Congratulations !

[Franciscus]

Having played this game for a few days now, I wish to congratulate the devs for an outstanding work. I am not talking here about the innovative aspects this game brings to wargaming, and I still feel more scenarios should have been included, but on the stellar state of the game as is:
- rarely have I bought a game that felt so polished and well-tested out of the box. I have not encountered yet any meaningful bug or weirdness.
- very good (soviet) AI, also out-of-the box.

This should be the standard but unfortunately many times it is not, so I feel this should be noted and worth a comendation !

Regards

[lancer]

Hi Franciscus,

Thanks for compliments!

We both appreciate them.

Cheers,
Cameron

[kosmoface]

I have to chime in. The more I play, the more I admire its design and I have to say, I LOVE the game. I always liked the series, but this is a platinum award. From beginning to end pure pleasure.

Some highlights for me:
- of course the political roleplay is a front runner
- the cards..No new feature, but they really shine here. I think such features are a nice touch, but this time I really took a liking to them. All the decisions became so much more important to me suddenly. Well done!
- the implemented short videos about the features were a nice suprise (Greetings to the budgie in the background!)
- an analysis PDF at the end, what a great idea! I really like to dabble in statistics after a game and even though I got used to just a "the end"-screen, this is sooo much more enjoyable. Thank you.
- I like the size of the map. I am not overwhelmed by the counters, but there is enough to really play with them, so that I don't feel short handed. Just the right amount of handiwork to do.
- ooookay I really would like to have a more direct system for air warfare, but this only because I like that aspect of WWII very much. In the end it was a wise decision to simplify air warfare and artillery
- the (russian) AI. I didn't play that much, but you can already see it is a tough competitor. As somebody who sticks to the SP part of games, I am very happy about that.
- last but not least: the manual. Easy to read and a nice layout. Very well done.

Some minor points:
Some things are counter intuitive (the handling of the Panzer Divisons is imo really special, you really have to get used to this. In other games you just use them as the hammer, here I feel you have to be more careful, much more careful, they feel like a glass hammer. When I don't use them right, they will break) and restrictive (the AGN, AGC, AGS borders are a bit arbitrary. It's hard and strange to deal with situations when two Army groups meet at their borders and try to fight the Soviets). Compared with WITE DC:B feels much more restricted in those ways and even though this could be taken as a criticism, I really like it that way. It makes the game unique, too. Overcoming limits needs creativity. What I loathe are puzzle games, but this is more like a football manager game for the WWII Eastern Front and I love football manager games.

I really hope all that work pays off saleswise and have to add, that I am really open to DLCs and am looking forward what you will do next.

Thank you for a great game. [&o]

[devoncop]

I would also add that the game design is exceptional in that the more you play ....and I have seven pbem games on the go ..... the more you realise the balance and depth. I would say that as the Soviets the situation is never as bleak as it may look by the middle of July and as the Germans things are never as straightforward as they may seem after initial breakthroughs.
The logistics means a really rapid advance can grind to a dramatic halt if vital supply hubs like Riga or Odessa remain in Soviet hands. As has been said the timing of rest and refit and change of posture of both Panzergruppes and Infantry Divisions is head scratching and hugely important.
My furthest pbem has reached November and as the Soviets I am tottering on the Central Front but have hopes in the North and South.This game started on release day so I now know I made numerous errors against a very good opponent but I never feel I am struggling because of any reason other than my own mistakes . How many games can you really say this about?

Really well done guys.

[mannerheim4]

ORIGINAL: kosmoface

Some minor points:
Some things are counter intuitive (the handling of the Panzer Divisons is imo really special, you really have to get used to this. In other games you just use them as the hammer, here I feel you have to be more careful, much more careful, they feel like a glass hammer. When I don't use them right, they will break) and restrictive (the AGN, AGC, AGS borders are a bit arbitrary. It's hard and strange to deal with situations when two Army groups meet at their borders and try to fight the Soviets). Compared with WITE DC:B feels much more restricted in those ways and even though this could be taken as a criticism, I really like it that way. It makes the game unique, too. Overcoming limits needs creativity. What I loathe are puzzle games, but this is more like a football manager game for the WWII Eastern Front and I love football manager games.

