Comparing this to a Grigsby Game (Full Version)

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



Message

monniker -> Comparing this to a Grigsby Game (1/11/2016 2:12:09 AM)

Hello and good day,

I'm an owner of the GG War in the East game, though I'm not terribly good at it. I was wondering if there were any players here who owned this and had tried the GG games and had opinions as to how much they enjoy DC: Barbarossa, and how they think it compares.

I understand the relationship-system is completely unique, but I was wondering specifically how the combat and encirclement systems work in comparison.

Thank you in advance for any replies!



Flaviusx -> RE: Comparing this to a Grigsby Game (1/11/2016 4:38:19 AM)

Very different games. This one is much more casual.

I like them both, they scratch different itches for me.



nukkxx5058 -> RE: Comparing this to a Grigsby Game (1/11/2016 6:06:20 AM)

I couldn't manage to play GG-WITE (too complex and too much micromanagement IMO) but I'm definitely enjoying DCB. In my opinion this is the best WW2 wargame ever. DC3 is complex too but very user friendly and offers high level strategy (as compared to micromanagement) and immersive role playing features.
Can't wait for my first PBEM but need to practice solo first :-)
I won't repeat what I already said so please go read here if you want my opinion :-)

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3998815




CaptCarnage -> RE: Comparing this to a Grigsby Game (1/11/2016 7:35:35 AM)

Well I happily have both DCB and WitE now - I bought DCB first but yearning for more detail on the Ops level I bought WitE.

First of all I was always put off by the perceived 'Micromanagement' and scale of WitE. I didn't see myself going through analyzing every counter etc.
But DCB is kind of the same, only (sometimes) less counters. From DCB I learned to think in Army HQs instead of seperate counters, so if you just have a plan for each HQ and place the counters accordingly, it becomes better. So this approach I took to WitE where you have an extra layer of Corps but the principle is the same. Plan what your Corps need to do and you're fine.

The Supply Game is very very similar in both games, is my experience. Just make sure the pipelines are open and let the goodies flow. Of course WitE is a bit more detailed but without me having to do much more. It's good, really.

WitE allows me a few other things that DCB can never do:
- I can focus on e.g. the Road to Kiev (AGS) only, without bothering AGC and AGN.
- I can focus on later stages of the real campaign e.g. Operation Typhoon (battle for Moscow). DCB can only give you the start of Barbarossa.

Of course playing the whole campaign seems very daunting, and maybe it will take 2 hours per turn to get all the Corps and their division in position. Haven't done that yet. But playing a single front feels exactly the same as playing DCB. Same amount of counters and same thinking about Logistics and combat.

Of course DCB allows me to think about the Chief of Staff's birthday while at the same time pondering about logistics and troop movements of AGN and why can't Wagner and Gercke ever be friends!?

But to me, DCB (without the political play) is really just WitE LitE.
(It means both are really good games by the way :) )



nukkxx5058 -> RE: Comparing this to a Grigsby Game (1/11/2016 11:52:48 AM)

Well, the level of details is without comparison. WITE is far more detailed (details about units, etc.)
Also, the Luftwaffe operations are very symbolic/high level in DCB (playing cards). Same for arty. In WITE you need to micro-controls all aspects. So if you are looking for a detailed++ game and micromanagement, WITE is the right game. If you are looking for less detailed, more enjoyable/playable but a pure strategy game, it's definitely DCB.
There is also a second major difference. DCB covers the sole operation Barbarossa (which I regret, i'd love to be able to defend/attack the Reich up to and after Stalingrad/Kursk battles). Apparently the campaigns ends sometime in 1942 (haven't finished a campaign yet). In WITE you play till the end of the war somewhere in 45 ...
But, having tried WITE in the past, I can ensure you that DCB is a pure gaming pleasure, while WITE was rather a pain (too many counters, micromanagement etc). Maybe one day will I try again WITE ? But for now, DCB is THE game of the decade :-) No hesitation.



kosmoface -> RE: Comparing this to a Grigsby Game (1/11/2016 1:40:29 PM)

In fact WITE is really easy to play. Understanding the different systems is another thing - it just takes time. Just dabble with the smaller scenarions while reading the manual until you get the hang of it (yup, you have to invest some time). The beauty is that you can automate most things. So you can learn one thing after another. I can't stress enough to try smaller scnearios at first.

