How is it compared to War in the east? (Full Version)

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



Message

towerbooks3192 -> How is it compared to War in the east? (11/25/2015 12:47:49 PM)

Ok, I am familiar with Vic's games and sort of the basics of his games. I would assume this will be like DC. I am new to War in the east and I must say I loved the auto assignment of arties/ support units and the easy to perform air missions. How is the game compared to War in the east in terms of how it covers barbarossa?

No question about whether or not I will get the game (I already purchased physical copy, disappointed that there was no fedex option) I just want to know how the game differs from War in the east in covering Barbarossa.



proflui -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/25/2015 4:19:57 PM)

I would like to know also.

I play WITE for hundreds of hours and overall I like it a lot. It is true that it may not be a perfect simulation but the game is fun. It is easy to learn the basic mechanic of the game but at the same time shows a lot of details (I like looking at the TOE screen a lot!). For the campaign and some large senarios sometimes a turn may take me 3 to 4 hours to complete since it is a large front and it feels really epic.

The same thing can apply to DC: Case blue. The front is big and there a tons of units to handle (maybe too many units since many infantry units just fall behind when my attack is too successful?) The mechanic is easy to learn also. While the Soviet AI is a little weak, playing against a German AI is great. However, I do not like to look of the map. With Mod the WITE map really looks gorgeous.

That's why I am still deciding whether to purchase DC: barbarossa. It looks less epic since there are fewer units and the front looks smaller. More aspects of the game is handled through cards like the air war. Although the manual is 300 more pages and there is extra RPG elements, it does not look as deep in terms of land combat strategies and I do not buy RPG elements in a war game. And there is only one campaign, although you can pick a different stragety everytime. Plus, the map still look like Case blue which I do not think is pretty enough. Lastly it comes with a deep price in CAD. I can see why WITE or WITW come with a high price since I can see the deep research in the game like all the units descriptions and the deep complexity of gameplay and I bought them on the their first day out without much hesitation. But I am still deciding for DC: Barbarossa.

Maybe I am wrong. And I hope I am wrong too since I really do not mind to try another East Front game if it is good. I hope someone can convince me.




wodin -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/25/2015 4:39:56 PM)

Obviously this game only covers Barbarossa. Also GGWITE goes into much more detail I feel and prob has less abstracted.

However this game abstracts what can be abstracted without damaging gameplay. Doesn't take hours to play one turn. Finally the HUGE difference is the roleplay\decisions feature which isn't just an add on gimmick but plays a major part of the game and contributes hugely to immersion and this is what for me puts DC:B above GGWITE. Now if I was a grog who can still be fully immersed in games like GGWITE then maybe what DC:B has to offer isn't as impressive as it is to me.

DC:B is for me far and away the most immersive strategic wargame I've ever played on the PC. GGWITE is prob the most detailed strategic wargame out there bar GGWITW.

Oh and I'd also say comparing this game to Case Blue is like comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruits and both use the same wargame engine..however the two fruits taste totally different and the two games play differently. The new mechanics\features just blast the engine into the stratosphere and create an immersive wargaming masterpiece from what was a very good digital wargame.

SO thinking this is going to be like Case Blue and just more of the same with some minor improvements are going to be hugely surprised, in a very very good way.

Oh and the counter count just hits the sweet spot and doesn't become a counter pushing chore.

I rarely recommend games..but I will with this one. You really will be missing out if you let it pass by.



proflui -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/25/2015 4:57:33 PM)

Good to know. I am going to get it now!



smartspick -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/25/2015 5:16:35 PM)

Thanks, also convinced me to buy it



pierreoza -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/25/2015 5:34:41 PM)

woodin is right !

And u can play quickly a campaign.

Very immersive game for each side.





Cheers.



Simulacra53 -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/25/2015 6:04:33 PM)

Got the game, also to support the developer, but although the logistics and decisions deepen the strategic gameplay, I am disappointed by the decision to reduce the air component to play cards.



Queeg -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/25/2015 7:50:11 PM)

The main difference is that you're far less likely to actually die playing this game than WitE.



dox44 -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/25/2015 8:32:59 PM)

i was on the fence too but you talked me into it...wodin's fault.



lancer -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/25/2015 11:30:01 PM)

Hi Simulacra,

The air war has been abstracted (there's a long discussion of why in the designer notes in the back of the manual) but it's been done to reduce micromanagement, not decisions.

Managing the Luftwaffe is no easy task within the game as you'll find. There are a number of decisions to be made and an ongoing tension between rolling your main air bases forward to stay in touch with your Panzergruppes versus operating out of increasingly poor quality fields and associated infrastructure.

As the potential impact of Luftwaffe ground support on your Panzergruppes is large enough to outweigh all other factors how you handle this can play a significant part in whether you spend Christmas in Moscow or find yourself huddled in a frozen Panzer that won't start.

Cheers,
Cameron



wodin -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/26/2015 10:30:21 AM)

WOW...now starting to feel a weight of responsibility with a fair few now buying because of me..but I'm confident I've said the right things.



mekjak -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/26/2015 10:14:33 PM)

Unlike WitE the Soviets have the potential to make damaging counterattacks as they historically did during the summer, even in the first few turns. The other thing I appreciate here over WitE is the fact that surrounded units don't just evaporate after a turn and require a commitment of forces to reduce or otherwise risk a breakout.



Panzeh -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/26/2015 10:53:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mekjak

Unlike WitE the Soviets have the potential to make damaging counterattacks as they historically did during the summer, even in the first few turns. The other thing I appreciate here over WitE is the fact that surrounded units don't just evaporate after a turn and require a commitment of forces to reduce or otherwise risk a breakout.


In fact, it's a very valid strategy to use the offensive stance of the initial armies to launch attacks, especially if you get commanders that can activate.



Michael T -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 12:00:42 AM)

@ - surrounded units.

No teleportation in DC3 either.



proflui -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 12:35:17 AM)

Kind of look like everyone is suggesting it is a far superior game than WITE. So no one actually prefer WITE to this game?



Panzeh -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 12:42:42 AM)

To be fair, the people who post in this forum are going to be preferring this game to WitE. I imagine WitE players are satisfied with their game. It's more detailed in a lot of ways, less in others.



Tzar007 -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 2:05:44 AM)

Even though both games are about the same setting and theater, it's hard to compare. WITE is to Eastern Front wargames what David Glantz's books are to Eastern Front litterature: deep, complex, vast, made for the exacting grognard or warfare history buff. It's the deepest military simulation of the Eastern Front that exists. I highly recommend. The downside of WITE, like Mr. Glantz's books, is that playing WITE sometimes feel like work rather than fun as some have said.

DC Barbarossa to me is shaping up certainly as challenging as WITE, but not as tedious to play as the complexity feels more manageable in Barbarossa. So far I love the whole decision-making piece of Barbarossa. It actually gives the game an historical patina and immersion that is absent from WITE.

I own and play both games, and I would be hard pressed choosing one over the other.






stormbringer3 -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 2:19:58 AM)

I bought WiTE the first day it was for sale. I played it for many months. The air war was broken and moving the support units to make them the most effective was a real pain. Eventually I gave the up on the game. When I learned that WitW had the same support unit system I passed. DC3 is a good game. It falls between WiTE and Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 which is another excellent game.



Michael T -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 2:55:02 AM)

I played nothing but WITE for 2.5 years solid. They were good times. But in the end the constant tinkering with various parameters (it still goes on) and the unfathomable black box dis-functional combat model ended the love affair for me.



mantrain -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 5:16:36 AM)

Well coming from ATG I am a bit lost here and trying to figure out what's what with unit movement and combat. It's like I better read the manual....



zakblood -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 5:38:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: proflui

Kind of look like everyone is suggesting it is a far superior game than WITE. So no one actually prefer WITE to this game?


it's a totally different game set on different levels, WITE is a epic mass counter game, which simulates almost all of the battles in the campaign to a very high level, with this you get more counters, more detail and also if you like it more fun.

while Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa is more about less of everything, smaller maps, less scale, load less counters, less choices to make regarding counter movement directions etc as now you have area boarders for each front, so to balance it, also more fun.

so both are great games, atm i'd pick WITE if you are a epic groghead type player who like to move around lots of counters and go really into depth regarding almost everything on the eastern front.[&o] [&o][&o]

i'd pick Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa only if you disagree with the comments above and your play-style is less well full on.


