DC1/2 vs DC3 (Full Version)

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



Message

Speedysteve -> DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/3/2015 7:47:03 AM)

Morning All,

Having never played any of the DC series could a series veteran let me know their thoughts on DC1/2 vs DC3? I'm very tempted to get DC3 but I see DC1/2 are on sale and I wondered if they were as good/that different from DC3?

Thanks



Barthheart -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/3/2015 12:19:48 PM)

I Have all three, was involved very early on in DC1.

It really depends on what you want from the game and what theatre you like.

For me, I loved Warsaw to Paris because it was something different. Not many operational games about the start of the war. Great intro into the series if you have any interest in that period of the war. Be warned though, there are a very large number of counters to move around in this game.

I only played DC2 a little because East Front Operational is not really my thing and there are a HUGE amount of counters to move around.

DC3 is great because it reduces the number of counters, and adds in the command decision tree of operational war.

But it really comes down to what you are looking for, what level of control you want, and what theatres you like.



Speedysteve -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/3/2015 12:52:06 PM)

Thanks. Historically I go for th detailed games like Witp:AE, wite or BTR but was intrigued in dc3 for the operational and personality led part parts accepting it's not as detailed or granular as wite etc...



Templer_12 -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/3/2015 1:07:58 PM)

The long evolution of the Decisive Campaigns series
Posted on November 8, 2015 by vic
The upcoming game DC:Barbarossa is a very complete experience. It is a game build on top of a system and an engine that has been in the process of fine-tuning and improvement for a very long time.

The evolution
I remember starting the system with People’s Tactics way back around 2003. The system was then modified during the years and finally ß in the game Advanced Tactics that was subsequently published by Matrix Games in 2007.

DC. Decisive Campaigns : Warsaw To Paris
Then somewhere in 2008 I started work on the first DC. Decisive Campaigns : Warsaw To Paris. Instead of building a new system I decided to build it on top of systems already well tested and in place for Advanced Tactics. This meant a wealth of rules and detail was already present in the engine like FOW, ZOC, entrenchment, recon, landscape modifiers, morale, supply systems, intricate combat calculations, etc.. (lots of etc..)
On top of this I added everything that was necessary to make the game a more serious historical simulation. Like generals, their action cards, the ability for allied players (belgium and france for example) to share hexes, historical unit counters and more rigid chains of command and TOEs. Some of the improvements where visual (like the revamped interface) while others where more rule based. Two examples of the additions that will not have been noted by everybody that I am still proud of were the combat delay points (causing delays on conquered hexes for subsequent units moving through) and the persistent attack stack penalties (that avoided the stack-of-doom techniques).

Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue
Then later in 2010 work on Decisive Campaigns : Case Blue commenced. Build on top of the DC1 engine. To really support the long scenarios (500+ units, 100+ turns, 160×120 hex map) in this game compared to the scenarios in DC1. The focus for the engine turned to giving the player the tools to sustain a long campaign and really present the player with a flexible OOB that could be modified to cater for whatever might happen during the very long fight.
I could say a lot more about unique DC2 features (like the oil rules and troop replacement systems that were added) but it is outside the scope of this short post. What matters is that I started here with some limited interaction between the player and the high command. The player could use PP (political points) to change the mind of the high command concerning objectives or for demanding more replacement troops of some specific kind. This is something that turned out to be one of the seeds for the explosion of cards and decisions in DC3.

Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa
Then end 2013 I teamed up with Cameron Harris and we build Decisive Campaigns : Barbarossa on top of DC2. I spent most of my time on further fine-tuning the engine, creating the best AI for DC so far and adapting the engine to allow for a wealth of immersion provided by the game design by Cameron. Reports and decisions now look the part and are well integrated in the rest of the systems (like statistics, counter shuffling and extra info tabs).
It was a very good decision to team up with Cameron, since with the previous titles I always lacked a bit the time to add everything I wanted those games to have. Working on a game together doubled the effort and made my dream DC game possible.

The AI
The AI got better every game. And I learned a lot. I coded a complete new AI for DC1 and then again for DC2. In DC3 I chose to build the new AI on top of the DC2 AI with the focus being on sustaining a frontline better and retreating if necessary and being able to keep a sustained offensive going by focusing on particular frontages. By not coding up the AI once more from scratch I freed up the time to do some serious scripting for the AI in Barbarossa. Resulting in the AI being very sensitive to the particularities of this game and both AIs having different plans available to them each play through to ensure replayability.

