Page 2 of 2
RE: 1941?
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:09 pm
by kfmiller41
quote:
c) Also have been tempted. I think the engine is suited to model this on a divisional scale with say 20-40km hexes and maybe 4 day or 7 day turns. But i felt it would be to close to WITE in subject matter and scale.
Please do this !!! It may be close to WiTE in subject matter and scale - but it would have been a game worth playing - unlike WiTE
I echo this as well. I think this system, on a division level or slightly higher scale, would play much so better than WITE (and before anyone trashes me, I spent many hours playing WITE enjoyed it but it is extremely unbalanced and so unhistorical it stops being worth the time commitment) just do to the system you have and the way it flows and allows history to happen within reason.
RE: 1941?
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:19 pm
by EdinHouston
Its not fair to compare a game that represents one part of the Eastern front over less than a year, to a game that represents the entire campaign four year campaign. Inherently a game like WiTE is going to be harder to 'balance' than a game representing 1942, which after all is when the two sides were probably at their closest strategic balance. How 'historical' would DC:CB look if the players picked up in 1942 where they left off in 1941 instead of starting in historical positions with historical units and strengths? Not passing judgment on either game, just noting that its an apples and oranges comparison.
RE: 1941?
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:31 am
by Redmarkus5
ORIGINAL: DBeves
c) Also have been tempted. I think the engine is suited to model this on a divisional scale with say 20-40km hexes and maybe 4 day or 7 day turns. But i felt it would be to close to WITE in subject matter and scale.
Please do this !!! It may be close to WiTE in subject matter and scale - but it would have been a game worth playing - unlike WiTE
+1
I am still thirsty for a working game based on Barbarossa
RE: 1941?
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:35 am
by Redmarkus5
ORIGINAL: EdinHouston
Its not fair to compare a game that represents one part of the Eastern front over less than a year, to a game that represents the entire campaign four year campaign. Inherently a game like WiTE is going to be harder to 'balance' than a game representing 1942, which after all is when the two sides were probably at their closest strategic balance. How 'historical' would DC:CB look if the players picked up in 1942 where they left off in 1941 instead of starting in historical positions with historical units and strengths? Not passing judgment on either game, just noting that its an apples and oranges comparison.
I would agree with you if the WitE 1941 Barbarossa scenario worked properly, but it doesn't. Even the Leningrad or Minsk scenarios are affected by many of the issues that affect the grand campaign.
Having said that, I do agree that trying to model 1941 to 1945 is going to be a huge challenge for any game. However, I don't see anyone suggesting that here. The request is for Barbarossa. I'd settle for that, followed by a Typhoon game, a Kursk extension and a Bagration game...
RE: 1941?
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:05 pm
by amatteucci
ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
The request is for Barbarossa. I'd settle for that, followed by a Typhoon game, a Kursk extension and a Bagration game...
+1
I'd be happy with a Summer 1941 - Spring 1942 game.
