Matrix Games Forums

Got involved in this series back in the day of TAO and then graduated to BIN. Played both extensively. Have been lurking on the forum for a while following the development and community response to ATD2. My interest was tweaked in the series again and about a month ago dusted off my BIN CD and have played through a couple of senerios. I am now ready to tackle OTP V3.0 as I have re-acquired a taste for an SSG product.

I never tried BII which I believe was the next generation of the game vs. BIN. Sounds like ATD2 has taken the series to another level.

So...before I invest a considerable time with OTP, I thought I would ask the community to help me understand how much the series has involved since BIN. What would I be missing by foregoing the latest and greatest advancement in the series?

Thanks in advance for any insights.

I'm not the expert on all these things, but the SSG 'series' sort of graduated as follows (there's a few other threads that cover this too):

1) Decisive Battles of WWII
The Ardennes Offensive
Korsun Pocket
Across the Dneiper
Battles in Normandy
Battles in Italy

2) Battlefront

3) Kharkov
Kharkov disaster on the donets
Across the Dneiper II

I would make the following (very broad) observations):
- I would say the DBWWII series have been worked on for years, whereas Kharkov has come along relatively recently. However, Kharkov has been cited by SSG as 'the future platform' for their games, so one can only assume (and hope) that there are more to come. Battlefront 'came and went' so isn't really something for the future.
- DBWWII has more scenarios (developed over time, most of which are suitable for BiI), and these can be found on the Run5 site. There are some user created scenarios (by Chris and Peteau) which are excellent additions.
- To me, as a player, the main difference between the DBWWII and Kharkov engines is the introduction of HQs in the Kharkov series (which manage supply and other facets), and the changing emphasis on artillery and air strikes which can now take independent direct action.
- I found that over-runs aside (especially attacks against support units) it generally took some time to kill untis in DBWWII, whereas in Kharkov there is carnage (although frequenly units are 'reincarnated' as cadre one step formations).

I still play BiN and BiI quite a bit, but recognise that the Kharkov system is the future, and has a lot of plaudits from various commentators. You may want to look at the Run5 site which exists purely for SSG games and has other comments.

Artillery no longer provides combat shifts. Instead it destroys steps directly.

There are Defence HQ units and Attack HQ units.

Units are tied to Attack HQ’s. The Attack HQ provides attack supply to subordinates. An Attack HQ can run out of supply which means an attack can stall as they did in real life.

You now need to plan attacks and set objectives because you know after “X” turns the Attack HQ will run out of supply.

You’re opponent knows this too and a crafty defender can allow an advance and then form a line in a spot where it is likely you have run out of Attack supply.


There are many more subtle changes.
-