I have been playing DC3 PBEM since its release and have now completed some 15 or more games. I have played both sides about equally (note that in all but two games as Germans I have chosen the Military Independence Option). I have really enjoyed the game and offer the following comments with an interest in seeing it taken to its next dimension and to fix what appear to be some significant flaws.
I realize that the human vs human dimension to the game is different than the human vs AI (which, I understand is where the broader audience for the game lies) and offer these comments with that understanding and the realization that a fix for PBEM might be contrary to some of the goals of the human vs AI realm. In any case, I think the human vs human is the richest and most competitive arena for playing the game and offer these comments with a view to improve it further. So here goes:
Relationships, Decisions and Cards
- Wagner and the influence he has on the game. Anything that makes him happy makes the Army Group (AG) Commanders unhappy. Example—captured trucks. On the other hand, when decisions are made that adopt his recommendations (truck overhaul and secondments for example) they have no effect on his usual BAD attitude. Once he gets unhappy he appears to exercise way too much power to unhinge things, particularly in the south where his interference with unloading trains and such can paralyze AGS for several turns or more. That may be somewhat historical, but the inability of Halder to change this after 4th PG has sat without fuel for a month seems unhistorical at best. Related to this is the fact that in the game AGS can sit starving for fuel because of lack of trains, while AGN is awash in fuel (7 plus moves worth in the bank). Seems like there should be an option for Halder (or Hitler to intervene) to order some redistribution of train resources to where they are needed particularly if his relationship with Gerke is good and especially if playing the support Hitler option and PG’s headed for his objective stall because of misallocation of trains.
-Start of game relationships. In my most recent game as Germans, I started the game with Bock in a distrustful mood, and it continues with no decisions being presented (the usual ones like captured trucks, rear area security) that will improve Bock’s state of mind. It does not seem reasonable to me that Bock could have withheld the focus of PG’s in AGC from the very first day of the campaign.
-PG reassignment. I have seen the option to redeploy a PG appear once in a Military Independence game and perhaps that was triggered by an AG capturing a major objective (e.g capture of Leningrad producing a card to redeploy 4th PG). I think that should be a nearly certain outcome if it is not already. In the same vein, if playing a “do what Hitler wants scenario” the redeploy a PG card should appear when Hitler changes the objective of the campaign.
Stalin Episodes
-In several games as Soviets, I have had Stalin throw a fit late in the game when the Germans are being crushed. Don’t understand how this can happen when, for example, the turn before 4 panzer divisions were destroyed by the Soviets.
Weather
-Severe weather (frostbite conditions) seems to adversely affect Soviet Activations and most importantly supply, even the 58th army. This does not seem to comport with history and the preparations the Soviets made to operate in such conditions.
Towers of Doom
-I have commented on this topic before and after playing another host of games come back to it. The stacking rules and their effect, on in supply defending stacks in particular, do not seem to be working as designed. I find NO incentive as Soviets to NOT pile up huge stacks, that if in supply and attacked even from 4 hexes by the Germans are 99% of the time unbeatable. There are no exponential losses to the Soviet defenders in such combats and it appears as if all the piled up troops in such a hex fight.
FOW
-It appears to me that too much information is revealed about opposing forces in nearly all circumstances. As Soviets, I shop around looking for German units changing posture, with low AP’s and readiness, etc. and I wonder in a dynamic 4 day turn environment in 1941 just how accurate this kind of intel is, especially for the Soviets. On the other hand, way too little information is displayed (or provided in the intel report) when, as in an ongoing game, Soviet units sneak into Brest-Litovsk (a lonely HQ of all things and an unidentified Soviet unit sits adjacent to AGC HQ in Warsaw. I admit to having missed seeing the changing border of Soviet territory, even so, the notion that a Soviet formation could reach these places without detection seems farfetched (and the HQ in Brest-Litovsk and the other adjacent to Warsaw only appeared with a anti-raider Panzer Division moved adjacent to Brest-Litovsk). See screenshot below. There are a lot of decisions offered related to the rear area security units, perhaps an easy fix that could be considered here would be to actually show some of these units on the map and that they could be moved (as was the case historically) to chase marauding Soviet raiders including very powerful HQ’s (it turns out at is just walked into Brest-Litovsk) sneaking around on their own.
Fuel Shortages
-In my most recent and ongoing game as Germans, all three PG’s are experiencing fuel shortages at the beginning of Turn 3 which has continued into Turn 4. Is this WAD? Hard to believe that this reflects anything historical this early in the campaign and with the PG’s so close to the frontier.
So some ideas for your consideration offered totally in the spirit of making this great game even better.
