DC3 Blog post

The development team behind the award-winning games Decisive Campaigns: From Warsaw To Paris and Advanced Tactics is back with a new and improved game engine that focuses on the decisive year and theater of World War II! Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue simulates the German drive to Stalingrad and into the Caucasus of the summer of 1942, as well as its May preludes (2nd Kharkov offensive, Operation Trappenjagd) and also the Soviet winter counter-offensive (Operation Uranus) that ended with the encirclement of 6th Army in Stalingrad and the destruction of the axis minor armies. With many improvements including the PBEM++ system, this is a release to watch for wargamers!

Moderator: Vic

User avatar
Baelfiin
Posts: 2983
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:07 pm

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by Baelfiin »

For what it is worth, I think half week turns will work better than 1 full week. I am enjoying the Case Blue unit counts and scale.
"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.
User avatar
Hexagon
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:36 am

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by Hexagon »

Interesting... maybe i expect the oposite, move down in scale to "test" a casualty level based in lose unit by unit not 100 by 100 or 5 by 5, something like cover the north Africa campaigns at battalion level.

But a bigger scale could be interesting, not my favourite level but... lets see, good luck.

PD: do you plan add the option to create defensive works (something like 3 levels, basic defenses, prepared positions and finally fortifications, you need resources to create them) on map with special construction units??? and same with airfields. thanks
User avatar
Tac2i
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: WV USA

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by Tac2i »

I would prefer an Eastern Front game that covers the whole war, perhaps with the ability to carry on into 1946/47. I like options, for example Germany does not attack in 1941 and in 1942 the Soviet Union breaks the non-aggression treaty and attacks Germany. Things like this give a game some longevity. There all kinds of options of this nature that would aid in creating a game fun to play and still remain within the realm of possible events that could have occurred.

Re historical vs ahistorical: Hopefully all wargames give the player a reasonable chance at an ahistorical result. If not, what is the point of playing? I want to make history and not play a simulation that almost guarantees the historical outcome. Personally, games like that give me the feeling of being in a straight jacket and thus I avoid them.

This article suggests that Stalin intended to attack Germany in July 1941: Soviet Offensive Plans Controversy
ORIGINAL: RayWolfe
Yes, more manageable and would play closer to the historical than will be achieved by a monster where something going ahistorical would lose all credibility for the rest of the game.
Tac2i (formerly webizen)
User avatar
c00per
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:54 am

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by c00per »

Well any improvement I would like to see over case blue is the river sizes being more visible to the eye. Also more beauty, and detail for the maps. I know its chrome but killer maps and counters for Case Blue would have been a slam dunk win.
PzKw43
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:14 pm

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by PzKw43 »

I would like the to see an East Front 1914-1922 game. WWI and the Russian Civil War. Hopefully the new editor will make this possible for a group of dedicated individuals.
User avatar
Khanti
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:02 pm
Location: Poland

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by Khanti »

ORIGINAL: Vic
(...)
I especially welcome any more insights that players of other 1941-1945 other games (yes.. like WIR and War in the East) have in games that try to span such a large period have. Good and bad.

Also I am open for any other suggestions or requests that players would like to see implemented.

Best regards,
Vic

To the points:

1. Flexibility.
2. My war (not historical simulation of that old conflict).
3. Manageable number of units.

1. First one means, that game should give a player a possibility to act with historical constraints, but not historical restrictions.
If player wants to make summer 42 offensive vs. Moscow, let him do it instead restricting him to HQ objectives.
If player wants to field more panzer division, let him do it, it's up to him to build more tanks and find more oil.

2. I don't think it's very funny to have scripted objectives, replacements, reinforcements for a such long period of time. What is rather obvious in let' say Case Yellow or Case White, is a nonsense in 4 or 5 years war. There should be some production system (could be like ATG or card system like DCCB). I see it very plausible for players to earn political points an use it to buy card with replacements / reinforcements. This way player would be sole responsible for his war machine.
Other war theatres (Africa, West, Balkans, etc) could be simulated by containers (on map) where player would put units to counter threats there. It will be up to player what and when he send there. If he sends too few units, he will start losing in that theatre. I see it like messages: Allies landed in Normandy, Allies took France, Berlin has fallen, Allies crushed etc.
This system worked in old WIR PC-DOS game.

3. A really love regimental divisions in DC series. Anyway considering division as premiere unit for a front it would be like 200-300 divisional units on map for one side. Plus airforce and support units. So up to 400-600 units by side. Manageable I think. But I will miss 4 regimental divisions. Maybe it will be possible to attach sub units to divisions (like Stug bat or arty bat).
WitE has very fast scrolling map, which is much faster than DC maps. In WitE division consists of infantry squads, machine guns, mortars, etc. I would go the DCCB road and unite all small arms into single infantry squads plus some artillery. Really no need for such a details on high level command. But using strict TOE is not an option also. I would like to able to reform TOEs and create my own designs.
═══
There is no such thing as a historically accurate strategy game. Every game stops being historically accurate from the very first move player do. First unit that moves ahistorically, first battle with non-historical results, mean we ride in unknown.
mannerheim4
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:01 pm

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by mannerheim4 »

I think Barbarossa on this game scale is a big mistake. There is already WitE at the proposed scale. Why another? And upping the number of units per hex is another mistake. It's too difficult to keep track of everything when you have over 4 units per hex.

I think it would better serve the game scale to consider Greece or the Balkans campaign (add in Crete...), and another option is the North Africa campaign. In both cases, you have a smaller unit count and would be more manageable.

While Russia is a great place to have a wargame setting, the ENTIRE Barbarossa front would make the game unmanageable. Case Blue full scenario is enough as it is! Imagine a game three times more area!!!
My two cents
User avatar
Vic
Posts: 9282
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 2:17 pm
Contact:

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by Vic »

ORIGINAL: mannerheim4
While Russia is a great place to have a wargame setting, the ENTIRE Barbarossa front would make the game unmanageable. Case Blue full scenario is enough as it is! Imagine a game three times more area!!!
My two cents

Well actually we are looking more at 30x30km-ish hexes and divisional sized units, so the map and unit count would actually go a bit down from Case Blue.

Furthermore we are not trying to do the same game that has been done before on Barbarossa. This game will not try to kick WITE of the throne of detail. Expect some new innovative and immersive strategic/operational command gameplay next to the counter pushing.

@Hanti,
1 I think i can say yes here. replayability is a very big design goal for this game.
2 Is good a point, but I think this game might get more limited to the initial year of war.
3 Is a big maybe. Maybe on the Soviet side you'll see Armies that are spread over multiple units.

Best,
Vic
Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics
User avatar
wodin
Posts: 10709
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by wodin »

Really wish you'd done a series following an Army through the War on the East front..just like your 1st Panzer campaign. Maybe even have two scales..one at the current scale and the other at battalion (You then could really vary the scenarios and gameplay where some scenarios are at this games scale and others at battalion or Coy, the old World at War Stalingrad had two or three different scales depending on the scenario played. I'd have jumped at the chance for a series like that. Lest say you followed the 6th Army...once you got to Stalingrad itself you could drop the scale then to battalion or coy keep the bigger scale for those big blitz attacks and the smaller for a particular tactical aspect you wont to portray.
mannerheim4
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:01 pm

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by mannerheim4 »



ORIGINAL: mannerheim4
While Russia is a great place to have a wargame setting, the ENTIRE Barbarossa front would make the game unmanageable. Case Blue full scenario is enough as it is! Imagine a game three times more area!!!
My two cents

Well actually we are looking more at 30x30km-ish hexes and divisional sized units, so the map and unit count would actually go a bit down from Case Blue.

Furthermore we are not trying to do the same game that has been done before on Barbarossa. This game will not try to kick WITE of the throne of detail. Expect some new innovative and immersive strategic/operational command gameplay next to the counter pushing.

I do enjoy the strategic options of DC 2 with the cards and the leaders, vs the WitE system, which seems overly sterile when one considers the strategic decisions and the various generals. The card idea is wonderful, as is the prestige idea and being able to change goals and receive replacements etc. You hit a home run there!

However, it would seem a lot of work to change the scale of your game. You are changing the scale dramatically - and the mechanics will change dramatically. The crt and movement and even the feel will be quite different moving to division units, rather than the regimental scale. Vic, what about doing a game on Operation Barbarossa, Army Group Central? That would allow a much easier porting without having to change a lot of the basics. You have a lot of playing options with AGC, from the race to Minsk, to the slugging at Smolensk, to the decision to send Guderian (or not!) to Typhoon, to the Russian counterattack in December.

I would buy that game instantly!

Again, my opinion, but I think you would be better served keeping the same scale and keeping your map size more manageable.

Thanks for listening,

Regards
User avatar
wodin
Posts: 10709
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by wodin »

Workname Empires sounds interesting..getting a fantasy or maybe dark ages vibe...?

Also trying to rack my brains who the secret developer is thats working with you on DC3:)..sadly wont be buying it though due to scale.
WilliePete
Posts: 265
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:07 pm

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by WilliePete »

I agree with Wodin & Mannerheim on this one. What I like about the last two DC games is the scale. Small units that race to capture, hold or blow a bridge, and take specific villages, ect. Terrain also makes more of an impact. The small scale combined with the roll playing elements the cards provide makes the DC series quite unique and it's my favorite war game. All of this gets lost when playing with a larger scale.

I'd rather have several smaller highly detailed campaigns at battalion or regiment level than one massive division level game. Instead of going division level it should stay the same or even go to battalion level. Keep it on the Ost Front with smaller linked campaigns.

Please keep DC small!
- They That Sow The Wind, Shall Reap The Whirlwind -
User avatar
wodin
Posts: 10709
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by wodin »

Williepete I think the development is to far down the rod for it to be changed..a shame.
Zort
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:33 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by Zort »

I would prefer the regt size game but understand the desire to do a div level for the entire Russian front. I really like the cards concept, and can see how the Russian player can play cards to allow for a mass withdraw at some penalties. It would be interesting if cards like that were played then the German player would receive additional cards that allow for example, Ukr troops, etc. And there could be German cards for better winterization but at the cost of supplies to continue an offensive or only a certain amount of divs get winterized.

Anything that would allow for keeping the axis player interested in the game after he is stopped from getting Moscow.
User avatar
garymiboy
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:47 pm
Location: West Yorkshire

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by garymiboy »

Hi,All.

im with Wodin on this one..id rather keep it small.and have army scenarios like the one in DC2.thers just so many wite type games about to be honest and enjoy more manageable scales.and could even add a few different army group scenarios into it!!

just my thoughts on it[:)]
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by Michael T »

30km hexes won't allow much room for maneuver. 20km would be better.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by Michael T »

I don't have DC2. But I read the rules. I really like the Political contraints and cards. Something WITE lacks. I would really like to see this DC system ported to a full blown East Front game. But as I said above. 30km is going to squash a lots of XX size units in to a small area. The unit density will be too high I suspect.
Isokron
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:55 am

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by Isokron »

The DC system works quite fine with high counter density imho. In DC2 you usually have like 3-4 per hex to consider it a solid defence line.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by Michael T »

I am saying at 30km hexes there won't be much space. This won't be a game of maneuver. For comparison, Schwerpunkt's WWIE will be 7.5km per hex. Plenty of space. WWIE will be a game of maneuver. DC3 is going to be more of bash and barge type fighting at 30km per hex. Each to their own. At least we will have a choice [:)]
PKH
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:26 pm

RE: DC3 Blog post

Post by PKH »

I do quite like the DC games, but there are a couple of issues that put me off which I hope are addressed in the next one:
- The UI is sluggish and inefficient.
- The AI is fairly weak unless you let it cheat.
- Air power is much too weak, and also should be able to do several missions per turn.

Please don't fall into the Tiller trap, and instead keep improving your games.
Post Reply

Return to “Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue”