree...I don't see the need for another monster that will like others struggle to do the whole war.

I wanted to see more games set around a certain Army with linked scenarios like the 1st Panzer campaign in Case Blue. Maybe at the regimental or even battalion level. Indepth nicely detailed campaigns set during specific operations. Bring leaders down to battalion level etc. I would have jumped at tht. A monster whole war game though..no thanks.



Toby42 -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/27/2013 2:42:34 PM)

There was a "Monster" board game years ago called "Streets of Stalingrad". That would be a good one to port to the PC! I can't remember who published it?



wodin -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/27/2013 5:43:47 PM)

Treale..L2 design..and yes I've been spouting the same things a fair few times on these forums...I'd LOVE this to happen.

You cna get Battle fro Stalingrad that ups the scale a touch currently reprinted by Excalibur games.



DBeves -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/28/2013 2:57:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I agree...I don't see the need for another monster that will like others struggle to do the whole war.

I wanted to see more games set around a certain Army with linked scenarios like the 1st Panzer campaign in Case Blue. Maybe at the regimental or even battalion level. Indepth nicely detailed campaigns set during specific operations. Bring leaders down to battalion level etc. I would have jumped at tht. A monster whole war game though..no thanks.


Well you are entitled to your preferences but what "others" are you reffering to ?
as far as I can recall there have been three computer games dealing with the whole eastern front.
The orignal Grigsby one - which is ancient so doesnt really factor at all but still garnered some praise I believe and Schwerpunkts Game (which again is very old) - which is widely well recieved - but doesnt cover the whole war and abstracts most things outside of strictly the military war.

So we have one game disappointment with regard to a game that actually attempted the whole war in all its aspects - its hardly an extensive litany of impossible failure.



wodin -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/28/2013 3:29:24 PM)

Not just talking about East front but any game trying to cover a huge part of the war over several years is just a massive undertaking..and some parts are always great but it seems as it goes on it can fall apart abit esp if your going for a less abstract route. Boardgames have struggled with this for years aswell.

One question I'm not the only person on this thread who has said more or else the same thing.

It's not rocket science to work out why it's a huge undertaking and very difficult to get right.

WITE can fall apart mid game (then you get the endless should you be restricted to historical out comes or not)...World in Flames wont be getting an AI on release and many say it's a to coin a phrase a bridge to far...I've read TOW3 scenarios are very difficult to get right when they cover the whole War in the east. Countless boardgames have fallen aswell some do it better than others..but few have got it just right if any.



RayWolfe -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/28/2013 4:10:12 PM)

Agree with wodin.
I don't know of a single game that has dealt successfully (read, reasonably historical) with the whole war, the whole eastern front, D-Day to the end, let alone the entire Pacific.
Now, if you don't mind it being ahistorical, then any fantasy game would do.



Hugolin -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/28/2013 4:34:42 PM)

The series HOI and Arsenal of Democracy do great job to cover the entire war.

The issue of course with covering the full war but limited to the Eastern Front is that the actual war was not happening in a close vat, but was a dynamic, international thing, where one event somewhere (e.g. Dieppe, Sicily, Pearl Harbour, etc.) affected the Eastern Front.

To follow historical chronology with preset events is always stifling... But maybe a sort of 'linked' mega-scenario could work, where on a certain date the scenario 'stops' to do a transition and adjust itself depending on the situation, some random events and 'what ifs'?

For example in the classic AH Russian Campaign boardgame, one 'what-if' scenario gives the opportunity to send Rommel's Afrika Corps to Russia instead of Africa; the plus side is that you have an extra Armoured corps in '41, the downside is that the Allies land in Sicily earlier, so you have to withdraw units later on to control the situation, and Russia gets extra reinforcements from the Allies (war material) through Astrakan via Persia, because Italy is kicked out of Africa earlier.

In DC terms, you could have a parallel game where you could deploy some of your assets to or from other fronts, which would be abstracted into different 'unit pools' (re. you have 30 Division in France, 3 in Africa, 5 in Norway, 3 in Greece, etc.). Failure to keep sufficient forces there could result in the Allies to attack that particular front earlier than historical (e.g. you under-garrison France in late '42, so the Allies land 10 divisions, so you now have a problem) and would force you to have to send your precious assets there to control the situation. You could also send battered units in those 'pools' to rest and refit over time, and get new fresh units in Russia.

DC's cards system could also come into play here, where you could play cards to control different fronts and build assets (examples of cards: More Subs, More Fighters over Germany, More Flak to cover Germany, More Factories, Invade Sweden, etc.).

This could be part of the solution to keep some sort of international contextual dynamism, since some events somewhere would affect your main game. With a proper balance, it could maintain a sort of historical correlation with the growing Allied power and Germany's involvement in Russia, the Allies putting more and more pressure on Germany over the years over different fronts, and Germany having to deploy its asset in a quite abstracted way to control the international situation dynamically (Grand Strategy part), while focusing on the main front tactically and strategically.



marcpennington -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/28/2013 4:38:00 PM)

Just another example to amplify my original point on why not to do the whole war is that my last game of WiTE was a GC '44 against a great opponent who I had already played in '41. Both of us were very excited to try the new material and the new situation. Many months later, as Berlin was in smoldering ruins and we discussed the end of the game, we both discovered that the other player had grown to hate virtually every second of the scenario, but were too stubborn to quit and didn't tell the other player as we both thought the other might be enjoying it.... My opponent felt that as the Soviets he was just being a traffic cop moving way too many small units as a massive steam roller west, and constantly struggling to even find ways to fit his units on the front. As the Axis, I felt I was spending more time doing wacky things like merging divisions and moving SUs to artificially maintain combat power. Throughout, my army was being shredded every turn, but always returned to around 3 million men no matter what happened... There was no sense in the scenario of any real effects of stuff like losing Ploesti, and rules involving the Hungarian and Rumanian surrender were crude. There were no fortress cities, or bridgeheads in the Baltic, early Cold War inspired objectives, or Volksturm or anything to make the scenario feel unique and special to '44.

And we both very much enjoyed our '41 games, and still both like WiTE in general, but I post above to make it obvious how different periods of the war really are, and to just stay focused on one



Vic -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/28/2013 5:40:38 PM)

Thanks for all the feedback.

I am taking notes while reading this thread.

I especially welcome any more insights that players of other 1941-1945 other games (yes.. like WIR and War in the East) have in games that try to span such a large period have. Good and bad.

Also I am open for any other suggestions or requests that players would like to see implemented.

Best regards,
Vic



marcpennington -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/28/2013 5:57:54 PM)

Thanks Vic, and I think I can express for everyone here that regardless of which decisions you make, we (or at least me) are extremely excited for the game.

A few thoughts from WiTE that might save you have to go through hundreds of message board arguments, but are worth considering:

1. I mentioned earlier that the week long time scale was just too long for divisional scale, and pockets and such just don't form in natural ways. This leads in WiTE to needing rather awkward rout and reserve reaction rules and such, but I think a better solution would be to do it as half week turns. This would also likely help with problems in the initial surprise turns.

2. As far as the surprise turn goes, obviously the game needs something, but in WiTE it has led to near endless debates, the infamous Lvov gambit, and cases where many players have just memorized the exact Soviet deployment on a hex by hex level, and developed rather absurd encirclements schemes by trial and error that work every time. Building even a slight randomization into the initial Soviet deployments would help a lot, or at least that's one solution to it. By contrast, allowing free setup for the Soviets would for many (including me) lead to the belief the game would become completely unbalanced, given the disastrous nature of the initial Soviet deployments. Again, I always like the idea of just a little bit of random changes to eliminate turn 1s by rote.

3. Also related is the air war, where in WiTE there have been literally dozens of patches where something is changed to get more historical results for the turn 1 surprise, but then these changes lead to unintended consequences for the next 200 turns, and hence another patch which leads to unintended consequences for turn 1... I've always wondered why WiTE scenarios just don't start with the initial German air raids on the grounded Red Air Force having already occurred, with historical damage levels inflicted, hence saving a huge long term head ache of balancing.

4. You will learn to hate the words First Winter Rule. I have no solutions there.



DBeves -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/28/2013 10:34:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

Just another example to amplify my original point on why not to do the whole war is that my last game of WiTE was a GC '44 against a great opponent who I had already played in '41. Both of us were very excited to try the new material and the new situation. Many months later, as Berlin was in smoldering ruins and we discussed the end of the game, we both discovered that the other player had grown to hate virtually every second of the scenario, but were too stubborn to quit and didn't tell the other player as we both thought the other might be enjoying it.... My opponent felt that as the Soviets he was just being a traffic cop moving way too many small units as a massive steam roller west, and constantly struggling to even find ways to fit his units on the front. As the Axis, I felt I was spending more time doing wacky things like merging divisions and moving SUs to artificially maintain combat power. Throughout, my army was being shredded every turn, but always returned to around 3 million men no matter what happened... There was no sense in the scenario of any real effects of stuff like losing Ploesti, and rules involving the Hungarian and Rumanian surrender were crude. There were no fortress cities, or bridgeheads in the Baltic, early Cold War inspired objectives, or Volksturm or anything to make the scenario feel unique and special to '44.

And we both very much enjoyed our '41 games, and still both like WiTE in general, but I post above to make it obvious how different periods of the war really are, and to just stay focused on one


Well - again - those are all issues with the design of WiTE - not necessarily insurmountable obstacles in simulating the war as a whole. For me - WiTE was a design that was left sitting on a shelf for a long time. It had certain basic design decisions in place that always meant it was going to run into problems.