Each DC is special
Each DC game has been an handcrafted product and although the DC games share a lot of things they have all turned out to be really special in their own way. And for all three there will be things you can only find in one of them and not in the others.

I think DC1:Warsaw To Paris is maybe the most simple one to play with a relatively low feature set. But it is also a real ‘pearl’ of multiplayer wargaming. The game allowed for example the Germans to be played by up to 5 human players with one being in overall command and the others in army command.

DC2:Case Blue distinguishes it self from the two others in sheer size (units, number of turns and map) and giving the player an amazing amount of micro management freedom. Want to disband a regiment? Want to change the divisional type of the 113th infantry division? Want to form a new independent Motorized Regiment and slowly see the replacement troops trickle in? Want to shuffle your officers around? etc..

And well… DC3:Barbarossa I consider it like the crown on the series (for now).
Concerning counter shuffling there is much less micro management, but the decision systems and advanced reports we added make this game into something much more.

To me personally it feels a bit (and with all humility) like ‘king of dragon pass’ meets ‘wargame’. The addition of so much robust writing and decision points really makes the system shine. The decisions influence the units on the map, but the units on the map also influence the decisions. For example to have a detailed combat report in your ‘inbox’ on how the 10th panzer division failed to hold Rzhev just brings a sense of wonder to me… especially when I then have to make a decision based on the after effects in the chain of command of that battle as well.


Sourge: The long evolution of the Decisive Campaigns series



Speedysteve -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/4/2015 10:32:47 AM)

Thanks Templer. Looks like dc3 will be the one for me if any of them



tombo -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/4/2015 10:42:45 AM)

Hello,

happy new owner[:D]...just getting to learn system.

In DC1/2, we had air recon to look beyond the front lines. Is that modeled via a card, etc.?

cheers



lancer -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/5/2015 7:54:19 AM)

Hi Tombo,

The Soviets and Germans have very different recon levels due to their respective air capabilities.

If you start up a new human vs. human game and look at the first turn you can get an idea of the limits of Soviet awareness.

Beyond the on-map situation the Germans have their intel report which often provides snippets of air recon info on various parts of the front.

Cheers,
Cameron



tombo -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/5/2015 3:35:37 PM)

thanks lancer.

...snippets of intel seems minimal. Was that true in the actual war?

It just seems a air recon card would fit well in this system for each theater.

still allot to learn yet.

vgood game.



Speedysteve -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/6/2015 8:28:51 AM)

That's it.....I can't wait any longer. I'm buying DC3 now![8D]



ChuckBerger -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/6/2015 9:39:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tombo

thanks lancer.

...snippets of intel seems minimal. Was that true in the actual war?

It just seems a air recon card would fit well in this system for each theater.

still allot to learn yet.

vgood game.


Aeriel recon in WW2 did not, as a rule, provide much useful information about enemy force strength or composition. It was useful to give a very general picture of troop movements, or fixed fortifications and other military installations.

At a theatre commander level, an "intel" report would be a composite of intelligence gathered from many sources: aerial recon, prisoners, signals intercepts (& codebreakers), spys, etc. Even then, huge troop movements, including tank divisions, can and did move unnoticed by the enemy very close to front lines.

Cases in point: the huge Soviet preparations for Operation Uranus, and even more impressive, the German preparations for the Battle of the Bulge. Both operations involved moving whole tank armies right up to the front without the enemy having much of a clue. And in both cases, that enemy had air superiority.

If anything, recon is far too generous in DC3, as it is in most wargames! In DC3, would be good to have a "realistic" FOW option, in which you should be able perhaps to see unit ID, and a very rough estimate of strength, but no other details (readiness, supply etc). Have a look at some of the situation maps from the era to get a sense of how much info the commanders actually had...



Speedysteve -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/6/2015 12:37:05 PM)

It's taking ages to extract! Still extracting the darn e-manual[;)]



warspite1 -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/6/2015 1:08:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

That's it.....I can't wait any longer. I'm buying DC3 now![8D]
warspite1

Good decision! [:)]



Speedysteve -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/6/2015 1:19:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

It's taking ages to extract! Still extracting the darn e-manual[;)]


Should it really take this long to install? Still installing the E-Book after 2 hours!



Speedysteve -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/6/2015 2:25:50 PM)

How odd. Must have been an install glitch at that time as I cancelled it, re-booted an now the install is zipping along.....[8|]



mannerheim4 -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/6/2015 4:52:22 PM)


quote:


Aeriel recon in WW2 did not, as a rule, provide much useful information about enemy force strength or composition. It was useful to give a very general picture of troop movements, or fixed fortifications and other military installations.

At a theatre commander level, an "intel" report would be a composite of intelligence gathered from many sources: aerial recon, prisoners, signals intercepts (& codebreakers), spys, etc. Even then, huge troop movements, including tank divisions, can and did move unnoticed by the enemy very close to front lines.


Chuck,

Yes, that is largely correct. What is interesting is that the Germans had very little idea of Soviet troop concentrations leading up to offensives even in 1941. Case in point, if you read Halder's diary, he is constantly "in the dark" to the Russian's true TO&E, always underestimating the number of divisions and quality. It would seem that the Germans focused more on tactical reconnaissance, rather than operational level. What was 10 miles ahead of the panzers, so to speak. So I can see if the Germans are rather limited on knowing the Soviet's second echelon contents or arrangements. I would say, based on German maps, that they rarely knew what was 100 miles beyond the Soviet lines.

Regards




mannerheim4 -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/6/2015 5:00:10 PM)

I haven't played DC3 yet, but while playing DC1 and DC2, I found it harder to execute a text book blitzkreig breakthrough. Perhaps the action point spending was too high breaking through the line of departure, perhaps I didn't utilize maximum "card participation" to build up more AP's before the attack, but it seemed like the breakthrough was never decisive and deep enough to necessitate more than a tactical withdraw of the enemy. Also, air power and even artillery in the earlier games was not altogether decisive at the point of attack (bombardment and air power didn't seem to do much before the main attack, and actaully, slowed it down sometimes because of the action point penalty moving through the square that was heavily bombarded). But with air and artillery abstracted, perhaps this will work out better and I am overly worried.

Nothing is more frustrating to play a game that looks really good and plays pretty nicely, except for a fatal flaw that ruins it for you. I felt this way about the DC engine. Really good except air and artillery use. I really like the cards idea, and for me, made the game stand out. I am glad they are expanding on it here.

I really want this game to be successful. So should I get it???!!!!

Regards



gunnergoz -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/6/2015 7:09:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mannerheim4

(snip)

I really want this game to be successful. So should I get it???!!!!

Regards


No better way to support a designer and a game than to buy the product, then follow up with reasoned critiques and suggestions for improvement.



mantrain -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/6/2015 8:27:14 PM)

So, given the current level of DC 3, does that mean DC 2 is obsolete?



Speedysteve -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/6/2015 8:36:57 PM)

Loving DC3 so far. Viewed the tutorials and now I'm starting my first Campaign as Axis. Loving all the reports and role play stuff. Just assigned my Focus and Artillery cards. Now it's time to move!



scout1 -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/6/2015 8:36:57 PM)

scales are different, approaches are different ....

Is certainly a keeper ...... Go ahead and make the plunge .... you shan't be disappointed .....



Tac2i -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/6/2015 8:44:37 PM)

I'm still playing Advanced Tactics Gold after nearly five years. Best random game generator bar none that I've ever seen. So I do not think DC2 is obsolete. It covers the 2nd year of the Russian campaign. So if that is of interest to you as a gaming subject then it might be for you. Does it use some of the new innovations in DC3? Of course not as it is 2 or 3 years old (and currently on sale for $20).

quote:

ORIGINAL: mantrain

So, given the current level of DC 3, does that mean DC 2 is obsolete?




jnpoint -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/6/2015 9:24:48 PM)

Oh, I would love if Vic made a ATG2, as I still think of ATG as one of the best wargames I have ever played - only the graphics are outdated.



demyansk -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/7/2015 10:17:24 AM)

I need to get into adv gold, I am going to buy dc1.

Any good advice on starting advanced tactics gold? What do you guys suggest?



Tac2i -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/7/2015 12:21:20 PM)

This might be a good place to start:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3677219

quote:

ORIGINAL: demjansk

I need to get into adv gold, I am going to buy dc1.

Any good advice on starting advanced tactics gold? What do you guys suggest?



wodin -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/7/2015 12:59:23 PM)

DC3 has become a totally different beast to the other two in my opinion.



demyansk -> RE: DC1/2 vs DC3 (12/7/2015 10:26:50 PM)

Thanks webzine,



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.4375