RE: OOB Question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa



Message

Michael T -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 4:24:16 AM)

ok thanks for looking and acting, even if only partial.

How about the Soviet units mentioned above by amatteucci?




Jagdtiger14 -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 4:33:37 AM)

Glantz is an awesome resource! I was at a presentation of his a while back where he focused on the southern front of Barbarossa. He had access to the Soviet records when they were open for a few years. His presentation concerned the largest armor battle in history (no one knew this until the Soviet records were opened up)...Ukraine west of the Dnieper '41. Of course a lot of the Soviet "armor" were BT's.



governato -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 4:49:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

ok thanks for looking and acting, even if only partial.

How about the Soviet units mentioned above by amatteucci?




..And it's not just the few soviet units amatteucci and I have pointed out... *Every* Soviet TD had a unique number and composition of tanks/men/guns...



Speedysteve -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 10:05:14 AM)

I'm on the fence with this as well. With regard to OOB detail level reflected in game - have granular strength levels, taking into account individual unit men and tank levels been represented in game or is it generic such as standard pz div has x tk rgt and x mot rgt etc etc?

Thanks



amatteucci -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 2:37:56 PM)


quote:


Is this the actual case in the game?

Yes, it is. As I said, and as governato confirmed, every TD in the game is identical to any other TD.

For what it is worth, it seems that every division of a given type is identical to the others. And, while it might matter little for the bulk of infantry/rifle troops, I think it matters a lot for mobile troops. Especially for Soviet mobile troops, given the staggering differences in numbers and type of equipement at hand in the various Mechanized Corps. Not that the German side could not befefit from a more accurate OoB, it's know that there were no two identical Panzerdivisionen at the start of Barbarossa, non only for the numbers and type of tanks at hand but also other AFVs (especially armoured halftracks).

Anyway, as already said, this kind of info is easily found not only in a variety of commonly available books (Nafziger, Jentz, Glantz, Drig etc.) but also available for free on the net.



Panzeh -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 2:52:47 PM)

It's true, about the same strengths between division types but it doesn't bother me. I guess OOB sperglords would be bothered but those initial TDs are pretty much goners anyway. Most of the Soviet side is fought by divisions that show up throughout the game in any case, the ones at the opening of the campaign mostly just die.



amatteucci -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 3:31:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzeh
It's true, about the same strengths between division types but it doesn't bother me.

Good for you.

quote:


I guess OOB sperglords would be bothered but those initial TDs are pretty much goners anyway.

The problem is what they are able to accomplish before they're gone. I guess that a TD with 300 or so T-34s is able to accomplish more than a division with a dozen of T-26s.

Anyway, if I just wanted to appear a nit-picking obnoxious sperglord, I would have pointed out some minor inaccuracy that has no impact on the game, e.g. the fact that a certain city on the map has its name mispelled or that general so-and-so is depicted by the wrong photo.

I'm talking about tank numbers because the developers themselves decided to include tank numbers in DC:B, thus indicating that these numbers are important for the game.

quote:


Most of the Soviet side is fought by divisions that show up throughout the game in any case, the ones at the opening of the campaign mostly just die.

Did you bother to check what happens with the TOEs of the units that show up throughout the game as reinforcements?



governato -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 3:52:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: amatteucci


quote:


Is this the actual case in the game?

Yes, it is. As I said, and as governato confirmed, every TD in the game is identical to any other TD.

For what it is worth, it seems that every division of a given type is identical to the others. And, while it might matter little for the bulk of infantry/rifle troops, I think it matters a lot for mobile troops. Especially for Soviet mobile troops, given the staggering differences in numbers and type of equipement at hand in the various Mechanized Corps. Not that the German side could not befefit from a more accurate OoB, it's know that there were no two identical Panzerdivisionen at the start of Barbarossa, non only for the numbers and type of tanks at hand but also other AFVs (especially armoured halftracks).

Anyway, as already said, this kind of info is easily found not only in a variety of commonly available books (Nafziger, Jentz, Glantz, Drig etc.) but also available for free on the net.