DCB is much more easier to get into, but WITE is something like a wet dream for people that played Panzer General and want more depth. I know it seems like an unsurmountable mountain at first, but when you take your time and get into it, you will have never ending fun.

Both games are brilliant. WITE and WITW are the kings of simulation, but DCB is just as good in a different way. While DCB abstracts artillery and airwar, it goes into politics deeper, which is -in a way- abstracted in WITE. I think DCB creates therefore it's very own atmosphere and gameplay. Your thinking is really different while playing DCB. WITE doesn't have this political layer (well it does, because you are limited too, it is just in the background, hidden in the rules).

I think John Tiller games are micromanagement heavy, WITE really isn't.



CaptCarnage -> RE: Comparing this to a Grigsby Game (1/11/2016 9:06:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kosmoface


I think John Tiller games are micromanagement heavy, WITE really isn't.


And this is really true! If you learned the ropes with DCB (which I did since early Dec) then WitE is really a breeze.
I don't see where the micromanagement is. Yes you can upgrade your divisions with support units, but is that micro? Yes the AirWar is more elaborate - yet still abstracted. You don't actually push counters with an airplane to your target. It is actually just dumbed down in DCB (don't get me wrong, it works well there). And you can move your airfields around at will, instead of waiting for a decision. Is that micromanagement or an attractive tactical option you might want as a commander?

And the fact that there is more information per unit, doesn't mean you actually have to go through all that data. The counters have nice colour-coded triangles that indicate supply, fuel level etc. Works really well. You can take WitE any way you want, really. But it's not tougher than DCB - except sometimes a bit more counters to push in the very big scenarios.




wadortch -> RE: Comparing this to a Grigsby Game (1/12/2016 2:12:41 AM)

I have played WITE PBEM for hundreds and hundreds of hours since its release and it is an awesome game.

But to suggest it is easy or does not have micromanagement compared to DCB 3 is the understatement of the year. A well played single turn in WITE in good weather takes 2-3 hours at best if you are going to pay attention to all the game winning micro management that is necessary to beat a similarly micro-managing human opponent. Not a criticism just the real difference between DCB 3 and WITE.

Walt



kosmoface -> RE: Comparing this to a Grigsby Game (1/12/2016 12:16:24 PM)

Multiplayer makes EVERY game more difficult, because people go at great length to win. They will game the game, try to find loopholes in the rules the developer programmed and simply will do everything to win. Look at the WITE and WITW forums and those endless discussions, about rules and house rules. Those are all originating in MP games, where every detail counts and some of these discussions never come to a conclusion. Thus is the nature of multiplayer.

BUT unless a title is MP only, 80-90% of all buyers usually never play anything else than the SP part of the game. And I should have been more clear about it, because I am talking about the SP part of the game, not the MP part. Because the latter requires a different mindset I would even say.



CaptCarnage -> RE: Comparing this to a Grigsby Game (1/12/2016 9:32:53 PM)

As I said I started playing WitE after I got DCB and although the game scale is bigger I don't feel overwhelmed at all and I play both in the same style and performing well. In fact DCB is acuactually more difficult to win than some of the Road To scenarios.

While WitE has a lot more detail you don't have ti use it (in SP) and both games boil down to: keep the juice flowing and get them Panzers through without hesitation...
WitE just has a more elaborate rail system, more airfields, and corps in between the army and the division units. It's cool but not overwhelming.



battlevonwar -> RE: Comparing this to a Grigsby Game (1/13/2016 12:43:08 AM)

Didn't buy World in Flames cause the attitude about it was so bleak. The oldtimers on the forum even said don't bother when I asked if it was playable. There were people who said positive things but it was like you would need a manual after the manual.

GG's War in the East, strikes me as boring. Unless you love detail. Much like the old SSI game below.(hardcore fanatics would probably shoot me)


http://www.myabandonware.com/game/second-front-germany-turns-east-108

Reminds me of this game, SSI's Eastern Front. I recall the detail and didn't take hours to finish a turn but the AI wasn't very difficult to beat(I think I accomplished it first time out)



Meanwhile DCB: Easy, fast to learn, fun, immersive(but not too immersive) but lacks 1 thing. I think we all would like a full Eastern Front Campaign. I think that would have made this game a lot more interesting. Win by Winter, game over. No long term detail and strategic planning beyond your short term goals. Running your Panzers like mad when you have to face '42 and a oil crisis from allied bombings for instance.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.765625