Frankly speaking...

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Josh

A battle covering the entire East Front, that's GG's "War in the East". I have this question lingering in my mind for few months now, how does DC2 compare to WitE?

I don't know how DC2 will turn out, but WiTE is a highly detailed and potentially very complex game. I don't expect to play any further than the smaller scenarios, the Grand Campaign seems to pre-suppose that the Germans will lose, it's just a matter of which year, or which month, deciding if the game is won or lost. I think some players are finding it difficult to make the deep commitment required when they know what is going to happen eventually.

Whether, or not, the Germans are doomed to lose, which is the centre of an intense discussion, a game needs to have some element of uncertainty and something to encourage you to play on to the next turn, then the next. I would think that very few people play these games just to run through to an expected end, after hours of effort, however accurate that might be deemed to be.

I hope that DC2 will provide accuracy and historical background, but not lose sight of the what-ifs that history can reasonably provide, to keep players' interest alive.[:)]

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: Josh

A battle covering the entire East Front, that's GG's "War in the East". I have this question lingering in my mind for few months now, how does DC2 compare to WitE?

I don't know how DC2 will turn out, but WiTE is a highly detailed and potentially very complex game. I don't expect to play any further than the smaller scenarios, the Grand Campaign seems to pre-suppose that the Germans will lose, it's just a matter of which year, or which month, deciding if the game is won or lost. I think some players are finding it difficult to make the deep commitment required when they know what is going to happen eventually.

Whether, or not, the Germans are doomed to lose, which is the centre of an intense discussion, a game needs to have some element of uncertainty and something to encourage you to play on to the next turn, then the next. I would think that very few people play these games just to run through to an expected end, after hours of effort, however accurate that might be deemed to be.

I hope that DC2 will provide accuracy and historical background, but not lose sight of the what-ifs that history can reasonably provide, to keep players' interest alive.[:)]

I tend to believe that WitE will be remembered some day as an object lesson in creating a simulation, rather than a game. It has, perhaps usefully to historians, demonstrated that given the unusual severity of Russia's weather in '41, Germany could not win.

IMHO, WitE is a wonderful, complex, meaty game for scenarios, but fails miserably as a campaign GAME.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how DC2 approaches this.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: willgamer

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: Josh

A battle covering the entire East Front, that's GG's "War in the East". I have this question lingering in my mind for few months now, how does DC2 compare to WitE?

I don't know how DC2 will turn out, but WiTE is a highly detailed and potentially very complex game. I don't expect to play any further than the smaller scenarios, the Grand Campaign seems to pre-suppose that the Germans will lose, it's just a matter of which year, or which month, deciding if the game is won or lost. I think some players are finding it difficult to make the deep commitment required when they know what is going to happen eventually.

Whether, or not, the Germans are doomed to lose, which is the centre of an intense discussion, a game needs to have some element of uncertainty and something to encourage you to play on to the next turn, then the next. I would think that very few people play these games just to run through to an expected end, after hours of effort, however accurate that might be deemed to be.

I hope that DC2 will provide accuracy and historical background, but not lose sight of the what-ifs that history can reasonably provide, to keep players' interest alive.[:)]

I tend to believe that WitE will be remembered some day as an object lesson in creating a simulation, rather than a game. It has, perhaps usefully to historians, demonstrated that given the unusual severity of Russia's weather in '41, Germany could not win.

IMHO, WitE is a wonderful, complex, meaty game for scenarios, but fails miserably as a campaign GAME.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how DC2 approaches this.

The problem with WiTE is - what does it simulate, no real commander ever had control of all units down to division level and below, with all the information available in WiTE. Players often ask how their progress compares with the historical commanders, but there is no comparison in the way real commanders had to work.

CEAW-GS 2.0 at least gives you the decision making processes of Chiefs of Staff and Political Leaders, as to Production, Strategy, Deployment, etc., with the combat mechanics a bit clunky, but needed to resolve your strategic decisions.

In the end GS 2.0 gives an enjoyable and varied challenge, WiTE is a great game, but I am not convinced that the campaign game is providing much return for the demands it makes on your time.[:)]

[olivier34]

I am into my first GC in WITE as the german. I spent so many hours to understand this complex and awesome game but I may not play another GC...maybe some scenarios because after the first winter, it become too static for my test. I will certainly go back to DC wich gave me more pleasure and a game that is both accurate and intuitive to play with.
What will be DC on the east front ? I am sure that it will be huge ! Can't wait to play this one ! and I would like to have some news from the developpers [;)] !

[Rasputitsa]

The problem with any game based on the Eastern Front is victory conditions for the Axis side. The Axis is defeated when Berlin is taken, it's history and obvious to verify. However, under what circumstance can the Axis ever win, it never happened and cannot be verified. Defeating Soviet military power, capturing resources, or seizing territory, by themselves are not enough, how many casualties, how much land, or resources are enough, we will never know.

Hitler thought that victory would come with the collapse of the Soviet State and he expected that the collapse would come quickly after the first battles. Might Stalin have been overthrown if the losses in men, cities and territory had been worse, especially after the fall of Moscow. There were certainly attempts to remove Hitler when things started to go badly, was there any group who might have done the same to Stalin and then negotiated a peace, as in WW1. (I know the circumstances were different)

Could we have optional victory conditions based on loss of territory, the number of hexes a country has controlled (including those captured), the loss of main cities (each one with its own value) contributing to a die roll on overthrow. This would be an option to be selected as on/off to players' choice.

It would mean that players would not be able to make a mass withdrawal when on the defensive, without the fear of a possible game losing event. German players would have an incentive to keep playing on, to try and trigger the downfall of Stalin. It only has to be a low odds effect, because the result is so great, just enough to have something to play for, in what is otherwise a foregone conclusion.