Not my cup of tea, but with positives

[atheory]

I was going to to wait, but there was a lot of talk about the AI. Therefore, I decided to pick up the game and dive right in.

Do I regret the purchase, no. Do I regret the purchase at $50, yes. I don't feel this is a $50 game, but that is just my opinion obviously. And I'm still skeptical that this will turn into a DLC sink.

I feel like the map is a step backward. I'm just left with "meh".

Death of the right click? I am one who loves to use his right mouse button and I am sadden when i can't use it in a game. Is it relevant here, nah, not really. Just give me the cheese.

The game is so streamlined, it could be the next evolution of beer and pretzel strategy games. Nothing wrong with that, just not my cup of tea. Was this designed to be ported to ipad/smart phones? Sure feels like it.

I spent several hours attempting to remove my WITE mentality in order to appreciate what this game was trying to accomplish. After a dozen restarts I thought I was finally clear of mind and ready to start fresh. 8 Turns into that game I was already longing for WITE.

Let me leave WITE and its success and failures aside and focus on what I found in DCB

1) AI - as boasted, the AI I found quite good. Adequate in creating a challenging game. It's rare to find such a game where the AI can't be exploited. At least from what I've seen thus far.

2) Innovative - The Cards and Decisions were a nice touch/add-on. I feel their impact would be more acutely felt it they were more interactive with the player as they advance on the map. In a way it is now, but you have to go to a separate tabs taking you away from the map. Perhaps an adjustment could be made, for example, if I take Riga, perhaps a ? can be placed over the city signaling a decision is available, or a pop-up immediately happens with the decision options.

The impact of the decisions were less a novelty to me as my selections became pretty much the same over time, unless you decide to play a certain way for whatever reason. It offers a subtle flavor which I'm okay with. It is important to time your troop movements in conjunction with moving FSBs. My Wiking Division took Kiev on turn 4, but having moved an FSB forward I was out of gasoline and it could not move. Over the next 3 turns 2 Soviet Armies moved in and eventually surrounded Kiev isolating the poor guys. An element of the game that is both frustrating and pleasantly refreshing to see, especially from an AI.

3) 3 theaters - Separating the east front into its 3 appropriate regions where troops, for the most part, were tied to their respective regions was a good choice. For me, it actually expanded the game, allowing me to focus on one Army Group at a time without necessarily getting distracted elsewhere.

4) Command range limit - I both like and hate this. You have to be mindful of where your divisions are and where their HQ is. Get too far away and that division is left struggling. Without the ability to transfer divisions between HQs makes it imperative to keep the Armies attacking together. For this game, it works.

5) Reinforcements spawn on HQs - Again, I both like and hate this. It's a simple decision that keeps your armies charging forward without having to worry about transporting those reinforcements forward. The game already takes into account that these units were being sent forward.

6) The death of Micromanagement - this has been simplified and the only aspects of it are dealt with through a few Decisions and a handful of cards that can be played. For this game it seems to work, just not my cup of tea.

7) Knowledge is power - bio information and other facts have been implanted throughout the game and I found this refreshing. The information was detailed, informative and relevant.

Overall, I feel like I'm just pushing counters and quickly I feel like the game bogs down into an almost WW1 feel. The counters are cookie cutter copies of each other with not life in them. Between that, an unappealing map and a few other aspects, it's just not my cup of tea.

With that said, I did find the game challenging, with new ideas giving a fresh new look and feel on Barbarossa. If you're a micro-manager type person like me, you may not grow fond of this game, but if you like a challenging AI and a more streamlined approach to operational tempo, I am comfortable recommending this game to you.

Despite my bias towards WITE, which is flawed in itself, I give DCB a 7/10 rating.

I will leave with last thought. When I select a unit, why can it not by default, be placed in movement mode. Not sure I understand why I have to push an additional button to do so after having selected it.