The uniform TOEs is, in my opinion, a very minor qualm. The game (which I got on day one!) has made enormous improvements in the realism of logistics and command & control) compared to other games on the same topic (anyone heard of the unrealistic and unfixable 'Lvov pocket' in a similar game from another company? Right.).
I think DCB is miles ahead of everything else on this specific campaign.

But, because the TOEs at start up are easily fixed and the community appreciates those details...why not do that in a future patch. But I am certainly fine until then.



Michael T -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 3:59:43 PM)

I have the game now and I am enjoying it. I expect to be playing it a lot via PBEM++.

However the OOB is its weakness. It needs work to bring it up to a 'solidly researched historical standard', the developers own words.

I have a lot of questions about it. But before airing them any further I need to check the units and read the manual.

For example I don't see LSSAH yet. Maybe I missed it and its there somewhere. Yes I know technically it was not a division at this stage but effectively it was.



RCHarmon -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 4:01:00 PM)

The SS formations and the initial set ups of all divisions including Soviet tank divisions are two different arguments.

The SS units were formed stronger than regular German army units of similar type. This continued throughout the war (generally speaking).

Initial set ups are a whole different matter. And after the war in the east begins, Soviet unit composition would also reflect losses and available replacements.



amatteucci -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 4:25:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
The uniform TOEs is, in my opinion, a very minor qualm. The game (which I got on day one!) has made enormous improvements in the realism of logistics and command & control) compared to other games on the same topic (anyone heard of the unrealistic and unfixable 'Lvov pocket' in a similar game from another company? Right.).
I think DCB is miles ahead of everything else on this specific campaign.

I got DC:B on day one too and I'm not regretting buying it.

I know that WitE has problems, if I thought that WitE was the perfect Eastern Front wargame ever, I would not have bothered with DC:B at all.

Of course WitE has problems in spite of its detailed OoB not because of it.

This to say that, in my opinion, there's no reason on Earth to think that a more accurate OoB couldn't be considered a useful improvement to DC:B. And this is not a mere cosmetic improvement (unless someone considers combat results as "chrome"), as spelling Königsberg correctly on the map.

quote:


But, because the TOEs at start up are easily fixed and the community appreciates those details...why not do that in a future patch.

That is exaclty what I am asking.



henri51 -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 5:08:39 PM)

If you start down this path, you may open a Pandora's box. It is well known that especially during the early Barbarossa, the Soviets kept making major changes to their organization, many of them MAJOR. Check out "Clash of Titans" by Glantz for details. So will someone raise a protest that in say October, the Soviet OOB does not reflect certain major changes? Just take the game like it is...



Queeg -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 5:23:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: henri51

If you start down this path, you may open a Pandora's box. It is well known that especially during the early Barbarossa, the Soviets kept making major changes to their organization, many of them MAJOR. Check out "Clash of Titans" by Glantz for details. So will someone raise a protest that in say October, the Soviet OOB does not reflect certain major changes? Just take the game like it is...


The "Troubleshooting" section of the manual for the original Combat Mission had a nice comment on this sort of issue: "The armor slope of that Panther is off by 0.5 degrees! My life is ruined!"

Historical fidelity will always have an eye-of-the-beholder element to it. I'm fine with a game getting the main points right then focusing on the real hard work of being an enjoyable game.



amatteucci -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 5:50:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: henri51

If you start down this path, you may open a Pandora's box. It is well known that especially during the early Barbarossa, the Soviets kept making major changes to their organization, many of them MAJOR. Check out "Clash of Titans" by Glantz for details. So will someone raise a protest that in say October, the Soviet OOB does not reflect certain major changes?

I think that there's no real danger of opening Pandora's box (or a can of worms).
The level of accuracy that is requested by the game OOB/TOE is not arbitrary but it is set by the level of detail that the designers themselves decided to put in it.

If there's a new army that pops up in a given month and it is not represented in the game, it is reasonable to ask to have it included. If there's a TOE change that is under the resolution of the game engine, it is pointless to have it represented.

quote:


Just take the game like it is...

It's strange to hear such a suggestion on the forum of a game company that is famous for continuing to upgrade its products even years after release. I guess you don't patch your games! [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg
The "Troubleshooting" section of the manual for the original Combat Mission had a nice comment on this sort of issue: "The armor slope of that Panther is off by 0.5 degrees! My life is ruined!"

You know that 0.01% is not equal to 50%. So that the issue at hand here has nothing to do with CM manual's joke.

quote:


Historical fidelity will always have an eye-of-the-beholder element to it. I'm fine with a game getting the main points right then focusing on the real hard work of being an enjoyable game.

You said it right: the main points.
Do you think that the total number of tanks available to a given side is not a point worth to be accurately portrayed in this game? Would you consider acceptable to have that number off by 50% or, maybe, 30%... or what?




Queeg -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 7:11:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: amatteucci

Do you think that the total number of tanks available to a given side is not a point worth to be accurately portrayed in this game? Would you consider acceptable to have that number off by 50% or, maybe, 30%... or what?



I'm far more interested in how a game plays than how the stats stack up. The best games just feel right. It's hard to define, very difficult to achieve - and obvious when it's missing. And it's not a matter of stats - it's more how the game system works as a whole.

AGEOD's To End All Wars is a great example - great details in a game that feels nothing (at all) like the conflict being modeled.

It depends on what you're trying to model and how you want all the pieces to fit into the overall game design. In some games, like WinE/WitW, the details are the intended end result - the details ARE the game. WitW literally includes my grandfather, by name in his historical squadron, as a bomber pilot in North Africa and Italy. That's incredibly authentic - but it doesn't necessarily make it a good game.

What makes DC:B special is how the different pieces, some of which are very unique to wargaming, fit together as a coherent whole. This isn't a game where the minutiae predominate.

Having said that, I'm glad they are looking at the OOB to at least gets things in the right ballpark.



Michael T -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 8:28:07 PM)

I do not understand why people would argue to keep something in place that is incorrect, especially when it is so easy to change/correct. Weird.



Queeg -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 8:57:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I do not understand why people would argue to keep something in place that is incorrect, especially when it is so easy to change/correct. Weird.


What if the game were perfectly balanced to provide an historical overall result despite the ahistorical detail? And what if fixing the detail would produce an ahistorical overall result?

Ideally, the details and the result both should be historical. But the result is what ultimately makes the game.

Just saying it's not always as simple as just editing a spreadsheet.

(The designers have a good sense of what they're trying to accomplish here, and I expect they'll get the details and balance right with a bit of time.)



Michael T -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 8:58:03 PM)

Ok LSSAH arrives as a reinforcement in July. I can live with that.

But the designers notes mention that GrossDeutschland X is attached to a Division. I cannot locate a Pz/Mot Div at this point that appears to have GD attached.

Can anyone point this out to me please?



Michael T -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 9:05:03 PM)

I very much doubt that the game is perfectly balanced at such an early stage in its life. And I also doubt that the changes needed to make the OOB historically sound would derail the game.

Naturally any changes that could impact play balance should be closely examined. But at this point I don't see that. It may well turn out that for example total tank numbers in the Soviet OOB are correct, maybe just a little more thought should be placed in how they are allocated across the myriad of Soviet TD.



morvael -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 9:08:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
For example I don't see LSSAH yet. Maybe I missed it and its there somewhere. Yes I know technically it was not a division at this stage but effectively it was.


I think the manual states reason why it's not there at the start. Other compromises too. They are there to reduce micromanagement. Today it took me 10 minutes to re-route two static infantry divisions to garrison Leningrad in WitE, and replace them with regular infantry divisions at the front. Click, click, click, click... [:)] I enjoyed it, but some may not, and will call this micromanagement.

DC3 is not here to compete in the OOB department, it's here to bring more important aspects to the fore, so often neglected in war games. Human interactions! And for that I will ignore some aspects that may seem simplified compared to other games. This is a game that wants to offer unique experience of dealing with superiors and subordinates, and I intend to enjoy every minute of playing it.



lancer -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 11:02:08 PM)

Hi Michael,

10th Pz Div, 2 PG. Select the unit, press the Report Status! button (yellow, bottom centre).