For me there are always two big issues when it comes to simulating a full war eastern front.

Firstly its the mechanisms used to simulate certain things that were important there - such as the weather, railways, supply, the changes in the armies etc - those are systems - and if you get them right - they will work. WiTE got most of them wrong in my view.

Secondly there is the freedom of action vs historical constraints - eg - the other fronts and unit transfers, production etc. To me to a large extent - this is something WiTE got partially right, by making the other fronts behave historically, other things it got wrong for example it forced you to transfer the exact same designation of unit to the other front - regardless of its state or position rather than letting you decide what went by a different mechanism. Another example was that it failed to let you alter production when the eastern front as far as germany was concerned was important enough that what happened there would drive decisions to some extent. Again - I just think there were some bad decisions made with WiTE.

Again - whilst I see your point to some extent - from what I have seen of the DC engine and the things it can be made to do - its likely by far the best system to actually deliver a full war game, and just cause its difficult is not reason enough alone to just give up trying.



Keunert -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/28/2013 10:43:10 PM)

Vic talks about the importance of the editor. considering this and looking at his previous games i strongly believe he will refrain from doing endless tweakable complex rules. so far he enhanced his engine from at to dc1 to dc2 very elegantly. my guess is that his full east front game will be a lot closer to a boardgame than to something like WitE or ToAoW.

i would love to see another ten DC titles staying true to their title: campaigns. but i am even more interested in something that will need some game design enhancements. if the editor will be as simple as he hopes for it some of you guys can design the DC : Balkans title for me after the release :)



Keunert -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/28/2013 10:51:13 PM)

or even better DC: East Front 1914:1917



Baelfiin -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/29/2013 7:10:27 AM)

For what it is worth, I think half week turns will work better than 1 full week. I am enjoying the Case Blue unit counts and scale.



Hexagon -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/29/2013 8:17:59 PM)

Interesting... maybe i expect the oposite, move down in scale to "test" a casualty level based in lose unit by unit not 100 by 100 or 5 by 5, something like cover the north Africa campaigns at battalion level.

But a bigger scale could be interesting, not my favourite level but... lets see, good luck.

PD: do you plan add the option to create defensive works (something like 3 levels, basic defenses, prepared positions and finally fortifications, you need resources to create them) on map with special construction units??? and same with airfields. thanks



Tac2i -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/30/2013 1:30:32 AM)

I would prefer an Eastern Front game that covers the whole war, perhaps with the ability to carry on into 1946/47. I like options, for example Germany does not attack in 1941 and in 1942 the Soviet Union breaks the non-aggression treaty and attacks Germany. Things like this give a game some longevity. There all kinds of options of this nature that would aid in creating a game fun to play and still remain within the realm of possible events that could have occurred.

Re historical vs ahistorical: Hopefully all wargames give the player a reasonable chance at an ahistorical result. If not, what is the point of playing? I want to make history and not play a simulation that almost guarantees the historical outcome. Personally, games like that give me the feeling of being in a straight jacket and thus I avoid them.

This article suggests that Stalin intended to attack Germany in July 1941: Soviet Offensive Plans Controversy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe
Yes, more manageable and would play closer to the historical than will be achieved by a monster where something going ahistorical would lose all credibility for the rest of the game.




c00per -> RE: DC3 Blog post (4/30/2013 11:24:15 PM)

Well any improvement I would like to see over case blue is the river sizes being more visible to the eye. Also more beauty, and detail for the maps. I know its chrome but killer maps and counters for Case Blue would have been a slam dunk win.



PzKw43 -> RE: DC3 Blog post (5/4/2013 1:33:21 AM)

I would like the to see an East Front 1914-1922 game. WWI and the Russian Civil War. Hopefully the new editor will make this possible for a group of dedicated individuals.



Khanti -> RE: DC3 Blog post (10/5/2013 1:35:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic
(...)
I especially welcome any more insights that players of other 1941-1945 other games (yes.. like WIR and War in the East) have in games that try to span such a large period have. Good and bad.

Also I am open for any other suggestions or requests that players would like to see implemented.

Best regards,
Vic


To the points:

1. Flexibility.
2. My war (not historical simulation of that old conflict).
3. Manageable number of units.

1. First one means, that game should give a player a possibility to act with historical constraints, but not historical restrictions.
If player wants to make summer 42 offensive vs. Moscow, let him do it instead restricting him to HQ objectives.
If player wants to field more panzer division, let him do it, it's up to him to build more tanks and find more oil.

