Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa or GG war in the East?

[djxput]

Which one to get and why?

I know different games for different folks. Little background. I generally prefer the grandscale WWII game like strategic command or loved europe commander at war or ... clash of steel.

So for those that played both; which do you prefer and why?

thanks - like to get one of these soon. (oh I only play single player)

[Remmes]

ORIGINAL: djxput

oh I only play single player

I own both and I like the single player experience from DC:B much more than WITE. The scope of WITE makes it a work of art, but for me DC:B is more fun.

[Philippeatbay]

There are two things to take into consideration.

1) How many decisions are you comfortable making in a turn, and how long do you want a game to last in real time ?

How you answer that question has a strong influence on which game you will buy.

I don't play the GG games because as attractive as they are (or can be with Jison's mod) I'm past the point where I just buy a game to pull out the map and look at all the pretty counters. If I buy something I want to be able to play it, and play it to conclusion. You can play the first six months of the East Front war with DC Barbarossa in about week of real life game time. I shudder to think how long that would take in War in the East. On a similar note, I would love to own and play War In the Pacific Admiral's Edition, and drool every time I look at screenshots. But then I remember that I never managed to reorganize my life to play the older version (the non-Admiral's Edition of War in the Pacific). And I don't really have a problem with micro-managing, it's just a question of scale.

2) DC Barbarossa isn't war on the Eastern Front with fewer counters. It's the point of the spear of a whole new approach to wargaming.

Sure, there's plenty of counter-shuffling going on, but your relationship with how you go about moving those counters is completely different, and you'll find yourself thinking about how to wage war in way that's a complete departure from anything you've encountered in any other wargame (or, if you insist, it's the reductio ad absurdum of the game system Vic developed in DC1 and DC2). It's such a refreshing and radically different approach you won't even mind too much when the designer rides roughshod over a few of your favorite groggy betes-noir. And it will give you a lot of insight into what commanders really have to deal with.

[FeurerKrieg]

I'm a long time WITP and WITP-AE player and mainly picked this up because I knew I didn't have time for another game of WITP scale, but wanted to start learning about the east front.

I got so much more than I expected.

This notion of being in a historical role and having to balance the need/wants/moods of both superiors and subordinates is so refreshing. I've been in management for most of my career and I can tell you balancing Wagner and Gerke is just like dealing with the IT department vs the Marketing department.

I look forward to more games that use this model in other theaters. Seems like there would be some real potential for a post war middle east game using these models, but I digress from the original question.

If you like games that take years, and the detail that goes with it, then go for WITE (or better yet, switch to WITP-AE - best game ever!) If you a looking for something that will make you feel like an actual officer in the war machine, and let you run the course of it in a couple weeks real time, then get DC.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Ramses

ORIGINAL: djxput

oh I only play single player

I own both and I like the single player experience from DC:B much more than WITE. The scope of WITE makes it a work of art, but for me DC:B is more fun.

warspite1

+1

[battlevonwar]

Played Strategic Command 1 & 2, Clash of Steel, Third Reich, Commander Europe At War... This is not a Grand Strategy game like they are from the 90s.(Strategic Command 3 will be out in a year or two) I think if you really love that Time of Fury, Time of Wraith will fit your ETO desires with a little bit more micro detail. Of course they're not popular anymore and this is and the map and detail here is nice.(it's smooth and easy to play) This plays out the start of Operation Barbarossa as the name says. It's interesting and a different approach(you're administrator and a battlefield tactician in a way) which in those games you're God...

I would not mind to see this encompass the entirety of the war. Hearts of Iron Darkest Hour is a very beautiful war game that is massive but RTS and covers a huge map(and is still highly popular) I played that for years in one form or another. More like Empire building though when it comes to Paradox games rather than history at all.

ORIGINAL: djxput

Which one to get and why?

I know different games for different folks. Little background. I generally prefer the grandscale WWII game like strategic command or loved europe commander at war or ... clash of steel.

So for those that played both; which do you prefer and why?

thanks - like to get one of these soon. (oh I only play single player)

[djxput]

thanks guys for the input - glad I asked here. def steer me toward Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa. I am looking forward to strategic command 3 been waiting for that for years but this looks like a Great game too just dont know much about it.

