Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: How is it compared to War in the east?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa >> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: How is it compared to War in the east? - 11/27/2015 11:16:19 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Bonus is the ability to use more units in the attack.

(in reply to Templer_12)
Post #: 31
RE: How is it compared to War in the east? - 11/27/2015 11:22:41 AM   
Templer_12


Posts: 1700
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline 		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?

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 32
RE: How is it compared to War in the east? - 11/27/2015 11:36:25 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Templer_12)
Post #: 33
RE: How is it compared to War in the east? - 4/30/2016 12:09:34 AM   
wga8888


Posts: 459
Joined: 9/29/2010
From: Sachse, Texas USA
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Bill Thomson
wga8888@icloud.com
Discord: wga8888 #7339
817-501-2978 CST [-6 GMT]

(in reply to Templer_12)
Post #: 34
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa >> RE: How is it compared to War in the east? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.094