How is it compared to War in the east?

[zakblood]

ORIGINAL: proflui

Kind of look like everyone is suggesting it is a far superior game than WITE. So no one actually prefer WITE to this game?

it's a totally different game set on different levels, WITE is a epic mass counter game, which simulates almost all of the battles in the campaign to a very high level, with this you get more counters, more detail and also if you like it more fun.

while Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa is more about less of everything, smaller maps, less scale, load less counters, less choices to make regarding counter movement directions etc as now you have area boarders for each front, so to balance it, also more fun.

so both are great games, atm i'd pick WITE if you are a epic groghead type player who like to move around lots of counters and go really into depth regarding almost everything on the eastern front.[&o] [&o][&o]

i'd pick Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa only if you disagree with the comments above and your play-style is less well full on.


WITE doesn't use any political systems or personalty traits either so matters little if you get on with other commanders or not, DCB does, so if you don't want to play with the added system you can turn it off, and play old school style so no RPG in you're war game etc.

for me, i have both games, and one day will love to collect all war games ever made, as i love them all, but for different reasons, each have there good and bad points, one day one will be released which will combine them all, but i'd guess that won't be any time soon either.

so to recap and sum up, and not try and sell you either, it all depends on your gaming style and what other games you like to play, this is new and different so can't compare some of it to any others as yet, as it adds new stuff not used elsewhere either, but overall id say, on a scale of which one is better, well all i can say is useless as it's apple and oranges and i like fruit[X(] [8|][:D][;)][:'(]

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: mekjak

Unlike WitE the Soviets have the potential to make damaging counterattacks as they historically did during the summer, even in the first few turns. The other thing I appreciate here over WitE is the fact that surrounded units don't just evaporate after a turn and require a commitment of forces to reduce or otherwise risk a breakout.

Good to hear...

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I played nothing but WITE for 2.5 years solid. They were good times. But in the end the constant tinkering with various parameters (it still goes on) and the unfathomable black box dis-functional combat model ended the love affair for me.

I agree 110% with Michael; those are the exact reasons I stopped playing, along with one more: I disagree with anyone that contends that WitE's complexity mske it more "realistic"--it is complex for complexity's sake and yet fails to provide a realistic portrayal of the war in the east.

[Phoenix100]

I've bought this now (I blame Wodin!!!! No, just joking Jason...) and am just getting into the tutorial videos etc (very impressive).

I have WitE and have played it a lot - but only against the AI. The AI there is very simplistic in WitE, it seems to me. It feels like you can change settings to make it stronger, but only by giving it greater combat bonus etc - it doesn't get stronger by getting sneakier or more intelligent about counter-attacking. But to get a good historical experience out of several historical campaigns (not just Barbarossa) where you will come to understand the routes used, the outstanding features of the terrain that affected planning, a detailed, accurate OOB, the supply routes and the actual places that feature along the way, then WitE is presently much better because the map is better and there is more detail. The map (with or without either Jison or Goran's mods)is more detailed by far. The map in DC:B looks like a toy map to me. It advertises 'GAME!!!' not 'SIMULATION!' Both are, in fact, games, of course, but the nuancing is important in terms of immersion. I am at the moment finding it hard to believe I'm doing anything that bears much relation to history in DC:B because the map is so terribly bare (instead, I feel definitely like I'm playing a game...). I would like to see the features between Kaunis and Riga, for example, see which geographical features impacted on the route, which towns were along the way. Partly, you can see this in WitE because the scale is more fine-grained (10km per hex instead of 30km).

But all that said, it's true that WitE can be a chore, and the game elements of DC:B seem higher priority, and ultimately - if the AI does turn out to be as advertised - then it may be that I will get into it for the game experience, rather than the (as it were) study experience that WitE provides. Which I think is what the devs are aiming for.

I am wary of all the advertising about reducing micromanagement at the moment. Of course you reduce micromanagement by increasing counter size (reducing counter numbers), but that would then make an unfair comparison with WitE. It's like saying - 'we've decided to go for just 3 counters, one for each Army Group, and a huge map that just has 3 objectives on it - we've done this to reduce micromanagement.' But that's not really the kind of reduction players want, is it? What you want is a kind of Command Ops reduction in micromanagement, where if you give a command to a higher HQ then you don't then have to shift around all the subordinate HQs too. But this game has none of that. As far as I can see, in terms of pure counter pushing (and not the added role playing layer), they have basically reduced micromanagement by abstracting more through reducing numbers of counters. That is really just to simplify.

But I bought it and will give it a shot for what it is - a game. As such, it might be fun. I might learn less than I would in WitE about what elements went into Barbarossa etc, but I might have more fun.

[Templer_12]

WITE?
Isn't it the game that has claimed high historical authenticity and high realism?
The simulation that does not know that there are concentric attacks in battle?

[Phoenix100]

By concentric attacks do you mean attacks from many sides, Templer? This seems to exist in DC:B (and works nice, as far as I can see), but as for the realism in having three divisions attack from different sides (as opposed to what happened at the tactical level, between batallions and companies, or even regiments and brigades), I'm not so sure about that. I would have thought that on a scale of even 10km per hex (let alone 30km per hex) then things like simultaneous flank attacks would all have been abstracted into the combat calculation anyway. You just have to imagine what happens with 20,000 men and 1,000 tanks in a 30km area when all that is shown is two counters....And it was the same with WitE though at a reduced level.

But maybe you mean something else by 'concentric attacks?'

[Templer_12]

Yes, attacks from many sides.

I was irritated when I discovered that this does not exist.
I spent some interesting and exciting hours with WITE. I do not regret my purchase at the time but I wouldn't recommend WITE without hesitation.
The price-fun realation don't worked for me.

[zakblood]

i've owned, had it given to me WITE for 5 years, not played more than 20 hours on it in that time, for one not had the time, and two, it's epic in scale and rather too hard for me as i'm useless as a gamer with hopefully WITE2 being easier to play and manage, while i think it's a epic and grand scale game, i don't think it's a bad game, tbh i think it's one of the bench mark games that all are measured on, even this, as why are we ever mentioned it?

i didn't do the beta on it, but did on WITW, and this game DCB also and more than a few others, have enjoyed my time spent on it, and think as it's different enough that imo it should be well revived same as WITE has been over the years, but as both cover the same time period, but neither have the same parts, imo both are totally different in game play terms.

a quote now from Vic

tm.asp?m=3975523

How long does it take to play through the Campaign?

Depends on your style. Playing in the evenings probably no more than a week.

i'm not sure how many hours he can put into a evening btw either or his level of skill, but 2 weeks later i'm still on some battles, so agree and disagree with it, agree it's style, but skill for me has a bigger impact on length of play, and again on how the outcome is, i've played for 2 days and lost epic style, have played for 2 weeks and still got nowhere, played 2 weeks and got to the gates of Moscow only to be beaten back and ended up where i started in Jan 42[&o] but put 8 hours a day into it for that result...

but with WITE, i've never had the time, i was given it by a friend who left work, he said it would be more my cup of tea when i retired, but as of yet been retired 15+ years, iv'e never had that amount of time to really play it, so my opinion on it is i've spent maybe more time installing it over the years and patching it which new pc's bought most years, than maybe playing it, but would never say it's a bad game, it's a great epic game and would recommends it to anyone, then again i enjoy all my games, from some that others think are right Turkeys to those that no longer even get fully supported by the developers, still play every now and then old DOS games because i can't find certain battles even today done as well, in game play terms, while some love history and all that comes with it, see the debate on the OOB for one, there's the others who love game play, and care less if the map isn't the greatest, the counters aren't in the right colour shape and size with not enough cookies on the table while they play, as long as you enjoy it, play it i say. and as of yet, aged 48 there's isn't a war game on here i wont play that i don't enjoy, and yes like Christmas there's always an odd Turkey but if i buy it, i finish it, just some take longer than others as some Turkeys get or take longer to get used to and aren't always to taste[&o][&o][&o]

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: Templer
Yes, attacks from many sides.
I was irritated when I discovered that this does not exist.

They do exists, use shift to add units to attack (moving mouse over hexes from which you want to attack, and releasing mouse button when over target hex, holding shift all the time; you can also remove some of selected units from attack by clicking unit icon on the list that is shown on the right). I imagine it must be hard to play WitE without deliberate attacks (of which concentric atacks are a part of).

[Templer_12]

ORIGINAL: morvael

ORIGINAL: Templer
Yes, attacks from many sides.
I was irritated when I discovered that this does not exist.

They do exists, use shift to add units to attack (moving mouse over hexes from which you want to attack, and releasing mouse button when over target hex, holding shift all the time; you can also remove some of selected units from attack by clicking unit icon on the list that is shown on the right). I imagine it must be hard to play WitE without deliberate attacks (of which concentric atacks are a part of).

Yes, what I mean, but there is no bonus, as I recall.

[morvael]

Bonus is the ability to use more units in the attack.

[Templer_12]

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?

[morvael]

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.

[wga8888]

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.