The development team behind the award-winning games Decisive Campaigns: From Warsaw To Paris and Advanced Tactics is back with a new and improved game engine that focuses on the decisive year and theater of World War II! Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue simulates the German drive to Stalingrad and into the Caucasus of the summer of 1942, as well as its May preludes (2nd Kharkov offensive, Operation Trappenjagd) and also the Soviet winter counter-offensive (Operation Uranus) that ended with the encirclement of 6th Army in Stalingrad and the destruction of the axis minor armies. With many improvements including the PBEM++ system, this is a release to watch for wargamers!
years ago i read a book on this issue. it argued that with every winter and counter offensive the Wehrmacht lost a lot of their experienced officers and soldiers. from 42 on they lost in overall experience due to the high losses of the Ostfront.
i agree with redmarkus, there are lot's of games modelling experience in the extreme. Panzer General was one of them. this is a little strange, given that the Soviets, Brits or whoever had soldiers in the field with the same amount of time on the battlefield.
Exactly - great point! You LOSE experience during combat (due to casualties) as much as you gain it. Well trained replacements beef a unit up. Poorly trained replacements lead to a lowering of combat value. So, the key differentiator is the quality of the trained replacements - the troops on both sides in the field both gain/lose experience in similar ways, so that should balance out. At least in game terms, that's a model I can live with.
Fan of all four of your games. Currently playing Case Blue and enjoying it immensely.
The improvements sound great.
With regard to your first proposed change: Strategic sense.
Could make sense. In the game I am playing now I have been able to encircle and destroy almost 400,000 Soviets by July 20 because they are standing and fighting.
The advantage for them is that the defenses in the south near Rostov are holding, thus delaying my drive into the Caucasus.
Not sure how quickly I'll be able to lever them out of this position as my troops to the north are currently tied up in a very large encirclement.
In light of this and the fact that the Soviet command historically was reticent to give ground unless things were very bad indeed, I wonder if the parameter for giving ground rather than trying to hold should be set to when the line is really broken and not before.
Also, is the retreat set to the next strong position, or a long retreat?
Seems that a series of delaying actions is better than an all out retreat to the Volga.
Is there a good video tutorial of this game? I have the game but never play it, thanks
I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, but I dont think there is one. To start to learn the game I played the 1st Panzer Army linked scenarios which are a bit smaller and easier to get your head around but give a good idea of the game mechanics. Although not a video tutorial I thought ComradeP's AAR of this (entitled 1st Panzer IIRC) was an excellent read and I always had it open to refer to when I was playing the scenarios, it really helped me along.
If it is the mechanics of combat then I found the tutorial in the manual really good as well, again not a video one though.
years ago i read a book on this issue. it argued that with every winter and counter offensive the Wehrmacht lost a lot of their experienced officers and soldiers. from 42 on they lost in overall experience due to the high losses of the Ostfront.
i agree with redmarkus, there are lot's of games modelling experience in the extreme. Panzer General was one of them. this is a little strange, given that the Soviets, Brits or whoever had soldiers in the field with the same amount of time on the battlefield.
Exactly - great point! You LOSE experience during combat (due to casualties) as much as you gain it. Well trained replacements beef a unit up. Poorly trained replacements lead to a lowering of combat value. So, the key differentiator is the quality of the trained replacements - the troops on both sides in the field both gain/lose experience in similar ways, so that should balance out. At least in game terms, that's a model I can live with.
I can't comment on Panzer General, never played it. As for eroding experience for Wehrmacht/any other force: I'm fully convinced that the Germans would have collapsed in the East way faster if they wouldn't have had a battlehardened core (on all rank levels) to keep the lines and even seek opportunities to strike back. The Russians bled out their veterans more quickly due to their bloody mass wave assaults, so the Germans could keep an experience advantage at least until late in 1942/mid '43. And why did the US/GB troops struggle so hard against numerically inferior Germans in N-Africa and in the West? Say it with me: Because the Germans profited from their hard gained battle experience…
As long as casualties ar not too high - however you want to measure, abstract and simplify that for games as DCCB - then a combat unit can overcome the experience loss by letting seasonned troopers take more leadership responsibility via getting promoted. Once veteran losses reach a critical point, then a downslide in combat strenght can start of course, but I'm still convinced that the average armed force can overcome light losses and improve (or at least avoid declining) combat performance.
I'm not saying it isn't a factor, just that it may be over-stated in many games. In my mind, training is a much bigger differentiator between opposing forces than experience. At the extreme end of the spectrum compare the performance of so many third world militias, some with many years of real combat experience under their belts, against a properly trained but 'green' first world army. First world wins almost every time, at least on the conventional battlefield, and this isn't only down to equipment and logistics. ...
