Why this scale ??

[Johnus]

One of the best things about Panzer General was that the battles or campaigns were recognizable. For example there was a scenario of the race across the low countries and northern France to the sea. It was (or is, I will see if PG runs on my current machine) superb when it came to fun and historical immersion, for a relatively simple game.

In some ways, Operation Barbarossa's scale is too small. The Kursk scenario simulates only one of the pincers. That doesn't feel like Kursk to me. Kursk was the ultimate two-pronged attack to eliminate a bulge. I don't get that feeling here.

Someone (Adam Parker?) previously discussed the scale of this game and called it grand tactical, as opposed to operational. Why was this scale used ??

[gunnergoz]

I can't begin to guess why this scale was selected but I can understand the question.  I too enjoyed the PG series as a fun game to spend a little time with.  I have hopes that this game will evolve into a similar series and pick up some of the better aspects of the PG series while adopting some new, innovative twists as well.  (Like dynamic, branching campaigns with randomized maps, for instance.  And really long campaigns, for that matter...for both sides.)  So, perhaps, given enough time and enthusiasm, this game can evolve into something we can all agree is a worthy successor to and even an improvement upon PG.
I've been fence sitting but will probably buy the game soon enough...have to support the cause, you know.

[Ronald Wendt]

Hello,

ORIGINAL: Johnnie

In some ways, Operation Barbarossa's scale is too small. The Kursk scenario simulates only one of the pincers. That doesn't feel like Kursk to me. Kursk was the ultimate two-pronged attack to eliminate a bulge. I don't get that feeling here.

The scale was chosen because we found it adequate for what we wanted to depict in our scenarios.

In general our game is compared to the PG series between the PG1 and PG2 scale.

As to the Kursk South scenario, the scale did not prevent to include the northern pincer. If you would take the area south of the German attack echolon and would place the amount of hexes north of Kursk i think you could easily get that part and maps could be even bigger iirc.

Maybe it is interesting to read a bit about the creating motives.
I did not make this map, but usually all starts as you read about battles and feel it would be great to do a specific scenario. Then you might like to see what-if or what has been, think about which units are needed or which could be skipped and so forth.
In this case i guess one of the main ideas of only showing the south was that it was more spectacular (with the tank battles) and much more successful from the German point of view.

[Texican]

Why don't they just give us an updated Panzer General like many of us really want. These "slice of an operation" games sort of miss the grand strategic drama that Panzer General brought out.

(And I mean the first Panzer General, not the miscarriage that was Panzer General 2).

[Hanal]

ORIGINAL: Texican

Why don't they just give us an updated Panzer General like many of us really want. These "slice of an operation" games sort of miss the grand strategic drama that Panzer General brought out.

(And I mean the first Panzer General, not the miscarriage that was Panzer General 2).

Well perhaps this game will be part of an evolution to more grander designs along the lines of PG campaigns...I'll be picking this one up soon and hopefully the game will have a strong enough sales point to allow the creation of a grander game using the OB enigine.....

[Erik Rutins]

There's no way you can call this "grand tactical" - grand tactical deals with units that are platoons and companies. The units in this game are Regiments and Divisions with 5km per hex which means that it's well beyond the scale of "tactical" weapons. The Eastern Front is simply large and perhaps less "recognizable" for some. This is an operational scale game.

[vonRocko]

sorry,operator error

[vonRocko]

In my opinion,something is just not right about the campaigns. I have the feeling of playing isolated scenerios instead of a campaign. I get no feeling that the scenerios are linked. I wish I could be more precise,but I can't pinpoint exactly what the problem is.I like the game.I only wish that a little more effort was put into the campaigns. I don't have the skills or time to make my own campaigns,so if someone would make a "campaign pack" with well thought out,linear campaigns,I would buy it.
Thanks

[Johnus]

Erik:

I didn't call it grand tactical. I was paraphrasing someone else. In any case, I like the game, but would like to see more scenarios or campaigns and/or sequels in a larger scale, with battles shown in their "entirety."

[Rosseau]

Good points from all here.

For the record, I like this game and have quickly and easily created a 10-scenario campaign. You just have to save frequently as there are some CTDs when laying down objects on the map.

Like most wargamers, I have a good imagination, but I just cannot envision these 3D icons representing regiments and divisions as Erik says. In reality, I really don't care what they represent, as I play the game my way. But really, who ever heard of '42 Nebelwerfer regiments, and Puma recon regiments and Panther divisions? These are what we have represented in the game. A 43 Infantry Assault division--maybe. But the scale seems much better matched to the tactical than the operational.

In the end, it doesn't really matter....

[Ronald Wendt]

Hello,

ORIGINAL: rosseau

Like most wargamers, I have a good imagination, but I just cannot envision these 3D icons representing regiments and divisions as Erik says. In reality, I really don't care what they represent, as I play the game my way. But really, who ever heard of '42 Nebelwerfer regiments, and Puma recon regiments and Panther divisions? These are what we have represented in the game. A 43 Infantry Assault division--maybe. But the scale seems much better matched to the tactical than the operational.

In the end, it doesn't really matter....

For the record :i heard of Nebelwerfer Regiments. [;)]
But of course there were no Panther Divisions, anyway if a unit is called this way i would consider that an error. But if Panthers are designated as "Abteilungen" this was the organisation form they were used in and even if it is theoretical smaller than a division those units often had an comparable combat strength.
Also if i named a unit Recon regiment in one of the campaigns this is definitly an error and that being said the recon units are indeed the ones that don't fit to the scale but to the game play.

[gunnergoz]

I know that what I enjoyed about PG is something that I expect to enjoy about this game - the rock/scissors/paper aspect of balancing out the different combat arms (infantry/armor/artillery/air, etc).  If the game is well crafted and the scenarios are balanced, there is a lot of enjoyment to be had figuring out a scheme of manouver and attack that maximizes the strength of your various units and applies that strength to the enemy's weaknesses.  In the abstract, it is a bit like warfare in that combat leaders have to use their weapons to their best advantage.  It does not at all make me think of what a division commander in WW2 had to do, but in the context of the game system, it is satisfying to use these symbolic units to good advantage.  It "feels" like war even though it may not strictly speaking simulate exact units and capabilities.  Because of this disconnect, I have no problem with game scale being such that an entire country like Poland could fit on a game map, as it did in the original PG IIRC.  After all, it is just "playing soldier" with digital tanks replacing the little lead ones.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: rosseau
Like most wargamers, I have a good imagination, but I just cannot envision these 3D icons representing regiments and divisions as Erik says. In reality, I really don't care what they represent, as I play the game my way. But really, who ever heard of '42 Nebelwerfer regiments, and Puma recon regiments and Panther divisions? These are what we have represented in the game. A 43 Infantry Assault division--maybe. But the scale seems much better matched to the tactical than the operational.

That's very true and is part of the Panzer General-style legacy. I can see in that respect where the "grand tactical" idea comes from since the interaction of the units can feel more like a battalion level game even though it's being played out in regiment/division scale.

Regards,

- Erik

[Rosseau]

We'll agree the game scale has been abstracted... but who cares? The developers did much greater things that IMO, blows away PG series and adds to the immersion:

1) A wide variety of historically accurate units with varying capabilities. No generic "Panzer Divisions" here.
2) A creative upgrade system
3) Easy to create campaigns of limitless length with many units

A relatively simple game system that I will be playing for a long time...

thank you