I really hope all that work pays off saleswise and have to add, that I am really open to DLCs and am looking forward what you will do next.

Thank you for a great game. [&o]

As others have mentioned, the game is well-polished, not buggy. The manual is peerless.

However, the combat model and how it simulates blitzkrieg is underwhelming, to put it nicely. Anyone who has played the WITE opening month and read Barbarossa books can quickly see that there is a problem with the combat engine, the AP spending and the hex scale and how it all fits together. With a 30KM per hex scale, the Russian rear is quickly filled with units that exert an unrealistic zone of control. This coupled with the AP cost to enter an enemy hex, you will not see the AGN,AGC initial drives. Blitzkriegs are over before they begin, considering the one turn delay in changing stance, assigning artillery, etc.

Are we to believe that a Russian division not only completely occupies a 30 x 30 KM hex, but it also will slow down panzers 30 KM away to the tune of 10 AP? Blitzkrieg tactics look for small openings and pour through it in a straight line. This may very well be between the positions of two battalions (anyone looking at a German Barbarossa action map can see that the Soviets didn't line up in a continuous straight defensive line. Thus, it was easy to drive through battalion or even company level boundaries). Once into the rear, the Germans would try to AVOID combat. Thus, I don't understand the idea behind the 10 AP penalty. Or the ZOC penalty, given that a division is not going to cover 30 KM within the hex AND provide any sort of resistance 30 KM away in either direction.

Blitzkrieg was about driving THROUGH or bypassing the enemy. It is clear that you can't play the game that way. You have to have your infantry attempt to clear the way entirely for your panzers to move through the first line. Usually, you only cause them to retreat further back into the way of your panzers. Then, you run into the second and third lines, which you cannot avoid because your AP is limited, the zone of controls too restrictive and the scale prevents driving around effectively. In Barbarossa, the German panzers lined up on the border and drove through the Russians and it was off to the races to meet just east of Minsk. That doesn't work in this game. So you don't get the feel for Blitzkrieg.

In addition to the lack of AP points and inability to truly effect a blitzkrieg attack, what was the mentality behind giving each Russian unit a 60 morale (HIGHER than the typical German unit?) and 100 readiness on the front line units of Barbarossa? It is relatively common knowledge that over half the Russian AFV's were incapacitated due to maintenance issues, not German rounds. It is clear that readiness should be closer to 50. The typical Russian unit has too much staying power in the first month of the war.

With this, there is very little chance you are going to reach the Dvina by even the second turn and your Minsk pocket will be quite a bit further west than historically.

What can be done? The easiest fix would be to tweak up the AP given to units in blitzkrieg mode, enact the card AP bonuses immediately (the reasoning for not doing this is unconvincing) and change the readiness of Soviet units on the borders. I think it wouldn't be too difficult to remove the 10 AP penalty for moving into enemy territory for blitzkrieg mode units (sustained offense mode, I can see keeping it, they are clearing territory and it will take longer. Blitzkrieg mode is not about clearing territory). Removing the ZOC penalties should also be considered - but that may entail a lot of code issues.

Quite honestly, the game's political and strategic decision making is outstanding, the logistics are great, I like how the air and artillery are abstracted (though it is hard to figure out the effect). But for me, the game doesn't work if the Germans are so hamstrung immediately - knowing full well that the Russians will be that much harder to breakthrough at Smolensk and further east. Why bother...

If only the WITE combat engine could be coupled with the political/strategic decision making of this game. The combat engine kills it for me, as the first month is very frustrating if you are trying to duplicate history.