[zakblood]

well for a 2006 member, with only 84 posts, you can sure write a good page of very good impressions and feedback, thanks, and some great points, you should be a game reviewer tbh, as in a few hours you have put almost as much detail into the game than i know, and i tested it with others did for what seemed a very long time some days / weeks / months, so thanks for this...

impressions and feedback like this are a god send and like gold dust to developers, as one you bought it, played it, reviewed it, even though you knew it wasn't your sort of game, very honest and i'm sure you will get a reply from the developers.

as always opinions are as good as impressions, but come from playing, not just reading what others have said, wrote or seen on a video, hope you keep playing, posting more often as you can write a good sentence without a edit like i often do for miss typing and spelling, the bane of some of us[&o][&o][&o]

[Vic]

Hi Wolf,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and the constructive criticism!

Be assured I take notes when reading posts like these.

Best wishes,
Vic

[jnpoint]

Thank you for this review. It helps us who havent decided yet whether to buy the game or not, especially because you seem to be fair to the game. I do love micromanagement, but also a game with new ways of gameplay. So I'm still on the fence, now more than before this review. Time will show...

[zakblood]

there's some twitch feeds out, one for each side, then also a few AAR being done, while you wait and think

tt.asp?forumid=1560

AAR ^^

http://www.twitch.tv/slitherinegroup/v/27484594
German

http://www.twitch.tv/slitherinegroup/v/27813868
Soviet

twitch ^^

[Templer_12]

I found your statements fairly and informative.
And I am convinced that much of what you have enumerated many other players complain.

I was very skeptical at the beginning but now I have to say the game is fun.
It is not a die hard hardcore-simulation, it's fun.

It´s fun to me, although there are also things that disturb me very much (bad, incorrect German names and terms, complete types of tanks missing ...).

You give the game 7/10?
10/10 is realistically impossible! Do you agree?
Recurring criticism is the map. If the card would be nice would you give 8/10?
8/10 from realistically possible 9/10 - this is a damn good rating! [;)]

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: jnpoint

Thank you for this review. It helps us who havent decided yet whether to buy the game or not, especially because you seem to be fair to the game. I do love micromanagement, but also a game with new ways of gameplay. So I'm still on the fence, now more than before this review. Time will show...

+1

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

The game IS a simulation, but not a simulation of nuts and bolts like a Grigsby game. It's a simulation of the mind games of a commander, more or less. That might or might not be what people want; it's definitely an acquired taste. The manual, though, is superb, and especially because it lays out in detail the "why" behind every single decision. Agree or disagree, nothing is left in the dark. Very refreshing.

[Queeg]

Great review. It nicely captures what I enjoy about the game, but I also understand your criticisms.

[budd]

Well put, as you say sometimes things just aren't are cup tea.

[lparkh]

Nice writeup.

[DerGrenadier]

I totaly agree with you GrauWolf. I also spent a couple of hours with the game but havent touched it since the weekend. Iam also, like you, a micromanage guy. There are a couple of things I cant get past: The wrong spellings, the ugly map, the wrong TOEs (see Templers post). Like you I also say its not a bad game its just not my cup of tea. Regarding the decisions I also found myself taking the same decisions over and over again and so I doubt theres a great replayability. For me the whole system is too abstracted. But Iam sure may people love it. Just not me.

[AstroCat]

I could see how if you were a detailed micro manager and used to games like the WiTx series this game might not be for you. But, from the perspective of some one who is not a full time hardcore wargamer this game seems plenty detailed and complex. I think the "average" Civ strategy gamer would still think it was very detailed and involved, maybe even too much so.

I play lots of Paradox games, Total War (modded), and Combat Mission, etc.. type games and this is one of the only Operational level wargames I've comes across that wasn't either to abstract (Panzer Corps), too clinical/"dry" or overly micro manageable. Plus it makes a good attempt to add some "flavor" and immersion back to the genre, which really caught my eye initially.

I think they have probably found a good sweet spot here for a lot of people. Although I do agree the game aesthics are a bit rough but hopefully the buzz around the game brings in some good modding.