2. I don't think it's very funny to have scripted objectives, replacements, reinforcements for a such long period of time. What is rather obvious in let' say Case Yellow or Case White, is a nonsense in 4 or 5 years war. There should be some production system (could be like ATG or card system like DCCB). I see it very plausible for players to earn political points an use it to buy card with replacements / reinforcements. This way player would be sole responsible for his war machine.
Other war theatres (Africa, West, Balkans, etc) could be simulated by containers (on map) where player would put units to counter threats there. It will be up to player what and when he send there. If he sends too few units, he will start losing in that theatre. I see it like messages: Allies landed in Normandy, Allies took France, Berlin has fallen, Allies crushed etc.
This system worked in old WIR PC-DOS game.

3. A really love regimental divisions in DC series. Anyway considering division as premiere unit for a front it would be like 200-300 divisional units on map for one side. Plus airforce and support units. So up to 400-600 units by side. Manageable I think. But I will miss 4 regimental divisions. Maybe it will be possible to attach sub units to divisions (like Stug bat or arty bat).
WitE has very fast scrolling map, which is much faster than DC maps. In WitE division consists of infantry squads, machine guns, mortars, etc. I would go the DCCB road and unite all small arms into single infantry squads plus some artillery. Really no need for such a details on high level command. But using strict TOE is not an option also. I would like to able to reform TOEs and create my own designs.



mannerheim4 -> RE: DC3 Blog post (11/5/2013 10:35:38 PM)

I think Barbarossa on this game scale is a big mistake. There is already WitE at the proposed scale. Why another? And upping the number of units per hex is another mistake. It's too difficult to keep track of everything when you have over 4 units per hex.

I think it would better serve the game scale to consider Greece or the Balkans campaign (add in Crete...), and another option is the North Africa campaign. In both cases, you have a smaller unit count and would be more manageable.

While Russia is a great place to have a wargame setting, the ENTIRE Barbarossa front would make the game unmanageable. Case Blue full scenario is enough as it is! Imagine a game three times more area!!!
My two cents



Vic -> RE: DC3 Blog post (11/6/2013 7:19:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mannerheim4
While Russia is a great place to have a wargame setting, the ENTIRE Barbarossa front would make the game unmanageable. Case Blue full scenario is enough as it is! Imagine a game three times more area!!!
My two cents


Well actually we are looking more at 30x30km-ish hexes and divisional sized units, so the map and unit count would actually go a bit down from Case Blue.

Furthermore we are not trying to do the same game that has been done before on Barbarossa. This game will not try to kick WITE of the throne of detail. Expect some new innovative and immersive strategic/operational command gameplay next to the counter pushing.

@Hanti,
1 I think i can say yes here. replayability is a very big design goal for this game.
2 Is good a point, but I think this game might get more limited to the initial year of war.
3 Is a big maybe. Maybe on the Soviet side you'll see Armies that are spread over multiple units.

Best,
Vic



wodin -> RE: DC3 Blog post (11/6/2013 9:20:58 PM)

Really wish you'd done a series following an Army through the War on the East front..just like your 1st Panzer campaign. Maybe even have two scales..one at the current scale and the other at battalion (You then could really vary the scenarios and gameplay where some scenarios are at this games scale and others at battalion or Coy, the old World at War Stalingrad had two or three different scales depending on the scenario played. I'd have jumped at the chance for a series like that. Lest say you followed the 6th Army...once you got to Stalingrad itself you could drop the scale then to battalion or coy keep the bigger scale for those big blitz attacks and the smaller for a particular tactical aspect you wont to portray.



mannerheim4 -> RE: DC3 Blog post (11/7/2013 1:54:41 AM)




quote:

ORIGINAL: mannerheim4
While Russia is a great place to have a wargame setting, the ENTIRE Barbarossa front would make the game unmanageable. Case Blue full scenario is enough as it is! Imagine a game three times more area!!!
My two cents


quote:



Well actually we are looking more at 30x30km-ish hexes and divisional sized units, so the map and unit count would actually go a bit down from Case Blue.

Furthermore we are not trying to do the same game that has been done before on Barbarossa. This game will not try to kick WITE of the throne of detail. Expect some new innovative and immersive strategic/operational command gameplay next to the counter pushing.


I do enjoy the strategic options of DC 2 with the cards and the leaders, vs the WitE system, which seems overly sterile when one considers the strategic decisions and the various generals. The card idea is wonderful, as is the prestige idea and being able to change goals and receive replacements etc. You hit a home run there!

However, it would seem a lot of work to change the scale of your game. You are changing the scale dramatically - and the mechanics will change dramatically. The crt and movement and even the feel will be quite different moving to division units, rather than the regimental scale. Vic, what about doing a game on Operation Barbarossa, Army Group Central? That would allow a much easier porting without having to change a lot of the basics. You have a lot of playing options with AGC, from the race to Minsk, to the slugging at Smolensk, to the decision to send Guderian (or not!) to Typhoon, to the Russian counterattack in December.

I would buy that game instantly!

Again, my opinion, but I think you would be better served keeping the same scale and keeping your map size more manageable.

Thanks for listening,

Regards



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6090088