WITE doesn't use any political systems or personalty traits either so matters little if you get on with other commanders or not, DCB does, so if you don't want to play with the added system you can turn it off, and play old school style so no RPG in you're war game etc.

for me, i have both games, and one day will love to collect all war games ever made, as i love them all, but for different reasons, each have there good and bad points, one day one will be released which will combine them all, but i'd guess that won't be any time soon either.

so to recap and sum up, and not try and sell you either, it all depends on your gaming style and what other games you like to play, this is new and different so can't compare some of it to any others as yet, as it adds new stuff not used elsewhere either, but overall id say, on a scale of which one is better, well all i can say is useless as it's apple and oranges and i like fruit[X(] [8|][:D][;)][:'(]



76mm -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 7:48:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mekjak

Unlike WitE the Soviets have the potential to make damaging counterattacks as they historically did during the summer, even in the first few turns. The other thing I appreciate here over WitE is the fact that surrounded units don't just evaporate after a turn and require a commitment of forces to reduce or otherwise risk a breakout.

Good to hear...



76mm -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 7:53:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I played nothing but WITE for 2.5 years solid. They were good times. But in the end the constant tinkering with various parameters (it still goes on) and the unfathomable black box dis-functional combat model ended the love affair for me.

I agree 110% with Michael; those are the exact reasons I stopped playing, along with one more: I disagree with anyone that contends that WitE's complexity mske it more "realistic"--it is complex for complexity's sake and yet fails to provide a realistic portrayal of the war in the east.



Phoenix100 -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 8:13:53 AM)

I've bought this now (I blame Wodin!!!! No, just joking Jason...) and am just getting into the tutorial videos etc (very impressive).

I have WitE and have played it a lot - but only against the AI. The AI there is very simplistic in WitE, it seems to me. It feels like you can change settings to make it stronger, but only by giving it greater combat bonus etc - it doesn't get stronger by getting sneakier or more intelligent about counter-attacking. But to get a good historical experience out of several historical campaigns (not just Barbarossa) where you will come to understand the routes used, the outstanding features of the terrain that affected planning, a detailed, accurate OOB, the supply routes and the actual places that feature along the way, then WitE is presently much better because the map is better and there is more detail. The map (with or without either Jison or Goran's mods)is more detailed by far. The map in DC:B looks like a toy map to me. It advertises 'GAME!!!' not 'SIMULATION!' Both are, in fact, games, of course, but the nuancing is important in terms of immersion. I am at the moment finding it hard to believe I'm doing anything that bears much relation to history in DC:B because the map is so terribly bare (instead, I feel definitely like I'm playing a game...). I would like to see the features between Kaunis and Riga, for example, see which geographical features impacted on the route, which towns were along the way. Partly, you can see this in WitE because the scale is more fine-grained (10km per hex instead of 30km).

But all that said, it's true that WitE can be a chore, and the game elements of DC:B seem higher priority, and ultimately - if the AI does turn out to be as advertised - then it may be that I will get into it for the game experience, rather than the (as it were) study experience that WitE provides. Which I think is what the devs are aiming for.

I am wary of all the advertising about reducing micromanagement at the moment. Of course you reduce micromanagement by increasing counter size (reducing counter numbers), but that would then make an unfair comparison with WitE. It's like saying - 'we've decided to go for just 3 counters, one for each Army Group, and a huge map that just has 3 objectives on it - we've done this to reduce micromanagement.' But that's not really the kind of reduction players want, is it? What you want is a kind of Command Ops reduction in micromanagement, where if you give a command to a higher HQ then you don't then have to shift around all the subordinate HQs too. But this game has none of that. As far as I can see, in terms of pure counter pushing (and not the added role playing layer), they have basically reduced micromanagement by abstracting more through reducing numbers of counters. That is really just to simplify.

But I bought it and will give it a shot for what it is - a game. As such, it might be fun. I might learn less than I would in WitE about what elements went into Barbarossa etc, but I might have more fun.



Templer_12 -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 8:44:17 AM)

WITE?
Isn't it the game that has claimed high historical authenticity and high realism?
The simulation that does not know that there are concentric attacks in battle?



