What Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa gets right (Full Version)

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



Message

Templer_12 -> What Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa gets right (8/28/2018 10:50:46 AM)

Interesting opinion of a player about some things Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa gets right. [:)]

-> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa - A Historical Review



lancer -> RE: What Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa gets right (8/28/2018 10:47:03 PM)

Hi Templer,

Thanks for the link.

Those three months of guzzling vodka and schnapps under a swaying palm tree, doing nothing but reading, taking notes and teaching my birds to tweet marching songs, appear to have paid off.

Interestingly the overiding impression I got from that exercise is how much disparity of opinion and fact there was for an event that happened less than 80 years ago.

History is, I suspect, a moving target.

Cheers,
Cameron



wodin -> RE: What Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa gets right (8/29/2018 3:04:48 AM)

I can tell you what it does wrong..and wrong in a BIG way!! There seems to be no future games using this engine.

I'd love a more tactical small scale game..dealing with lower ranking officers and tactics etc.



lancer -> RE: What Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa gets right (8/29/2018 7:09:42 AM)

Hi Wodin,

There's another Matrix game called Vietnam '65 (follow on is Afghanistan '11).

Excellent tactical games, but with a focus on the people involved, rather than just a bunch of units, they could have been a lot more.

You could have a lot of fun with stuff like Lieutenant Gonzales starting to stress out 'cause he's got himself and his platoon lost in the jungle. Again.

I think wargames in general would benefit from a more 'people orientated design' rather than being a bunch of dry numbers. Numbers don't fight battles, people do. As a player you can connect with people and feel a greater sense of immersion.

There are a number of shining examples of games outside of the niche that do this well and have been very successful, eg. Crusader Kings, Rimworld, Dwarf Fortress, etc. Seems to be pretty much ignored by those who make wargames though.

I'm not sure why as they could do with all the help they can get.

Cheers,
Cameron




Templer_12 -> RE: What Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa gets right (8/29/2018 7:52:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi Wodin,

There's another Matrix game called Vietnam '65 (follow on is Afghanistan '11).

Excellent tactical games, but with a focus on the people involved, rather than just a bunch of units, they could have been a lot more.

You could have a lot of fun with stuff like Lieutenant Gonzales starting to stress out 'cause he's got himself and his platoon lost in the jungle. Again.

I think wargames in general would benefit from a more 'people orientated design' rather than being a bunch of dry numbers. Numbers don't fight battles, people do. As a player you can connect with people and feel a greater sense of immersion.

There are a number of shining examples of games outside of the niche that do this well and have been very successful, eg. Crusader Kings, Rimworld, Dwarf Fortress, etc. Seems to be pretty much ignored by those who make wargames though.

I'm not sure why as they could do with all the help they can get.

Cheers,
Cameron



Nah...

There you have to do without Tigers, tank rushes, Kesel battles, winter torments, the demanding Decisive Campaigns AI, tea with Mr. H, and Cameron's budgies... [:'(]

Side note:
If you like the video: Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa - A Historical Review leave the guy a thumbs up or a comment. [;)]




Jakse -> RE: What Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa gets right (9/2/2018 6:27:49 PM)

Yeah, you guys should totally support that guy! (Thank you for the kind words and support, seriously!) I'm happy anytime people watch and get excited about DC:Barbarossa. I think my channel does a poor job hiding how much of a DC fanboy I am.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.140625