[Franciscus]

ORIGINAL: mannerheim4

ORIGINAL: kosmoface

Some minor points:
Some things are counter intuitive (the handling of the Panzer Divisons is imo really special, you really have to get used to this. In other games you just use them as the hammer, here I feel you have to be more careful, much more careful, they feel like a glass hammer. When I don't use them right, they will break) and restrictive (the AGN, AGC, AGS borders are a bit arbitrary. It's hard and strange to deal with situations when two Army groups meet at their borders and try to fight the Soviets). Compared with WITE DC:B feels much more restricted in those ways and even though this could be taken as a criticism, I really like it that way. It makes the game unique, too. Overcoming limits needs creativity. What I loathe are puzzle games, but this is more like a football manager game for the WWII Eastern Front and I love football manager games.

I really hope all that work pays off saleswise and have to add, that I am really open to DLCs and am looking forward what you will do next.

Thank you for a great game. [&o]

As others have mentioned, the game is well-polished, not buggy. The manual is peerless.

However, the combat model and how it simulates blitzkrieg is underwhelming, to put it nicely. Anyone who has played the WITE opening month and read Barbarossa books can quickly see that there is a problem with the combat engine, the AP spending and the hex scale and how it all fits together. With a 30KM per hex scale, the Russian rear is quickly filled with units that exert an unrealistic zone of control. This coupled with the AP cost to enter an enemy hex, you will not see the AGN,AGC initial drives. Blitzkriegs are over before they begin, considering the one turn delay in changing stance, assigning artillery, etc.

Are we to believe that a Russian division not only completely occupies a 30 x 30 KM hex, but it also will slow down panzers 30 KM away to the tune of 10 AP? Blitzkrieg tactics look for small openings and pour through it in a straight line. This may very well be between the positions of two battalions (anyone looking at a German Barbarossa action map can see that the Soviets didn't line up in a continuous straight defensive line. Thus, it was easy to drive through battalion or even company level boundaries). Once into the rear, the Germans would try to AVOID combat. Thus, I don't understand the idea behind the 10 AP penalty. Or the ZOC penalty, given that a division is not going to cover 30 KM within the hex AND provide any sort of resistance 30 KM away in either direction.

Blitzkrieg was about driving THROUGH or bypassing the enemy. It is clear that you can't play the game that way. You have to have your infantry attempt to clear the way entirely for your panzers to move through the first line. Usually, you only cause them to retreat further back into the way of your panzers. Then, you run into the second and third lines, which you cannot avoid because your AP is limited, the zone of controls too restrictive and the scale prevents driving around effectively. In Barbarossa, the German panzers lined up on the border and drove through the Russians and it was off to the races to meet just east of Minsk. That doesn't work in this game. So you don't get the feel for Blitzkrieg.

In addition to the lack of AP points and inability to truly effect a blitzkrieg attack, what was the mentality behind giving each Russian unit a 60 morale (HIGHER than the typical German unit?) and 100 readiness on the front line units of Barbarossa? It is relatively common knowledge that over half the Russian AFV's were incapacitated due to maintenance issues, not German rounds. It is clear that readiness should be closer to 50. The typical Russian unit has too much staying power in the first month of the war.

With this, there is very little chance you are going to reach the Dvina by even the second turn and your Minsk pocket will be quite a bit further west than historically.

What can be done? The easiest fix would be to tweak up the AP given to units in blitzkrieg mode, enact the card AP bonuses immediately (the reasoning for not doing this is unconvincing) and change the readiness of Soviet units on the borders. I think it wouldn't be too difficult to remove the 10 AP penalty for moving into enemy territory for blitzkrieg mode units (sustained offense mode, I can see keeping it, they are clearing territory and it will take longer. Blitzkrieg mode is not about clearing territory). Removing the ZOC penalties should also be considered - but that may entail a lot of code issues.

