Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: governato
The uniform TOEs is, in my opinion, a very minor qualm. The game (which I got on day one!) has made enormous improvements in the realism of logistics and command & control) compared to other games on the same topic (anyone heard of the unrealistic and unfixable 'Lvov pocket' in a similar game from another company? Right.).
I think DCB is miles ahead of everything else on this specific campaign.

I got DC:B on day one too and I'm not regretting buying it.

I know that WitE has problems, if I thought that WitE was the perfect Eastern Front wargame ever, I would not have bothered with DC:B at all.

Of course WitE has problems in spite of its detailed OoB not because of it.

This to say that, in my opinion, there's no reason on Earth to think that a more accurate OoB couldn't be considered a useful improvement to DC:B. And this is not a mere cosmetic improvement (unless someone considers combat results as "chrome"), as spelling Königsberg correctly on the map.

But, because the TOEs at start up are easily fixed and the community appreciates those details...why not do that in a future patch.

That is exaclty what I am asking.

If you start down this path, you may open a Pandora's box. It is well known that especially during the early Barbarossa, the Soviets kept making major changes to their organization, many of them MAJOR. Check out "Clash of Titans" by Glantz for details. So will someone raise a protest that in say October, the Soviet OOB does not reflect certain major changes? Just take the game like it is...

ORIGINAL: henri51

If you start down this path, you may open a Pandora's box. It is well known that especially during the early Barbarossa, the Soviets kept making major changes to their organization, many of them MAJOR. Check out "Clash of Titans" by Glantz for details. So will someone raise a protest that in say October, the Soviet OOB does not reflect certain major changes? Just take the game like it is...

The "Troubleshooting" section of the manual for the original Combat Mission had a nice comment on this sort of issue: "The armor slope of that Panther is off by 0.5 degrees! My life is ruined!"

Historical fidelity will always have an eye-of-the-beholder element to it. I'm fine with a game getting the main points right then focusing on the real hard work of being an enjoyable game.

ORIGINAL: henri51

If you start down this path, you may open a Pandora's box. It is well known that especially during the early Barbarossa, the Soviets kept making major changes to their organization, many of them MAJOR. Check out "Clash of Titans" by Glantz for details. So will someone raise a protest that in say October, the Soviet OOB does not reflect certain major changes?

I think that there's no real danger of opening Pandora's box (or a can of worms).
The level of accuracy that is requested by the game OOB/TOE is not arbitrary but it is set by the level of detail that the designers themselves decided to put in it.

If there's a new army that pops up in a given month and it is not represented in the game, it is reasonable to ask to have it included. If there's a TOE change that is under the resolution of the game engine, it is pointless to have it represented.

Just take the game like it is...

It's strange to hear such a suggestion on the forum of a game company that is famous for continuing to upgrade its products even years after release. I guess you don't patch your games! [:D]

ORIGINAL: Queeg
The "Troubleshooting" section of the manual for the original Combat Mission had a nice comment on this sort of issue: "The armor slope of that Panther is off by 0.5 degrees! My life is ruined!"

You know that 0.01% is not equal to 50%. So that the issue at hand here has nothing to do with CM manual's joke.

Historical fidelity will always have an eye-of-the-beholder element to it. I'm fine with a game getting the main points right then focusing on the real hard work of being an enjoyable game.

You said it right: the main points.
Do you think that the total number of tanks available to a given side is not a point worth to be accurately portrayed in this game? Would you consider acceptable to have that number off by 50% or, maybe, 30%... or what?

ORIGINAL: amatteucci

Do you think that the total number of tanks available to a given side is not a point worth to be accurately portrayed in this game? Would you consider acceptable to have that number off by 50% or, maybe, 30%... or what?

I'm far more interested in how a game plays than how the stats stack up. The best games just feel right. It's hard to define, very difficult to achieve - and obvious when it's missing. And it's not a matter of stats - it's more how the game system works as a whole.

AGEOD's To End All Wars is a great example - great details in a game that feels nothing (at all) like the conflict being modeled.

It depends on what you're trying to model and how you want all the pieces to fit into the overall game design. In some games, like WinE/WitW, the details are the intended end result - the details ARE the game. WitW literally includes my grandfather, by name in his historical squadron, as a bomber pilot in North Africa and Italy. That's incredibly authentic - but it doesn't necessarily make it a good game.

What makes DC:B special is how the different pieces, some of which are very unique to wargaming, fit together as a coherent whole. This isn't a game where the minutiae predominate.

Having said that, I'm glad they are looking at the OOB to at least gets things in the right ballpark.

I do not understand why people would argue to keep something in place that is incorrect, especially when it is so easy to change/correct. Weird.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I do not understand why people would argue to keep something in place that is incorrect, especially when it is so easy to change/correct. Weird.

What if the game were perfectly balanced to provide an historical overall result despite the ahistorical detail? And what if fixing the detail would produce an ahistorical overall result?

Ideally, the details and the result both should be historical. But the result is what ultimately makes the game.

Just saying it's not always as simple as just editing a spreadsheet.

(The designers have a good sense of what they're trying to accomplish here, and I expect they'll get the details and balance right with a bit of time.)

Ok LSSAH arrives as a reinforcement in July. I can live with that.

But the designers notes mention that GrossDeutschland X is attached to a Division. I cannot locate a Pz/Mot Div at this point that appears to have GD attached.

Can anyone point this out to me please?

I very much doubt that the game is perfectly balanced at such an early stage in its life. And I also doubt that the changes needed to make the OOB historically sound would derail the game.

Naturally any changes that could impact play balance should be closely examined. But at this point I don't see that. It may well turn out that for example total tank numbers in the Soviet OOB are correct, maybe just a little more thought should be placed in how they are allocated across the myriad of Soviet TD.

ORIGINAL: Michael T
For example I don't see LSSAH yet. Maybe I missed it and its there somewhere. Yes I know technically it was not a division at this stage but effectively it was.

I think the manual states reason why it's not there at the start. Other compromises too. They are there to reduce micromanagement. Today it took me 10 minutes to re-route two static infantry divisions to garrison Leningrad in WitE, and replace them with regular infantry divisions at the front. Click, click, click, click... [:)] I enjoyed it, but some may not, and will call this micromanagement.

DC3 is not here to compete in the OOB department, it's here to bring more important aspects to the fore, so often neglected in war games. Human interactions! And for that I will ignore some aspects that may seem simplified compared to other games. This is a game that wants to offer unique experience of dealing with superiors and subordinates, and I intend to enjoy every minute of playing it.

Hi Michael,

10th Pz Div, 2 PG. Select the unit, press the Report Status! button (yellow, bottom centre).

I recommend reading the OOB notes in the manual (designer notes, at the back) for an explanation of why things are the way that they are.

Cheers,
Cameron

Morvael: If this game is really all about human interactions then why even call this game Operation Barbarossa?...why not call it Big Blue vs Great Red (from the old Blitzkrieg game by AH) on a fantasy map? The fact that its "Operation Barbarossa" implies detail representing this historical event...not to mention the developers stated intentions.

I hope to enjoy this game too, probably after the first patch is out.

@Cameron

Ok I got it. I was expecting to see a Division with extra troops/guns etc. Which would be my preference, but nice to see the unit reflected in some way at least.

I have read the section on the OOB. And generally speaking I have no problem with your design decisions. No ants is a good thing. WITE suffers from this terribly.

I would prefer to see more historically accurate unit strengths for Pz and Soviet TD. As they varied significantly.

So far I find nothing in the game that I dislike other than the OOB's rather generic approach. But I am hopeful this can be changed rather easily with the editor.

A Barbarossa Scenario with OOB++ for people like myself would be fab.

Big Blue vs Great Red

I almost made the same comment a way back. But I am trying not to be too negative about this one aspect of what appears to be (so far) a most excellent game otherwise. I think the editor may be the saving grace for players who want more historical flavor in the OOB.

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Morvael: If this game is really all about human interactions then why even call this game Operation Barbarossa?...why not call it Big Blue vs Great Red (from the old Blitzkrieg game by AH) on a fantasy map?

I coulda sworn there were humans involved in the real Operation Barbarossa. I'll have to recheck my sources.

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Morvael: If this game is really all about human interactions then why even call this game Operation Barbarossa?...why not call it Big Blue vs Great Red (from the old Blitzkrieg game by AH) on a fantasy map?

I coulda sworn there were humans involved in the real Operation Barbarossa. I'll have to recheck my sources.

Sorry, wars are entirely fought by OOBs and numerical values. Didn't you know?

Queeg and Panzeh: Funny how what you write reflects your avatars. Not sure why you guys play war games, but for me its about using the exact (as can be per available information) tools that were available at the time. I'm guessing that concept probably comes as a shock to both of you.

To me, this kind of comment, is personal, and doesn't bring anything especially useful to the discussion.

agreed[:-] lets try and be nice and stay on topic, as mods tend to have a hard time closing threads that go astray and get personal, debate all you like about the game, and call it till your blue in the face, as that's on topic as that's fine, but topic was started about the OOB, i'm only a member also so you can always ignore me and my advice, and let someone else say it[;)]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

What if the game were perfectly balanced to provide an historical overall result despite the ahistorical detail? And what if fixing the detail would produce an ahistorical overall result

...

(The designers have a good sense of what they're trying to accomplish here, and I expect they'll get the details and balance right with a bit of time.)

This approach is fine if the game was advertised as so me kind of fantasy game based on the Russian front, but I have a very hard time understanding or accepting this approach for what claims to be a serious war game.

It's pretty simple--if you claim to have accurate historic OOBs, as this game does, then you should have them... The info on soviet tank units, for instance, is readily avsilale to the most casual researcher--if the devs are deliberately distorting OOBs (or anything else) to achieve play balance, I'd like to know about it.