I recommend reading the OOB notes in the manual (designer notes, at the back) for an explanation of why things are the way that they are.

Cheers,
Cameron



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 11:42:07 PM)

Morvael: If this game is really all about human interactions then why even call this game Operation Barbarossa?...why not call it Big Blue vs Great Red (from the old Blitzkrieg game by AH) on a fantasy map? The fact that its "Operation Barbarossa" implies detail representing this historical event...not to mention the developers stated intentions.

I hope to enjoy this game too, probably after the first patch is out.



Michael T -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 11:54:46 PM)

@Cameron

Ok I got it. I was expecting to see a Division with extra troops/guns etc. Which would be my preference, but nice to see the unit reflected in some way at least.

I have read the section on the OOB. And generally speaking I have no problem with your design decisions. No ants is a good thing. WITE suffers from this terribly.

I would prefer to see more historically accurate unit strengths for Pz and Soviet TD. As they varied significantly.

So far I find nothing in the game that I dislike other than the OOB's rather generic approach. But I am hopeful this can be changed rather easily with the editor.

A Barbarossa Scenario with OOB++ for people like myself would be fab.




Michael T -> RE: OOB Question (11/26/2015 11:58:07 PM)

quote:

Big Blue vs Great Red


I almost made the same comment a way back. But I am trying not to be too negative about this one aspect of what appears to be (so far) a most excellent game otherwise. I think the editor may be the saving grace for players who want more historical flavor in the OOB.



Queeg -> RE: OOB Question (11/27/2015 1:45:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Morvael: If this game is really all about human interactions then why even call this game Operation Barbarossa?...why not call it Big Blue vs Great Red (from the old Blitzkrieg game by AH) on a fantasy map?


I coulda sworn there were humans involved in the real Operation Barbarossa. I'll have to recheck my sources.



Panzeh -> RE: OOB Question (11/27/2015 2:16:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Morvael: If this game is really all about human interactions then why even call this game Operation Barbarossa?...why not call it Big Blue vs Great Red (from the old Blitzkrieg game by AH) on a fantasy map?


I coulda sworn there were humans involved in the real Operation Barbarossa. I'll have to recheck my sources.


Sorry, wars are entirely fought by OOBs and numerical values. Didn't you know?



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: OOB Question (11/27/2015 5:08:01 AM)

Queeg and Panzeh: Funny how what you write reflects your avatars. Not sure why you guys play war games, but for me its about using the exact (as can be per available information) tools that were available at the time. I'm guessing that concept probably comes as a shock to both of you.



ernieschwitz -> RE: OOB Question (11/27/2015 5:34:33 AM)

To me, this kind of comment, is personal, and doesn't bring anything especially useful to the discussion.



zakblood -> RE: OOB Question (11/27/2015 5:48:42 AM)

agreed[:-] lets try and be nice and stay on topic, as mods tend to have a hard time closing threads that go astray and get personal, debate all you like about the game, and call it till your blue in the face, as that's on topic as that's fine, but topic was started about the OOB, i'm only a member also so you can always ignore me and my advice, and let someone else say it[;)]



76mm -> RE: OOB Question (11/27/2015 8:07:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

What if the game were perfectly balanced to provide an historical overall result despite the ahistorical detail? And what if fixing the detail would produce an ahistorical overall result

...

(The designers have a good sense of what they're trying to accomplish here, and I expect they'll get the details and balance right with a bit of time.)


This approach is fine if the game was advertised as so me kind of fantasy game based on the Russian front, but I have a very hard time understanding or accepting this approach for what claims to be a serious war game.

It's pretty simple--if you claim to have accurate historic OOBs, as this game does, then you should have them... The info on soviet tank units, for instance, is readily avsilale to the most casual researcher--if the devs are deliberately distorting OOBs (or anything else) to achieve play balance, I'd like to know about it.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8476563