Quite honestly, the game's political and strategic decision making is outstanding, the logistics are great, I like how the air and artillery are abstracted (though it is hard to figure out the effect). But for me, the game doesn't work if the Germans are so hamstrung immediately - knowing full well that the Russians will be that much harder to breakthrough at Smolensk and further east. Why bother...

If only the WITE combat engine could be coupled with the political/strategic decision making of this game. The combat engine kills it for me, as the first month is very frustrating if you are trying to duplicate history.

Not being a Barbarossa operation enthusiast, nevertheless I understand your points.
I am playing the AI, in "Easy" supply mode and I am struggling already against the soviet wall in August.

But wide, sweeping, blitzkrieg moves are possible, by players more gifted than me.

Check MichaelT's amazing AAR: By end June he almost reached Smolensk [X(][&o]

tm.asp?m=3985146

Nevertheless, of course balancing issues may exist, but my op was about the almost bug-free, very polished game the devs managed to offer on release date


Regards

[Flaviusx]

What Michael T did there was pretty amazing but also tends to prove that there are some things that happened historically that are basically impossible to duplicate in this game. Smolensk in mid July is one of them.

He got as far as he did by essentially wrecking his logistics. He strained them to the point of rupture.

For myself, I do not demand perfect historical fidelity from this game. (I do demand it from WITE and am far more disappointed there when it doesn't happen.) This game scratches a different itch for me and does so in a satisfying way.

The problem with changing things early on to make it easier on the Germans and allowing them to repeat their earlier feats is that it doesn't end there. This game has obviously been tested as a complete product -- and the Axis can win the game as is, despite not being able to push so far in June and July as was historical.

So you accelerate their advances early on you are almost certainly wrecking the balance of the game as a whole. You'd have to do something to offset that on the Soviet side.

For myself, I accept the game as is warts and all, because it so damn fun and in a broad stroke impressionistic way gets it more right than wrong. Pull back from the mosaic and take in this picture as a whole.

I've already gone Captain Ahab on WITE. That is the place I've expected perfection from. Tired of hunting the whale. For once, I'm just gonna have fun and let this wonderful piece of wargaming fast food slide right on down. It doesn't all have to be haute cuisine.

[budd]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

What Michael T did there was pretty amazing but also tends to prove that there are some things that happened historically that are basically impossible to duplicate in this game. Smolensk in mid July is one of them.

He got as far as he did by essentially wrecking his logistics. He strained them to the point of rupture.

For myself, I do not demand perfect historical fidelity from this game. (I do demand it from WITE and am far more disappointed there when it doesn't happen.) This game scratches a different itch for me and does so in a satisfying way.

The problem with changing things early on to make it easier on the Germans and allowing them to repeat their earlier feats is that it doesn't end there. This game has obviously been tested as a complete product -- and the Axis can win the game as is, despite not being able to push so far in June and July as was historical.

So you accelerate their advances early on you are almost certainly wrecking the balance of the game as a whole. You'd have to do something to offset that on the Soviet side.

For myself, I accept the game as is warts and all, because it so damn fun and in a broad stroke impressionistic way gets it more right than wrong. Pull back from the mosaic and take in this picture as a whole.

I've already gone Captain Ahab on WITE. That is the place I've expected perfection from. Tired of hunting the whale. For once, I'm just gonna have fun and let this wonderful piece of wargaming fast food slide right on down. It doesn't all have to be haute cuisine.

Well said, this game is defiantly fun.

[Flaviusx]

Also: note that while the Axis tends to underperform in the north and center early on, it consistently will outperform in the south. Generally Kiev is gonna fall sometime in August.

So it all evens out.

[budd]

An historical timeline overlay would be nice switch on to compare too while your playing, just for fun.

[Michael T]

I think I can replicate what I managed in my AAR without trashing the logistics system. I misunderstood a key concept. Now that I have a better grasp of it I think next time I can compensate. But otherwise I completely agree with Flaviusx here. This game is sweet. And to succeed as German you will need a complete understanding of how the logistical model works and a high skill level operationally. But it can be done, maybe the timeline won't be exactly historical but it's close enough.

