Further initial impressions
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:13 pm
At last my package arrived today!
I am really pleased with the quality look and feel of the manual – just like the MWIF and WITW tomes. This book is simply gagging to be read, just asking for it; the saucy little minx. As and when I get the chance I shall be delving into this – and hopefully get more of an understanding of what the hell I am supposed to be doing.
I read a comment by Vic I think it was, that said he had come up with a game that could be played without having to read the manual. I assumed this was an exaggeration but, never having played a DC game before, and without any practice, I set out to see if this was true.
I have to say it certainly is. Sure I have had a few helpful pointers from some of the kind forumites offering their assistance along the way, but there has been nothing that has stopped me from getting through 8-10 turns or so in the three games I have going: Germans vs AI, Germans vs Human and Soviets vs Human – all without reference to the manual.
I especially liked the in-game tutorials. They are handily placed, appropriately set out to allow new players to jump in as and when necessary, and each of a length that makes them easy to digest. Quality.
So first impressions of the game itself?
Aesthetics
The game scores really highly here in my opinion. I think some game makers sometimes forget how important the look of a game is.
The map is clean, unfussy, colourful and easy to read. It does its job and provides a perfect background for the beautiful counters without detracting from them. I hate it when reading a map (the terrain features) becomes tediously difficult – usually because the colours are too garish. The counters are very nicely presented with two options – NATO symbols or figures. Again a nice touch as the different types give off strong emotions in some – personally I would not buy a game without NATO symbols for the army.
Interface
The interface is excellent. There are a few bits that need tidying up and it’s great to see changes being made in the patches already to make the availability of information even easier to read – particularly so that decisions made previously are more readily apparent without too much delving into the various reports (particularly important with more than one game going on). I think the reports themselves, and the information contained within, are generally excellent. One small criticism is that when making some of the decisions, I am not always sure what I am being asked to do i.e. which choice I need to make to keep person x happy.
Really importantly – AEGOD take note – the layout and font size makes getting around and reading relatively simple – and not a chore. The smallest font used is readable even for someone in his frail dotage like me, with the exception perhaps of the unit details screen. Please game designers also take note, having to squint and put my face flat against the screen just to read what is going on DOES NOT make for a fun experience. The scroll choices also really help here too. I would prefer an extra zoom level but that is being really picky – I think MWIF has spoiled me in that regard!
Historical Accuracy
I am an avid reader of military history, and particularly WWII. As such I really appreciate, nay love, the works of art that are the OOB of the Grigsby monster games. But I have to say that as much as I desperately want to play them (and in the case of WITP-AE I really want to play it) there is just something missing; something that just doesn’t work for me. DC:B does not have an OOB that is accurate to the nth degree. But to me it does not matter. Does Division A have a brigade too few or a dozen tanks too many or hell, the wrong tanks? Well yes, but this targeted simplification works, and works very well.
Through World In Flames and Commander The Great War, and now DC:B I have belatedly come to realise that what I want is a fun, challenging game, which both sides can win, but that gives a certain degree of historical accuracy/historical framework. That is a real challenge for a game designer and one where any solution offered can never appeal to everyone. But I think with DC:B the historical detail that has been provided is more than sufficient to give the feel of Barbarossa for both sides, with in the most part, historically accurate units. There is no navy and no air force (at least not by way of actual counters) but the land war was so massive in scope that just isn’t an issue and allows for the war in the east at a divisional scale without a feeling of being overwhelmed with the enormity of it all and dare I say it, the feeling that I am just pushing a zillion counters around.
Fun vs Complex
I think one of the problems some game designers have is the perceived need for complexity at the expense of fun (which to a few appears to be a dirty word). A game can be complex and fun or conversely, relatively simple but boring. It’s not the complexity that puts me off – but where the complexity is directed that makes or breaks a game in the fun stakes. I want to fight a war game, I want to get my troops into battle, engaging the enemy, winning victories (hopefully). But in order for the game not to be beer and pretzels, as well as the sexy stuff – the manoeuvring of the right units in the right position and the right choice of when and where to attack - I am also going to want to need to pay heed to communication and logistics and the need to ensure my armies are properly rested and refitted at the appropriate time. I think DC:B gets the balance here absolutely spot on. In the three games I am in, despite getting my bottom handed to me, I am having great fun – yes even the non-fighting elements. They do not feel like a chore because they are interesting to work through, and of course the centre piece of this is the card system. The need to keep rival personalities happy – and facing the consequences of not so doing (and receiving bonuses for massaging egos appropriately) is an art in itself.
Bugs
Finally, the designers should be congratulated for bringing out something of a rarity nowadays – an almost bug-free, stable game.
I bought this game a few days after it came out. In terms of cost/game time, I am easily in the positive here. Brilliant fun, excellent value and plenty more campaigning ahead for General Goofy.
None of the above is meant as a criticism of anyone else’s preferences and likes and dislikes.