Phoenix100 -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 8:54:10 AM)

By concentric attacks do you mean attacks from many sides, Templer? This seems to exist in DC:B (and works nice, as far as I can see), but as for the realism in having three divisions attack from different sides (as opposed to what happened at the tactical level, between batallions and companies, or even regiments and brigades), I'm not so sure about that. I would have thought that on a scale of even 10km per hex (let alone 30km per hex) then things like simultaneous flank attacks would all have been abstracted into the combat calculation anyway. You just have to imagine what happens with 20,000 men and 1,000 tanks in a 30km area when all that is shown is two counters....And it was the same with WitE though at a reduced level.

But maybe you mean something else by 'concentric attacks?'



Templer_12 -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 9:03:23 AM)

Yes, attacks from many sides.

I was irritated when I discovered that this does not exist.
I spent some interesting and exciting hours with WITE. I do not regret my purchase at the time but I wouldn't recommend WITE without hesitation.
The price-fun realation don't worked for me.



zakblood -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 9:53:36 AM)

i've owned, had it given to me WITE for 5 years, not played more than 20 hours on it in that time, for one not had the time, and two, it's epic in scale and rather too hard for me as i'm useless as a gamer with hopefully WITE2 being easier to play and manage, while i think it's a epic and grand scale game, i don't think it's a bad game, tbh i think it's one of the bench mark games that all are measured on, even this, as why are we ever mentioned it?

i didn't do the beta on it, but did on WITW, and this game DCB also and more than a few others, have enjoyed my time spent on it, and think as it's different enough that imo it should be well revived same as WITE has been over the years, but as both cover the same time period, but neither have the same parts, imo both are totally different in game play terms.

a quote now from Vic

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3975523

How long does it take to play through the Campaign?

quote:

Depends on your style. Playing in the evenings probably no more than a week.


i'm not sure how many hours he can put into a evening btw either or his level of skill, but 2 weeks later i'm still on some battles, so agree and disagree with it, agree it's style, but skill for me has a bigger impact on length of play, and again on how the outcome is, i've played for 2 days and lost epic style, have played for 2 weeks and still got nowhere, played 2 weeks and got to the gates of Moscow only to be beaten back and ended up where i started in Jan 42[&o] but put 8 hours a day into it for that result...

but with WITE, i've never had the time, i was given it by a friend who left work, he said it would be more my cup of tea when i retired, but as of yet been retired 15+ years, iv'e never had that amount of time to really play it, so my opinion on it is i've spent maybe more time installing it over the years and patching it which new pc's bought most years, than maybe playing it, but would never say it's a bad game, it's a great epic game and would recommends it to anyone, then again i enjoy all my games, from some that others think are right Turkeys to those that no longer even get fully supported by the developers, still play every now and then old DOS games because i can't find certain battles even today done as well, in game play terms, while some love history and all that comes with it, see the debate on the OOB for one, there's the others who love game play, and care less if the map isn't the greatest, the counters aren't in the right colour shape and size with not enough cookies on the table while they play, as long as you enjoy it, play it i say. and as of yet, aged 48 there's isn't a war game on here i wont play that i don't enjoy, and yes like Christmas there's always an odd Turkey but if i buy it, i finish it, just some take longer than others as some Turkeys get or take longer to get used to and aren't always to taste[&o][&o][&o]



morvael -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 10:00:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Templer
Yes, attacks from many sides.
I was irritated when I discovered that this does not exist.


They do exists, use shift to add units to attack (moving mouse over hexes from which you want to attack, and releasing mouse button when over target hex, holding shift all the time; you can also remove some of selected units from attack by clicking unit icon on the list that is shown on the right). I imagine it must be hard to play WitE without deliberate attacks (of which concentric atacks are a part of).



Templer_12 -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 10:44:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael


quote:

ORIGINAL: Templer
Yes, attacks from many sides.
I was irritated when I discovered that this does not exist.


They do exists, use shift to add units to attack (moving mouse over hexes from which you want to attack, and releasing mouse button when over target hex, holding shift all the time; you can also remove some of selected units from attack by clicking unit icon on the list that is shown on the right). I imagine it must be hard to play WitE without deliberate attacks (of which concentric atacks are a part of).

Yes, what I mean, but there is no bonus, as I recall.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625