[Speedysteve]

Yup. I'm only on my 2nd run as Axis but it still feels right operationally and when playing out/portraying all what we know it once more feels right to me.

Do I think all historical timelines are achievable? Personally no but I don't care as the overall effect, gameplay and results tend to simulate the historical realistic options.

I do think though we're all early into the journey and, as Michael says, we'll all refine our play as we go along. Hell I'm far happier on my 2nd run as Axis with me at the end of turn 4 reaching Ostrov in AGN, surrounding Minsk in AGC and reaching Tarnopol in AGS. I was probably 1/2-2/3 as far as this in my 1st run and I certainly hasn't inflicted anywhere near the £815k casualties that I have now.

The lasting comment is I'm still thoroughly enjoying this experience (even more so with the RPG elements and relationships), it feels right, it might lack some detail compared to other games but that doesn't detract as the overall experience feels more convincing, realiatic and feasible

[mannerheim4]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

What Michael T did there was pretty amazing but also tends to prove that there are some things that happened historically that are basically impossible to duplicate in this game. Smolensk in mid July is one of them.

What Michael T did is not impressive when compared to the Germans. I had closed a shallow AGC pocket on turn 2, captured Riga turn 3 and reached the Dvina, and captured Lvov turn 2, vs the AI with no "easy" settings. The screen shots are doable. But when I play WITE and this game and you tell me "it is basically impossible to duplicate (the Germans), that is simply not true - if you play the Minsk scenario in WITE, it is short, three turns, you will find out you CAN duplicate AGC's advance. Look at the major cities captured, Minsk, Riga, Vilnius, etc. Compare when they were captured in real life and IF IT IS POSSIBLE in the game.

You say you were a WITE Alpha tester. You should know that because of the scale (10km/hex) and the movement allowance/AP in WITE, you WILL get the feel of blitzkrieg during the first week or two of Barbarossa. It is possible.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

He got as far as he did by essentially wrecking his logistics. He strained them to the point of rupture.

Not necessary in WITE, and it does have a decent logistics system, as well. If the Germans have to "strain to the point of rupture on the first two weeks of the war, that says something about the combat model, doesn't it? Could he recover from the inevitable turn 4 destruction of Panzer Group 3 that I see south of Minsk? My gains are less substantial, but I'm already running into double stacks of infantry around Minsk by turn 3. Still a ways from Smolensk. I'm not convinced that it gets better for the Germans from there.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

For myself, I do not demand perfect historical fidelity from this game. (I do demand it from WITE and am far more disappointed there when it doesn't happen.) This game scratches a different itch for me and does so in a satisfying way.

Understood. I had hoped that this game would be more historically within the confines of a simulation. I am not looking for TO&E perfection, but whether the game can simulate the problems faced by the commanders. A lot of DC3 does this. To an outstanding degree. I don't recall a game going into the relationships between commanders at this level ever, and it is a great feature, one rarely simulated. I started "critique" of Barbarossa games with Tiller's Smolensk game and DC3 is improving on what was available to us then.

But at the end of the day, if the combat model doesn't simulate blitzkrieg because "it is impossible" within the combat model (it is certainly possible to simulate blitzkrieg...), the game leaves me disappointed. Unfortunately, the Air model killed the DC1 and DC2 games for me. We aren't talking about the "how" air power works, but the "how much". It was virtually worthless - against Poland and France! What's the point of playing then?

Now, I haven't played the game into October, so maybe you are correct that the game "balances" out, if one is interested in playing this as you would a game of cards. I have played 5 one-month games and am not impressed with the model, nor the Soviet over-abilities. I feel that the game is more worried about "balance" than being historically correct. I am a bit skeptical that in August, things will be better for the Germans and things will "balance" out. It's downhill for the Germans beginning in July. Your comment makes me wonder what was done to enable the Germans to "catch up" to achieve threats to Leningrad, Moscow or Rostov.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

So you accelerate their advances early on you are almost certainly wrecking the balance of the game as a whole. You'd have to do something to offset that on the Soviet side.

