VR designs has been reinforced with designer Cameron Harris and the result is a revolutionary new operational war game 'Barbarossa' that plays like none other. It blends an advanced counter pushing engine with deep narrative, people management and in-depth semi-randomized decision systems.
I wanted this game, but when I am shouted down by the fanboys and glossed over by the developer for pointing out an obvious error then it has put the brakes on it for me.
I was set to buy this but I am waiting for further reviews now.
@amatteucci -
Why should the 10th TD (that had 318 tanks on 22 June) and the 8th TD (that had zero tanks on 22 June) both have a complement of 100 T-26s and 5 T-34s each?
Is this the actual case in the game?
If so then the accuracy of the OOB really is questionable.
thanks for the fanboy comment Michael T, if it was aimed at me that is, aged 48 i really like the boy comment thanks, if not [:(] maybe me next time[:D][;)]
most comments atm have come from game testers, with over 20+ years of testing myself, and with others even more, we form an impression and opinion based over months of testing, not one shot, one screen print, not one fact or error, but over time and stand by it on release, anything else gets mentioned in alpha and beta testing and then if needed gets altered after release, anyone is free to apply for testing duty, it takes time as is a privilege to be on any team, if that makes anyone of us fanboys, then that maybe because most if not all are happy once it's out of testing with the way it's gone, there's always room for improvement so like it's been said above, all feedback is welcomed and listened to, but it's the developers call to alter, not testers. now it's released it's for game buyers to make comments, or everyone else to go one way or another, positive or negative makes no difference to me as for one it's a game that same as all, will develop more over time with even more feedback.
i would never shoot you down or make comments saying your right or wrong, as i don't have the right, waiting for more reviews always makes sense, but nobody here is selling it to anyone either, i'm not that is for sure, while i'm more than happy with it, if anyone's comments aren't to your liking, then report them, but with all forum comments in a open forum, when someone posts, others reply, so while some agree with one post or impression, others won't, that's life and all add's to keeping a section open and interesting imo, so keep posting, looking and enjoying the site, game or reviews either way, and never stop the comments coming, as like i said, it's all feedback[;)]
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 22621) (22621.ni_release.220506-1250)
ORIGINAL: LowlyUSMCgrunt
If you are looking for every bean,bullet,bandage,nose-hair,pimple,and case
of clap in such and such regiment....your going to be sadly disappointed.
I don't really think that asking that units in-game reflect actual (well-known) historical OOBs is asking for every bean, bullet and bandage.
If it's just an oversight with the SS units it's one thing, but if amatteucci is saying that all Soviet tank divisions are treated the same (when in fact their equipment/strength varied wildly), it doesn't give much confidence that the game is well-grounded in reality.
The OOB points are valid, beginning Barbarossa has the most, and most accurate, OOB information available of any point throughout the war. Information about tank numbers, unit composition etc. are readily available, in many cases even for free on the net. As such a certain level of accuracy can be expected if it chooses to model the elements.
That said, I really think the game doesn't suffer because of the inaccuracies. It would have been just as good by assigning a (more) abstract strength point model and going from there. The real meat is in the command/logistics model.
@Michael
It niggles but I really wouldn't make it the deciding criteria.
They most certainly are valid MechFO. I am still on the fence with this ATM. Maybe the editor will allow the OOB to be brought up to a better standard?
Interesting discussion on the OOB. I'm not an expert but I trust you guys are pointing out some errors and indeed, it should get some attention and be fixed if possible.
Just to put everything perspective: WitE had excellent researched starting OOB.. How much of that mattered after turn 1? Big pockets anyone?
AKA Cannonfodder
"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
We've taken a look at this and while there a references to exactly what you indicate there are also reputable (nafziger) sources indicating a different viewpoint.
However the general consensus appears to be that they were overspecced to a degree so we'll take a middle of the road position and increase their heavy infantry complement and associated transport, enough to make them stand out from a normal Wehrmacht motorised Div.
IF you go down this slippery slope.. you should do it for both sides and modify the initial composition of the individual red army tank divisions. As mentioned on this thread they had a wildy different number and types of assigned tanks and amount of manpower. There is *a lot* more soviet tank divisions that SS divisions....
A quick grab of Glantz's 'Stumbling Colossus'table 8.6 page 232 gives:
125 tanks and 1797 men to the 44th tank division
3 tanks and 3518 men to the 19th tank division
Glantz is an awesome resource! I was at a presentation of his a while back where he focused on the southern front of Barbarossa. He had access to the Soviet records when they were open for a few years. His presentation concerned the largest armor battle in history (no one knew this until the Soviet records were opened up)...Ukraine west of the Dnieper '41. Of course a lot of the Soviet "armor" were BT's.
Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
ok thanks for looking and acting, even if only partial.
How about the Soviet units mentioned above by amatteucci?
..And it's not just the few soviet units amatteucci and I have pointed out... *Every* Soviet TD had a unique number and composition of tanks/men/guns...
I'm on the fence with this as well. With regard to OOB detail level reflected in game - have granular strength levels, taking into account individual unit men and tank levels been represented in game or is it generic such as standard pz div has x tk rgt and x mot rgt etc etc?
Yes, it is. As I said, and as governato confirmed, every TD in the game is identical to any other TD.
For what it is worth, it seems that every division of a given type is identical to the others. And, while it might matter little for the bulk of infantry/rifle troops, I think it matters a lot for mobile troops. Especially for Soviet mobile troops, given the staggering differences in numbers and type of equipement at hand in the various Mechanized Corps. Not that the German side could not befefit from a more accurate OoB, it's know that there were no two identical Panzerdivisionen at the start of Barbarossa, non only for the numbers and type of tanks at hand but also other AFVs (especially armoured halftracks).
Anyway, as already said, this kind of info is easily found not only in a variety of commonly available books (Nafziger, Jentz, Glantz, Drig etc.) but also available for free on the net.
It's true, about the same strengths between division types but it doesn't bother me. I guess OOB sperglords would be bothered but those initial TDs are pretty much goners anyway. Most of the Soviet side is fought by divisions that show up throughout the game in any case, the ones at the opening of the campaign mostly just die.
ORIGINAL: Panzeh
It's true, about the same strengths between division types but it doesn't bother me.
Good for you.
I guess OOB sperglords would be bothered but those initial TDs are pretty much goners anyway.
The problem is what they are able to accomplish before they're gone. I guess that a TD with 300 or so T-34s is able to accomplish more than a division with a dozen of T-26s.
Anyway, if I just wanted to appear a nit-picking obnoxious sperglord, I would have pointed out some minor inaccuracy that has no impact on the game, e.g. the fact that a certain city on the map has its name mispelled or that general so-and-so is depicted by the wrong photo.
I'm talking about tank numbers because the developers themselves decided to include tank numbers in DC:B, thus indicating that these numbers are important for the game.
Most of the Soviet side is fought by divisions that show up throughout the game in any case, the ones at the opening of the campaign mostly just die.
Did you bother to check what happens with the TOEs of the units that show up throughout the game as reinforcements?
Yes, it is. As I said, and as governato confirmed, every TD in the game is identical to any other TD.
For what it is worth, it seems that every division of a given type is identical to the others. And, while it might matter little for the bulk of infantry/rifle troops, I think it matters a lot for mobile troops. Especially for Soviet mobile troops, given the staggering differences in numbers and type of equipement at hand in the various Mechanized Corps. Not that the German side could not befefit from a more accurate OoB, it's know that there were no two identical Panzerdivisionen at the start of Barbarossa, non only for the numbers and type of tanks at hand but also other AFVs (especially armoured halftracks).
Anyway, as already said, this kind of info is easily found not only in a variety of commonly available books (Nafziger, Jentz, Glantz, Drig etc.) but also available for free on the net.
The uniform TOEs is, in my opinion, a very minor qualm. The game (which I got on day one!) has made enormous improvements in the realism of logistics and command & control) compared to other games on the same topic (anyone heard of the unrealistic and unfixable 'Lvov pocket' in a similar game from another company? Right.).
I think DCB is miles ahead of everything else on this specific campaign.
But, because the TOEs at start up are easily fixed and the community appreciates those details...why not do that in a future patch. But I am certainly fine until then.
I have the game now and I am enjoying it. I expect to be playing it a lot via PBEM++.
However the OOB is its weakness. It needs work to bring it up to a 'solidly researched historical standard', the developers own words.
I have a lot of questions about it. But before airing them any further I need to check the units and read the manual.
For example I don't see LSSAH yet. Maybe I missed it and its there somewhere. Yes I know technically it was not a division at this stage but effectively it was.
The SS formations and the initial set ups of all divisions including Soviet tank divisions are two different arguments.
The SS units were formed stronger than regular German army units of similar type. This continued throughout the war (generally speaking).
Initial set ups are a whole different matter. And after the war in the east begins, Soviet unit composition would also reflect losses and available replacements.
you should do it for both sides and modify the initial composition of the individual red army tank divisions. As mentioned on this thread they had a wildy different number and types of assigned tanks and amount of manpower. There is *a lot* more soviet tank divisions that SS divisions....