[nukkxx5058]

DCB, no hesitation.

Won't repeat what I already said so check my former posts to know why
DCB is the greatest WW2 wargame ever. Period

[wgfred]

I enjoy both but to answer your question based on your preferences I would suggest DC:B.

WITE requires a much larger investment of time to learn and play, since it also, normally, doesn't end in January 1942.

[CaptCarnage]

Well, WITE requires a larger investment of time and effort *if you play the full campaign".

This is a point that must be highlighted: I have had wonderful times playing smaller scenarios in WITE. In DCB you have no choice but to play the Grand Campaign.
Play small 10-turn scenarios with clear goals? WITE is your game.
Play as AGS commander only? -> WITE is your game.
Play something past 1942 in a smaller 20 turn scenario? WITE is your game.
WITE also takes more time because it extends beyond January 1942.

I love them both, but they have similarities and differences of course.

[budd]

I enjoy both. I only play the small medium scenarios in WITE. DCB has more personality, if you want to just push counters go WITE, want to role play a bit go DCB. There both pretty easy to get up and running pushing counters, playing well is another matter.

[stormbringer3]

I gave up on WITE because the air war was broken. Also, IMO properly managing the support units made the game needlessly complicated.

[Killjoy12]

Are the smaller scenarios in the base game, or do they require one of the expansions?

ORIGINAL: Skyhigh

Well, WITE requires a larger investment of time and effort *if you play the full campaign".

This is a point that must be highlighted: I have had wonderful times playing smaller scenarios in WITE. In DCB you have no choice but to play the Grand Campaign.
Play small 10-turn scenarios with clear goals? WITE is your game.
Play as AGS commander only? -> WITE is your game.
Play something past 1942 in a smaller 20 turn scenario? WITE is your game.
WITE also takes more time because it extends beyond January 1942.

I love them both, but they have similarities and differences of course.

[CaptCarnage]

There are enough in the base game already.

You can play the 3 theaters seperately already in he Road to Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev scenarios and there are a number of others too.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Killjoy12

Are the smaller scenarios in the base game, or do they require one of the expansions?

Yes, plenty of them, you get a lot of bang for your money with all the smaller scenarios.

There are also two DLC's Lost Battles and Don to the Danube.
When they go on sale you can score them for $9.99 and they have plenty of historical based small scenarios.

Just looking over the options in pick your scenario there are 40 different choices with both add ons. One of them being the tutorial.

[demyansk]

Sky,

How do you play only AGS? If you have it on a campaign game dont you still need to manage the other two theaters?

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: demjansk

Sky,

How do you play only AGS? If you have it on a campaign game dont you still need to manage the other two theaters?

I believe he was speaking about the three road to scenarios being in separate theatres.

I'd like to add .....

I'm not an owner of DC:B yet but as much as I love WITE & taking into account that a new version is in the works,
I do have a hard time recommending it over a game that's fresh and that I don't own.

If I had money to spare with neither game and only looking at East Front games
I'd buy DC:B and WITE 2 when it comes out.

[Killjoy12]

Big sale on, so it may be time to pick this one up. If I were to only pick up one of the expansions - which one has more smaller-scale scenarios? Thanks!

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: Killjoy12

Are the smaller scenarios in the base game, or do they require one of the expansions?

Yes, plenty of them, you get a lot of bang for your money with all the smaller scenarios.

There are also two DLC's Lost Battles and Don to the Danube.
When they go on sale you can score them for $9.99 and they have plenty of historical based small scenarios.

Just looking over the options in pick your scenario there are 40 different choices with both add ons. One of them being the tutorial.

[SuluSea]

Hi, I noticed WITE was at a great price. Hard to pass up if you're on the fence.

Don to the Danube has Operation Uranus, which is a favorite small scenario of mine and Kharkov. Lost Battles has Smolensk and Moscow which I enjoy. Looking at both titles and the refreshing my mind what scenarios are included in both I believe Lost Battles gives you better entertainment value for the monies spent.

Best of luck!

[Killjoy12]

Thanks!