SO what was done in the game to hamstring the Soviets that destroys the balance by making the first month more realistic? I have serious doubts that this would be the case, given that the actual Soviets survived far worse than the game can dish out the first 6 weeks.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

For myself, I accept the game as is warts and all, because it so damn fun and in a broad stroke impressionistic way gets it more right than wrong. Pull back from the mosaic and take in this picture as a whole.

Understood. But there is no reason that a fun game cannot be more historically accurate. Really, 100 Readiness for the Soviets on the front? Typical Soviet front line unit has morale of SS units?

Hey, with that "balance", I might as well play RISK and everyone gets the same number of countries and then go!

But seriously, if the game is so great, will it be destroyed by giving the Germans more AP points at the beginning of the game and allowing the Germans the OPPORTUNITY to do well the first month? Isn't that what you WANT to simulate - the desperate situation of summer for the Soviets and the euphoria of June and part of July that then leads to the realization that the war was going to be difficult?

If, as the Soviets, you see that the Germans barely reach Minsk at the end of 3 weeks of fighting, how scared are you going to be, knowing you as the Soviets can stick a corp on a hex to block the Dnepr/Dvina gap and dig in a turn or two before the Germans can even smell the rivers?? Good luck, Guderian...

Let's not get taken in by pretty NATO counters and flashy manuals. Who can argue that the strategic decision making is not fantastic, badly needed in an operational/strategic game? I get it, people love this, it is unheard of in wargames. Kudos. It's about time, since strategic level warfare so depends upon relationships with your equals and superiors. The cards are another great idea, so is abstracting the artillery and air.

But what's left, the ground game, for heaven's sake, it could have been done better. Not asking for a better interface or map. And I have given constructive criticism and some possible suggestions. Perhaps when the Mods get to this, I will give it a try and see how things go. I would prefer to play this game using a more WITE-like combat system (the end results of the battles, not squad counting). How many Soviets surrender or are routed on week one in DC3? And in WITE?

Thanks for your time.

[mannerheim4]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I think I can replicate what I managed in my AAR without trashing the logistics system. I misunderstood a key concept. Now that I have a better grasp of it I think next time I can compensate. But otherwise I completely agree with Flaviusx here. This game is sweet. And to succeed as German you will need a complete understanding of how the logistical model works and a high skill level operationally. But it can be done, maybe the timeline won't be exactly historical but it's close enough.

I have a good understanding of the logistics system, but I'm afraid that is not the problem faced by the Germans on turn one or two.
The combat model prevents them from being more historically successful. This gives the Soviets more time to set up defenses further West and dig in on lines further east. I don't see why removing the 10 AP penalty suddenly makes the game "not fun" anymore...

I suppose I'll have to try a game as two human players against myself and see what difficulties are faced by both regimes.

Regards

[Vic]

Hi Mannerheim,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Compliments are nice but criticism is helpful.

I am not sure you fully realize the destructive potential of a German PG with full air and focus bonusses and employing concentric attacks where possible.

Just to have a better idea about what kind of German progress you consider insufficient. End of july is around round 10.
Where would you put yourself on the graph below?

http://www.vrdesigns.nl/?p=1248

best wishes,
Vic

[Speedysteve]

Interesting Stats Vic. Is that from PBEM server games or from the AI games that we also allow data to be shared from?

[Vic]

To be honest its all Human Germans against either human Sov or AI Sov. But 99% is against AI. (I should split them out next time)
So yes this is one of the result of sharing those metrics.

best wishes,
Vic

[mannerheim4]

ORIGINAL: Vic

Hi Mannerheim,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Compliments are nice but criticism is helpful.

I am not sure you fully realize the destructive potential of a German PG with full air and focus bonusses and employing concentric attacks where possible.