I am really pleased with the quality look and feel of the manual – just like the MWIF and WITW tomes. This book is simply gagging to be read, just asking for it; the saucy little minx. As and when I get the chance I shall be delving into this – and hopefully get more of an understanding of what the hell I am supposed to be doing.
I read a comment by Vic I think it was, that said he had come up with a game that could be played without having to read the manual. I assumed this was an exaggeration but, never having played a DC game before, and without any practice, I set out to see if this was true.
I have to say it certainly is. Sure I have had a few helpful pointers from some of the kind forumites offering their assistance along the way, but there has been nothing that has stopped me from getting through 8-10 turns or so in the three games I have going: Germans vs AI, Germans vs Human and Soviets vs Human – all without reference to the manual.
I especially liked the in-game tutorials. They are handily placed, appropriately set out to allow new players to jump in as and when necessary, and each of a length that makes them easy to digest. Quality.
So first impressions of the game itself?
Aesthetics
The game scores really highly here in my opinion. I think some game makers sometimes forget how important the look of a game is.
The map is clean, unfussy, colourful and easy to read. It does its job and provides a perfect background for the beautiful counters without detracting from them. I hate it when reading a map (the terrain features) becomes tediously difficult – usually because the colours are too garish. The counters are very nicely presented with two options – NATO symbols or figures. Again a nice touch as the different types give off strong emotions in some – personally I would not buy a game without NATO symbols for the army.
Interface
The interface is excellent. There are a few bits that need tidying up and it’s great to see changes being made in the patches already to make the availability of information even easier to read – particularly so that decisions made previously are more readily apparent without too much delving into the various reports (particularly important with more than one game going on). I think the reports themselves, and the information contained within, are generally excellent. One small criticism is that when making some of the decisions, I am not always sure what I am being asked to do i.e. which choice I need to make to keep person x happy.
Really importantly – AEGOD take note – the layout and font size makes getting around and reading relatively simple – and not a chore. The smallest font used is readable even for someone in his frail dotage like me, with the exception perhaps of the unit details screen. Please game designers also take note, having to squint and put my face flat against the screen just to read what is going on DOES NOT make for a fun experience. The scroll choices also really help here too. I would prefer an extra zoom level but that is being really picky – I think MWIF has spoiled me in that regard!
Historical Accuracy
I am an avid reader of military history, and particularly WWII. As such I really appreciate, nay love, the works of art that are the OOB of the Grigsby monster games. But I have to say that as much as I desperately want to play them (and in the case of WITP-AE I really want to play it) there is just something missing; something that just doesn’t work for me. DC:B does not have an OOB that is accurate to the nth degree. But to me it does not matter. Does Division A have a brigade too few or a dozen tanks too many or hell, the wrong tanks? Well yes, but this targeted simplification works, and works very well.
Through World In Flames and Commander The Great War, and now DC:B I have belatedly come to realise that what I want is a fun, challenging game, which both sides can win, but that gives a certain degree of historical accuracy/historical framework. That is a real challenge for a game designer and one where any solution offered can never appeal to everyone. But I think with DC:B the historical detail that has been provided is more than sufficient to give the feel of Barbarossa for both sides, with in the most part, historically accurate units. There is no navy and no air force (at least not by way of actual counters) but the land war was so massive in scope that just isn’t an issue and allows for the war in the east at a divisional scale without a feeling of being overwhelmed with the enormity of it all and dare I say it, the feeling that I am just pushing a zillion counters around.
Fun vs Complex
I think one of the problems some game designers have is the perceived need for complexity at the expense of fun (which to a few appears to be a dirty word). A game can be complex and fun or conversely, relatively simple but boring. It’s not the complexity that puts me off – but where the complexity is directed that makes or breaks a game in the fun stakes. I want to fight a war game, I want to get my troops into battle, engaging the enemy, winning victories (hopefully). But in order for the game not to be beer and pretzels, as well as the sexy stuff – the manoeuvring of the right units in the right position and the right choice of when and where to attack - I am also going to want to need to pay heed to communication and logistics and the need to ensure my armies are properly rested and refitted at the appropriate time. I think DC:B gets the balance here absolutely spot on. In the three games I am in, despite getting my bottom handed to me, I am having great fun – yes even the non-fighting elements. They do not feel like a chore because they are interesting to work through, and of course the centre piece of this is the card system. The need to keep rival personalities happy – and facing the consequences of not so doing (and receiving bonuses for massaging egos appropriately) is an art in itself.
Bugs
Finally, the designers should be congratulated for bringing out something of a rarity nowadays – an almost bug-free, stable game.
I bought this game a few days after it came out. In terms of cost/game time, I am easily in the positive here. Brilliant fun, excellent value and plenty more campaigning ahead for General Goofy.
None of the above is meant as a criticism of anyone else’s preferences and likes and dislikes.
