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

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



Message


morvael -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 11:16:19 AM)

Bonus is the ability to use more units in the attack.




Templer_12 -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 11:22:41 AM)

The point is, if you attack from more then one side, to make it clear let's say from the front and from the backside, there must be a tactical advantage count.
Not just "more units" in the attack.

WITE, and I guess WITW also, don't respect this.
So why the game claims for high historical authenticity and high realism?
Plain advertising?




morvael -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (11/27/2015 11:36:25 AM)

I admit there is a strange mix of very high detail and simplest board wargame rules in WitE. Some elements are detailed, some are simplified. Probably depends on what the authors were considering important for themselves.

However, IMHO, flanking modifiers belong to tactical battles (where you can roll enemy musketeer line, as formations were inflexible and prone to dispersing when attacked from side or rear). On hex maps flanking is also a bit artificial, a straight line in reality may be represented by a series of hexes where every 2nd hex is adjacent to 3 enemy hexes and every other to just 1 enemy hex. With flanking modifiers this may just exacerbate the problem. A divisional-level system created by the military historian Dupuy doesn't have flanking modifiers as well. It just says to treat each engagement separately. Naturally, lone defending unit attacked from few sides will have a longer frontage to cover and will have to split its forces between every engagement, so its defense depth will be lower. Also, enemy advancing from two sides will capture more ground, resulting in loss of position/breakthrough. This is sort of a flanking bonus done without actual flanking bonus in the way board wargames do it.




wga8888 -> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? (4/30/2016 12:09:34 AM)

I like the comment that one is less likely to die playing Barbarossa than in WITE. The standard agreement in a War in the Pacific campaign game (each turn is a day, so possibly 1300 turns for each player) is the first one to die loses.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.984375