What is it about this game?

[JudgeDredd]

I bought Korsun Pocket and didn't have it long, feeling quite "ripped off" about paying for one battle.

But I wasn't sure about the whole "board game" aspect...the dice, the graphics being cartoonish...

What is it about this series of games that keep you people interested?

By the way...I'm not trying to start anything here...I am considering, dependign on replies, whether to give the series another go. I don't have Korsun Pocket anymore, so I will have to buy one...I just want to know why people rate this differently to my initial thoughts (as I said, based on Korsun Pocket).

[Rob Gjessing]

There is a strong community over at the SSG/Run5 website and there are a heap more scenarios now available for all 3 of the current products (Korun Pocket, Battles in Normandy, and Battles in Italy). For a full range of these scenarios see here: http://www.ssg.com.au/Run5/scenarios.htm

Why are the games so appealing? In my view they have the right mix of ease to get into and complexity to master. They are easy to learn to play - but very difficult to master - especially when playing via Email against another human opponent - which is a major draw card I think.

Also dont be put off by the 'board game' comparisons. Honestly Im not sure where thsoe comparisons come from. I assume its because of the Dice that are shown in the game. The simple fact is that ALL games use random routines to help decide outcomes to 'decisions' or events. Its just that SSG choose to show all of these results and all of the associated odds - they do this so that you can make a valued judgement about how you should progress in battle etc.. nothing board gamey about it really I dont think.

Overall though - these games have a heap of depth and thats their draw card - as is the PBEM aspect and the online community that exists.

Also the fact that SSG have been in business making these sorts of games for close on 30 years now when others have come and gone (and failed) should say alot about the quality of their products also..

[wodin]

I bought KP, AtD and BiI. I love the counter graphics. The unit symbols are an excellent touch. I just found the gameplay to similar to chess. I need abit more detail to get my imagination going.

Still if you love boardgames then you will love this series.


I keenly await the new game. I hope it is a different engine.

JudgeDredd,

You have similar taste to me. If you are going to buy one buy BiI. However you still may feel the same way. You do need to be a fan of the old boardgames to enjoy this series.

[JudgeDredd]

Weel, I agree....it's the dice that make it look board gamey I think.
 
However, one of the problems I had with Korsun Pocket is seeing these two lines of units all along the map facing off to each other. I thought that was a bit strange. I mean, in TAOW III I am able to make moves to get inside, alongside and even behind the AI...but in KP, from what I can remember, it was almost impossible to do so...and this seemed to be, at least in part, caused by the AI having sufficient movement allowances for it's untis to plug any breach made.
 
Is this still the case? Two long lines of units with virtually your only option is to bang on the door? I think what I am trying to say, is from my experience with korsun Pocket, you were limited in your options for applying any strategy that didn't involve massing your troops along the line and hammering where you could.

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: wodin
...If you are going to buy one buy BiI...

Why this one? (Apart from it's the latest in the series and presumably has new features)...why not BiN? I like Normandy? Is it more limited? BiI bigger in content?

[Erik Rutins]

JudgeDredd,

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
Is this still the case? Two long lines of units with virtually your only option is to bang on the door? I think what I am trying to say, is from my experience with korsun Pocket, you were limited in your options for applying any strategy that didn't involve massing your troops along the line and hammering where you could.

Rob's summary was excellent on the strengths of these titles. The system itself absolutely supports maneuver warfare as well as traditional assaults, but some scenarios require some straightforward assaults at certain points to break the lines, etc. Try the Ardennes Offensive scenario and you'll see many, many opportunities for mobile maneuver warfare.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
Why this one? (Apart from it's the latest in the series and presumably has new features)...why not BiN? I like Normandy? Is it more limited? BiI bigger in content?

I would guess mainly because, as the most recent release, it also has the most recent focus on bonus scenarios - and there are some very nice bonus scenarios out there. Check out this page:

http://www.ssg.com.au/Run5/scenarios.htm

Regards,

- Erik

[Misty99]

I have a mixed feeling with KP and BiI. The dice rolls, step losses, bullets etc. Its like chess. I want to know, how many tanks and men I lost and not steps.
I prefer games like COTA, UV or BtR.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Misty

I have a mixed feeling with KP and BiI. The dice rolls, step losses, bullets etc. Its like chess. I want to know, how many tanks and men I lost and not steps.
I prefer games like COTA, UV or BtR.

Basically, whether a computer game uses the concept of "step losses" or supposedly "detailed" materiel losses (measured in afvs, squads, men, guns, whatever), at the operational scale it's six of one, a half dozen of the other. All computer engines use some contrivance to resolve operational battles. To believe that in, say, TOAW the engine is actually fighting a detailed and realistic battle among all the materiel comprising the involved units is folly. It's just the mathematical rubric of that game's battle resolution routine. It is hidden, unlike SSG's games, but that doesn't make it more accurate at the operational level than an odds-based, step loss routine. The key is how well the system models the history, flavor and tempo of the given operation.

I guess what I'm saying is that some games create, IMO, an "illusion" of realism by characterizing their mathematical rubric in granules of specific materiel, while others use an equally valid system of diminution of overall fighting power. Both methods are merely human guesses and mechanisms for interpreting something exceedingly complex: The factors that determine victory or defeat on the battlefield. Choose the method that best suits your own taste and needs. [:)]

[JudgeDredd]

It's not that I don't know what goes on under the hood...I do (in terms of prgramming logic I mean...not what actually goes on)...I mean I know, at the end of the day it's just number crunching...but how the number crunching is portrayed to the user, I think, is important...and each to there own. Some people like the DB because of it's level of transparency and the graphics and the style of play etc, etc....but I remember now...it wasn't for me...certainly back in KP days.
 
IIRC, the fact KP used steps was a kind of "block" for me...as was the fact it was one battle....oh well

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
Why this one? (Apart from it's the latest in the series and presumably has new features)...why not BiN? I like Normandy? Is it more limited? BiI bigger in content?

I would guess mainly because, as the most recent release, it also has the most recent focus on bonus scenarios - and there are some very nice bonus scenarios out there. Check out this page:

http://www.ssg.com.au/Run5/scenarios.htm

Regards,

- Erik

Eric

Are those scenarios cross game? I know they are listed under each title...just wanted to check that that meant they could only be used with those games...otherwise, adding the KP, BiN and BiI scenarios together equates to quite a collection.

[JSS]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

However, one of the problems I had with Korsun Pocket is seeing these two lines of units all along the map facing off to each other. I thought that was a bit strange. I mean, in TAOW III I am able to make moves to get inside, alongside and even behind the AI...but in KP, from what I can remember, it was almost impossible to do so...and this seemed to be, at least in part, caused by the AI having sufficient movement allowances for it's untis to plug any breach made.

Is this still the case? Two long lines of units with virtually your only option is to bang on the door? I think what I am trying to say, is from my experience with korsun Pocket, you were limited in your options for applying any strategy that didn't involve massing your troops along the line and hammering where you could.

When you reach two lines of forces it normally means the defending side is winning in a big way. In some cases there was historically that situation... but not for too long in an interesting scenario. Here is a screen shot from a current game of BIN (76 turn variant) which has US VII Corps (101st Airborne, 3d Armored Div, 1st Inf Div, 4th Inf Div) breaking thru... on its way to encircling LXXXIV Korps and headed to Avranches. US V Corps is being held up by SS Liebstandarte AH Pz Div and will transfer 2d Armored Div to VII Corps in the morning...

[JSS]

...and here is a screen shot from the SECOND Army sector of the same game. BRIT I Corps (7th Armored Div, 3d Can Div, 3d Inf Div, 43d Inf Div, and 50th Inf Div) is making a breakthru to Bretteville-sur-Laize on its way to Falaise.

This breakthru was created by a devastating air attack that isolated 21st Panzer Div and 16 Inf Div... both of which were overrun over a 48 hour period (current & previous turns).

[Duck Doc]

Rob & Erik & others more experienced with the game have spoken better than I ever could about the virtues of the game engine. I actually like the step losses because they are an integral part of a sophisticated supply system the game simulates. Step losses can be replaced in certain instances depending on level of supply & other factors. Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics, to paraphrase. The DBWW2 engine does a great job with the logistics end. It makes the game a lot more interesting & fun although frustrating having to pay attention to supply all the time. Just let units get out of supply & isolated & watch your opponent, silicon- or carbon- based pounce.


As for the 'one battle' concern I can tell you I have been playing TAO since it was introduced & I have yet to become tired of it. Also, as others have said, there are lots of scenarios for KP, BiN, & BiI.

Dale H

ORIGINAL: JudgeDred
IIRC, the fact KP used steps was a kind of "block" for me...as was the fact it was one battle....oh well

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

What is it about this series of games that keep you people interested?

1. Fewer forces than a monster game (just like a manageable board game).

2. Quick play - I went through Normandy in a very enjoyable day or two.

3. Good levels of abstraction - this series takes its settings seriously but not itself (ie: not counting every MG and truck as the final word). In Normandy the SS may ride from sector to sector like lightning but the outcome will be a very historical fight to breakthrough and with a very historical front line forming.

4. Great AI - this game is based on solid defensive lines whilst massing forces for the punch. The AI seems to positively thrive on this.

What could be better:

1. Well the Bulge scenario included with Normandy is personally unplayable due to the green-brown starting terrain and the closely colored Allied units (escpecially strong points).

2. Artillery needs corps and divisional firing restrictions. Massing arty is ahistorcially too easy.

3. It can be boring bringing in amphibious forces from really silly looking end of the map marshalling areas. In fact, this can be the most tiresome part of the Normandy and Italy games. I love the anticpation of the landings but not clicking the forces to land.

4. Korsun deserves urgent updating to BiN/BiL level!

5. Across the Dnepr from second hand accounts wasn't the best balanced package. For this reason I didn't buy it but I trust the source who filled me in.

The series must be expanded, it's a true gem that can only get better. The Hills Hoist of computer game design. Vegemite in pixels [:'(]

[Rob Gjessing]

Adam some interesting points you have raised here - I hope you dont mind me adding my own comments in relation to your points above:

1.  I agree about the amount of units on the battlefield in these games.. you are right - they are just the right number and mix.  One of the things I really didnt like about the TOAW series was the sheer number of units - in some instances it became unmanageable for me.  The DBWWII series has just the right amount in my opinion.. and there are many free scenarios available which cater for those who enjoy the smaller and the larger scenarios.

2.  Again this is related to point 1.  The scenarios are the right size so that they are managable.

3.  Again agree.. I like the step losses because it represents more then simply men and equipment lost, it also represents disorganisation (through autoreplacement of steps etc) and gives a good overview of the readiness or cohesion of a unit.  Although I do appreciate that some players do like to know if they lost 11 Shermans in the last assault.  To my mind though I want to know if the losses and disorganisation has resulted in either, Low (1 step), Medium (2 step) or Heavy (3 step) losses.

4.  Agree - but the major draw card is the PBEM system I think.

What could be better:

1.  There are differing versions of the TAO scenario (TAO3 with KP, TAO4 with Normandy, and now TAO5 which was released as a custom scenario for Italy by JSS from Run5).  Each of these scenarios play very differently and create new challenges and the maps are significantly different between versions TAO3 and TAO4.  So one of those versions may address some of the 'map' issues you have raised.  Eitherway - send us some specifics about what you dont like - and we may even be able to whip up a custom version for you think addresses some of those things

2. Interesting you raise this - go and check out some of the blurp on SSG's just announced and forthcoming new game Battlefront - guess what it features?  Corps and Divisional spotting and firing restrictions - so that you can no longer mass your ART.  Plus ART is used different in BF now - you can use it for indirect fire to cause losses to a specific unit that it fires upon.  Very interesting.

3.  You do have the option of turning "Fast Naval Animations" on which does address and quicken up this process - the setting should be found under the Options Menu.

4.  Agree!!

5.  Interesting.. from many players Across the Dnepr was the best scenario so far - just ask JSS.  There is also a custom variant of this scenario available called A Wolf By the Ears which changes the balance of the scenario.  You do need to have purchased ACross the Dnepr to play the variant though.  Generally in terms of balance though - thats an interesting topic.. a scenario's balance depends upon who your opponent is!  Also there are some differing computer AI settings (which Im sure you are familar with) which helps set the balance of a scenario to an individuals playing level.

Thanks for your comments Adam.. much appreciated - well thought out and considered.. and like I said.. hope you dont mind me adding some of my own in response to yours..

[BossGnome]

quite honestly I disagre about the strong AI. I found the AI in Korsun Pocket horrible, and this one is barely mediocre. In my experience the AI has been unable to mount effective large scale attacks, has little defensive sense, and does not see where it is important to defend. I have won every game I have ever played against the AI by 1000 points or more. That I why i much prefer PBEM.

[Rob Gjessing]

The AI is better then a human player at some things (like on a turn by turn basis).. but the AI overall is never going to give you more of a challenge then a human will over the length of the game. Which is why I agree when I say that PBEM is where the games really shine.

[WachtamRhein]

Summary (IMO)

1.) You must be willing to play the game, and get to grips

2.) Don't get distracted like I did, and go off playing some other game

3.) You need a "WWII" feeling to be interested, being on Tactical/Strategical scale, so none of all the "cool" sound effects, because they are unneccessary, just basic sound effects are good

4.) If you are someone that nitpicks alot, and has a different "flavour" like prefering to find tank losses or something then no.

[Duck Doc]

Here is turn 7 from Brubaker's excellent BiI Typhoon scenario. Please don't look too hard at my dispositions & progress as the Germans because I ain't that good [:D] . I think you will see plenty of movement or manuever. Remember this is only turn 7 out of 32. Unfortunately the whole campaign terrain has turned to mud & General Winter is now in command & progress won't be nearly so fast for me from now on.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
However, one of the problems I had with Korsun Pocket is seeing these two lines of units all along the map facing off to each other. I thought that was a bit strange. I mean, in TAOW III I am able to make moves to get inside, alongside and even behind the AI...but in KP, from what I can remember, it was almost impossible to do so...and this seemed to be, at least in part, caused by the AI having sufficient movement allowances for it's untis to plug any breach made.

Is this still the case? Two long lines of units with virtually your only option is to bang on the door? I think what I am trying to say, is from my experience with korsun Pocket, you were limited in your options for applying any strategy that didn't involve massing your troops along the line and hammering where you could.