... You LOSE experience during combat (due to casualties) as much as you gain it. Well trained replacements beef a unit up. Poorly trained replacements lead to a lowering of combat value. So, the key differentiator is the quality of the trained replacements - the troops on both sides in the field both gain/lose experience in similar ways, so that should balance out. At least in game terms, that's a model I can live with.
Combat with a more or less equal opposing force is the most extreme form of training. A unit tested and seasonned under fire can learn lessons - individually and teamwork-wise - which can't be anticipated and and taught in pre-war training. Each war has it's own rules, units have to throw overboard doctrines drilled into them which don't work in real combat, soldiers/officers which don't adapt on and to the new battlefield don't last long. Those who do adapt and survive are in a position to try and prepare later arrivals/replacements for what is waiting for them and thus improve newcomers' expected initial performance. I'm still not convinced that battlefield experience should not be a major factor when you abstract and simplify reality into algorithms.
As for your green first world army meeting militia third world veterans in conventional combat: That's purely academic I think. I can't recall a single case since WWII where militias which had fought in hot wars - border skirmishes between thrid world countries in Africa/Latin america can't be a measure stick - didn't switch to guerilla warfare or refuse to fight the instant a first world army came knocking.
But this discussion would probably lead us off topic and into a political minefield. Vietnam for instance is a very touchy subject even today…
*** Edit: cited and quoted wrong post, this one was meant to reply to redmarkus4 ***
I love the linked campaign and wish there where more of them. I'd happily buy DLC that is a linked campaign of a certain army though the campaign.
The linked campaigns are great additions to the game. Especially for people used to operate on tactical levels. I find playing the big maps a more rewarding experience though....once you take the plunge. But I will definitely be playing the 1st PzA Campaign once I have finished CB and Uranus.
WW2 saw relatively untrained to completely untrained Russian units thrown up against trained and experienced Germans. While I agree with a lot of the trained vrs experienced arguments put forward by Redmarkus, as it would apply to German/Western powers during WW2, I would have to say it would not apply to the Russians.
The Russian survivors would have gained experience...and if through some miracle they actually come together as a unit and perform well against those trained/experienced Germans, then they would gain the honourary title of Guards (and it is just that, a title). From then on, they would gain better logistics, more replacements and be used more often in combat, thus gaining more experience in combat.
What I have noticed in game is that the Russians (and the axis for that matter) gain very little or no experience due to combat. What you can do, is play Exercise or Personnel (is there others?) to 'train' a unit up. My opponent is busy training Guards divisions (all of them Tank Corps) behind the lines. Not a single division has been promoted on the front lines.
While I can except that sort of training for the Germans (or Western) powers, it doesn't seem to make sense for the Russians.
Did Russian Guard divisions get 'dumber' due to casualties? Or did they get better and better as they fought, incorporating new replacements and training them 'on the job'?
“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great
Did Russian Guard divisions get 'dumber' due to casualties? Or did they get better and better as they fought, incorporating new replacements and training them 'on the job'?
When Russian Guards suffer the same catastrophic losses as their nonguard fellow formations due to the mass assault tactics soviet commanders forced on their units, then my thesis of critical point in losses applies (where after severe losses there simply are not enough veterans anymore to babysit greenhorn replacements, which leads to an erosion of combat strenght).
As for the ingame possibility in DCCB to train formations to guard status via cards: I'm not happy with this either. Guards was a tag earned in combat, not via drill. So while drilling troops has to have a place in the game (retraining weakened units which received a lot of green replacements) I have my doubts about the morale bonus that purely trained-up soviet fake-guards might receive in this game.
German losses weren't low at all once Barbarossa started. their doctrine was superior, their training and equipment. but they would lose a lot of men, in a few days they met the total casualties of the entire war before. even worse was the fate of the SS troops. this resulted in troops never having a leave. my read a letter by my grandfather during case blue: he speculated that he will soon have a leave after 18months of constant service.
German losses weren't low at all once Barbarossa started. their doctrine was superior, their training and equipment. but they would lose a lot of men, in a few days they met the total casualties of the entire war before. even worse was the fate of the SS troops. this resulted in troops never having a leave. my read a letter by my grandfather during case blue: he speculated that he will soon have a leave after 18months of constant service.
Despite their losses German troops reached the outskirts of Moscow in December, after fighting through a Red Army which constantly had superior numbers. So what does that tell us about keeping up combat power/fighting quality on the German side?
We probably could agree that the better the training the higher losses a unit can digest (assuming replacements of the same training quality keep coming in) while keeping up its fighting power. The poorer the training (assuming replacements of the same training quality keep coming in) the less losses a unit can suffer before it loses combat effectiveness.
I like these types of discussions. I know more about the American Civil War than any other and troop quality is a great study, especially after the effects of combat suffered by most regiments. I think these observations can be compared to other wars even if they were fought at different times.
There are observations by officers that new recruits that join veteran formations become much better soldiers quicker. These regiments were able to keep their experience up even after taking heavy casualties. This is assumed that the unit was not almost destroyed in battle. The most famous Union regiment, the Iron Brigade, was never itself after Gettysburg because of the high casualties they suffered. They had taken high casualties at the Battle of Antietam (a previous battle), but was able to maintain its elite status. The point being, recruits will not lower a units experience level in all cases.
I am also a believer of good training. A well trained, led, equipped, and supplied army can have very capable "green" regiments that compare to experienced units.
I don't care for how in the game a player can create SS formations. Those should be elite formations and therefore how could someone just create them? I like the game in how units can be built, that is a big plus.
Are Guards units are a little to easy to form??????
Hi Vic, cant wait for the patch! These are 3 very nice features. A user friendly editor is the best of all. Second best is the strategic ai decisions. Sounds very interesting.
Still enjoying the game a lot! Imo actually the best hex-wargame.
First, let me echo Reconvet's comments. I enjoy the gameplay very much and it's hard for me to put it down! I wanted to offer a few suggestions for the AI. I am not sure if they are feasible, but I thought I would mention them. These are based on my observations after playing through turn 45 of Uranus (Full) as the Soviets against the AI.
1) On defense the AI tends to cram too many units into an objective hex, which makes it easier to execute a double envelopement and trap even more units in the pocket. Is it possible to make the AI spread out more on defense? This isn't so much a problem when the front is relatively static but when the situation is fluid and it's not possible for the AI to form a continuous line of units to defend a city.
2) The AI doesn't seem to attack targets of opportunity with it's air units, like Soviet tank brigades sitting in clear terrain with no AA cover. The AI made good use of its air units when they were part of a combined-arms assault with artillery, tanks and infantry to capture an objective; however, once I began a strategic offensive all across the front and the AI began steady withdrawals, it never used its air force to harass exposed units or disrupt an imminent attack.
3) The AI tended to deploy its air units too close the front. I destroyed far more aircraft by overruning enemy air fields than I shot down with my fighters. Is it possible to make the AI redeploy its air units sooner?
4) Early in the game, the AI had naval units stationed at Novorossisk. When I setup for an attack on its naval units, it evacuated them to Kerch. Later, when I threatened Kerch, it failed to evacuate the port. As far as I know, the AI never used it's barges or transports to evacuate Axis troops, and, since they remained in Kerch, I simply blockaded the port and attacked them turn after turn until I had sunk everything. Maybe AI naval units could retreat to Yalta or Sevastopol where they might assist in a possible evacuation of the Crimea?
5) The AI should be made to garrision the western Caucasus ports like Primorsko, Yeisk and Taman, especially if Rostov has fallen. I was able to make amphibious landings at these locations over the course of a few turns and progressively threaten Axis supply lines in the Caucasus (I had already captured Rostov). During a recon mission I accidentally discovered the AI had left Novorossisk (the last supply link into the Caucaus at that point) without a garrison. I promptly made an amphibious landing on the same turn, which completely isolated the region. I also think the AI should hold mobile troops, like the Slovak Fast Division, in reserve as a Quick Reaction Force to repel any amphibious assault before the player can establish a firm bridgehead.
6) As I slowly eliminated the giant pocket I had created in the Caucasus, I noticed the AI had placed the majority of its forces, especially German infantry divisions, including recent reinforcements, in the Caucasus. This left the front from Kursk south to Mariupol without many high quality troops to defend it.
I have no idea how to program an AI, but if it's possible to modify the AI's behavior in these respects, it would make for a more challenging game.
4) Early in the game, the AI had naval units stationed at Novorossisk. When I setup for an attack on its naval units, it evacuated them to Kerch. Later, when I threatened Kerch, it failed to evacuate the port. As far as I know, the AI never used it's barges or transports to evacuate Axis troops, and, since they remained in Kerch, I simply blockaded the port and attacked them turn after turn until I had sunk everything. Maybe AI naval units could retreat to Yalta or Sevastopol where they might assist in a possible evacuation of the Crimea?
5) The AI should be made to garrision the western Caucasus ports like Primorsko, Yeisk and Taman, especially if Rostov has fallen. I was able to make amphibious landings at these locations over the course of a few turns and progressively threaten Axis supply lines in the Caucasus (I had already captured Rostov). During a recon mission I accidentally discovered the AI had left Novorossisk (the last supply link into the Caucaus at that point) without a garrison. I promptly made an amphibious landing on the same turn, which completely isolated the region. I also think the AI should hold mobile troops, like the Slovak Fast Division, in reserve as a Quick Reaction Force to repel any amphibious assault before the player can establish a firm bridgehead.
I think these are good points. As Vic has pointed out there's still some potential for improving the defensive AI with regards to it's strategic thinking. This should be some helpful feedback to go around.