Just to have a better idea about what kind of German progress you consider insufficient. End of july is around round 10.
Where would you put yourself on the graph below?

http://www.vrdesigns.nl/?p=1248

best wishes,
Vic

Vic,

Thanks for accepting the feedback for what it is. I have every desire that this game does very well, that's what we all want. To see what Halder had to go through and the decisions he made, understanding the pressure from above and below. The game does it very well with the decisions.

Honestly, I haven't played to turn 10 yet, but seeing screen shots and how others have done, I think I can do pretty well. What is the best way to upload a screen shot to this site?

My feedback was largely with the first few turns, since that is really when the Germans MUST do well. I am not sure if I am in David Stahel's (written three books on the campaign) camp, where he basically says that the Germans had no chance to win after the first week, I think it is very difficult as the battle goes on, so if you cannot do nearly as well as the Germans in the first month, do you really have a chance in the later parts? I guess it depends on where the designers fit in on the question:

Could the Germans have won Barbarossa and at what point was it unwinnable?

Some say the weather was the primary cause - if there was no (or little) "general winter" and "general mud", the Germans would have won. Thus, with some slightly better weather, the Germans would have won...

Others believe that the battle was lost by the German High Command/Hitler arguments of operational goals. "If only the Germans would have concentrated on Moscow". Like Napoleon....

Others, like myself, believe that the Smolensk campaign was the last chance to really win. The losses to the German panzers was too great and not sustainable to defeat the Russians at this point (taking Moscow would not have forced the issue for the Soviets and Hitler realized this). Russia was just too big for one panzer breakthrough to win.

Now, perhaps I have gone slightly off topic, but I think it may explain why, for me, it is important to focus on the first month of the German campaign, because I think that is where it was irretrievably lost. Of course, an opinion.

But I will give the game some more playing time and play longer and see. I suppose in this sort of campaign, there are differences of opinions on what caused the defeat of the Germans and this makes the game interesting. The frustration built when I hadn't taken Minsk by the end of turn 3 and my FOW saw ominous stacks forming in just beyond Minsk, and I was well short of the Dnepr and barely crossing the Dvina, ugh, why bother. But I'll try to turn 10 and see what happens. Knowing full well that I will have to rest and refit - perhaps for 2 turns in a row, at least, it doesn't promising (well, under the assumption that the first month is where you win or lose the battle...)

Maybe the designers think that general mud and winter was the main reason for the defeat of the Germans, so maybe in the game I have a chance still...

Regards

[Flaviusx]

For whatever it is worth, I myself do subscribe to the Stahel thesis.

Minsk is doable on turns 3-4. The real problem is getting past that. You just can't sustain the panzers all the way to Smolensk without a pause for the FSB. By the time that's sorted out, you're already in mid July and the Soviet hordes are have shown up in the center.

Yet it isn't necessary to adhere to this timetable to win the game.

[mannerheim4]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

For whatever it is worth, I myself do subscribe to the Stahel thesis.

Minsk is doable on turns 3-4. The real problem is getting past that. You just can't sustain the panzers all the way to Smolensk without a pause for the FSB. By the time that's sorted out, you're already in mid July and the Soviet hordes are have shown up in the center.

Yet it isn't necessary to adhere to this timetable to win the game.

Yes, I'm reading Stahel's Barbarossa book again. It's really hard to say how Stalin would have reacted if Smolensk would have went better for the Germans, but I think they pretty much did as well as they could have. I more or less agree with his thesis, it would be difficult to imagine a German defeat of the Soviet Union if Stalin doesn't panic. Recall his reaction the first few days of the war...

As to the timetable, that will come with experiencing the game itself. As we know, the Soviet hordes building up at Smolensk SEEMS to make it even more impossible. It would be curious to know how the game "balances" things for the Germans from August on, since it would seem the Germans have even less chance to win - thus the frustration.

Regards