Battle Reports

VR designs has been reinforced with designer Cameron Harris and the result is a revolutionary new operational war game 'Barbarossa' that plays like none other. It blends an advanced counter pushing engine with deep narrative, people management and in-depth semi-randomized decision systems.

Moderators: Vic, lancer

Post Reply
Ironclad
Posts: 1936
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:35 pm

Battle Reports

Post by Ironclad »

There are so many things to discover and enjoy about the game. The battle reports are great fun to read as one relives the previous turn's successes or failures. A few queries:

Where a divisional commander is highlighted for outstanding battle performance does that result in improved ratings for that division? What about the impact of more junior officers?

As far as I can see there is no mention of enemy losses in individual battles (whereas one's own is described as heavy or minor). It would be a nice touch if the enemy's could be reported likewise. Even better if it could mention the number of enemy divisions destroyed in an action. I don't yet know if that is reported for one's own side.
User avatar
Meteor2
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Battle Reports

Post by Meteor2 »

Right, a summary at the end of each turn for each side could a good idea (only an estimate with FOW on).
(Losses, breakdowns, replacements, prisoners...)
And maybe a summary of the air situation would add some chrome.
Air superiority level for each theatre e. g.
(and numbers for losses, replacements, etc.)

I haven`t found such numbers so far..[:D] and situation is very vague.

Is ground support for LW and red air force granted independent from local air superiority?
Ironclad
Posts: 1936
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:35 pm

RE: Battle Reports

Post by Ironclad »

You can work some of those out from the aggregate totals in the Stats or can find them in other reports but it would be nice to have them all summarised turnly in one place.

Edit: I see a commendation does impact on performance - good stuff.
lancer
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:56 am

RE: Battle Reports

Post by lancer »

Hi,

Glad you like the battle reports. Whenever a Divisional commander is highlighted for an event (there's a range of them) you'll be presented, down the track, with a Decision involving that commander and whatever trouble/good deed they have got themselves into.

The information could certainly be expanded and I may well add to it later.

@ Meteor,

In '41 the Red Army managed only very localised air superiority and on the Divisional scale that the game portrays, were largely inconsequential. Towards the end of '41 when the Luftwaffe were overextended, depleted and struggling with the severe weather conditions the VVS did manage to kick back and this is represented by a Soviet option to concentrate fighter and AAA Bn's in a particular city in order to negate the Luftwaffe's ground support.

As the air war in '41 was very much an early knock out it's been deliberately abstracted and the focus is very heavily on managing the Luftwaffe.

The game's approach is to model aspects of the conflict that made a difference and to streamline or abstract the rest in order to take out the micromanagment and busy work.

Providing a range of interesting decisions centred around an abstracted Lufwaffe was worth doing. The fly speck efforts (once again on the Divisional scale of the game) of the VVS, wasn't.

If the time scale had extended into the spring & summer of '42 it would have been a different story.

Cheers,
Cameron
User avatar
Meteor2
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Battle Reports

Post by Meteor2 »

Hi Lancer,

thanks for the answer. Thats understandable for the timeframe, but I would imagine, that Gen.Oberst Halder had asked for the "Luftlage" on a routine basis.

IMHO we have a gem of a game here! [:)]
Ironclad
Posts: 1936
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:35 pm

RE: Battle Reports

Post by Ironclad »

Working my way through the manual (which shows the great depth of the game), I read that the Soviets don't get battle reports which surprised me. Is that because they would get too depressed with the early months returns?! [:)]

I guess introducing battle reports for the reds would seem to have a higher priority than expanding those for the Germans.
User avatar
willgamer
Posts: 900
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2002 11:35 pm
Location: Huntsville, Alabama

RE: Battle Reports

Post by willgamer »

Poor quality staff and lousy comm...
Rex Lex or Lex Rex?
User avatar
gunnergoz
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 4:57 am
Location: San Diego CA
Contact:

RE: Battle Reports

Post by gunnergoz »

Odd that the Soviets don't get battle reports yet in the game the Soviets do suffer Stalin's paranoia which goes up as division commanders activate - which implies Stalin at least is getting battle reports upon which to raise his hackles & paranoid nightmares. :)
"Things are getting better!
...Well, maybe not as good as they were yesterday, but much better than they will be tomorrow!"
-Old Russian saying
lancer
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:56 am

RE: Battle Reports

Post by lancer »

Hi,

The Soviets don't receive battle reports as they are struggling to deal with what's in front of them.

Having staff at all levels compile the necessary information and transmit it over heavily used, sparse, comm links wasn't a high priority.

When you're fighting to save your country from being overwhelmed nobody is fussed the how the 118th Rifle Div fought a particular engagement two days ago. All that you are interested in is that the 118th is still a going a concern and able to respond to orders in a timely manner.

Cheers,
Cameron
Post Reply

Return to “Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa”