Awful lot of Russians!

[Yogi the Great]

Having fun with the game but also having the usual failure of German ability to make it. Of course my own failure may be part of the problem.[;)]

My first time through and although I surrounded and destroyed a fair number of Russian units in the first few turns, here I am only at the end of July and there are already so many Russian units in including very strong stacks and armor that a German success seems very unlikely.

Yes I know a little about history, and I know the Russians came in large numbers, it just seems that this many in July 41 is a bit much.

Oh well, fun game. The decision part of it is an interesting and challenging art of the game but a player (at least a new one to the game) has to struggle with that as well.

The game comes highly recommended and I will add mine to that. I have to admit however that if the future means the Russian Hordes will make it almost impossible for a German win I may have to switch and play the Russian side.

Makes me wonder why I have bought so many Russian front games? [:D]

[zakblood]

we all buy them, but winning one of them is another totally different thing altogether [;)]

[wodin]

Love this game says a lot as it's not my scale...

I too find it seems abit to difficult for the Germans at the start. I feel that lack of command, shock and overall disarray isn't modelled enough with regards to the Russians. It also seems they start to retreat to well, more like it's '42 than '41.

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

Having fun with the game but also having the usual failure of German ability to make it. Of course my own failure may be part of the problem.[;)]

My first time through and although I surrounded and destroyed a fair number of Russian units in the first few turns, here I am only at the end of July and there are already so many Russian units in including very strong stacks and armor that a German success seems very unlikely.

Yes I know a little about history, and I know the Russians came in large numbers, it just seems that this many in July 41 is a bit much.

Oh well, fun game. The decision part of it is an interesting and challenging art of the game but a player (at least a new one to the game) has to struggle with that as well.

The game comes highly recommended and I will add mine to that. I have to admit however that if the future means the Russian Hordes will make it almost impossible for a German win I may have to switch and play the Russian side.

Makes me wonder why I have bought so many Russian front games? [:D]

[RandomAttack]

It seems the devs did this largely to prevent the Germans from steamrolling the Soviets after a big breakthrough in early days. Can certainly make an argument (I have [:)]) about it being "ahistorical", but it seems to be an intentional design decision to balance overall gameplay. Still, love the game and have made a few minor mods to suit my needs.

[wodin]

Would have liked to be able to have a choice if that is so..

[ernieschwitz]

Lots of stuff is ahistorical in games like these. It seems mostly people like to choose what those things are. For instance, knowing exactly where a unit is, and moving it with precision, is probably not one of those things that is historical... in fact very unhistorical.

I guess ahistorical is more a matter of what you think is most pleasing to the eye.

[RandomAttack]

That's a nice generic/general statement, but ignores the context of this game. In a game with this title, you would expect to be able to at least somewhat duplicate what happened historically. It seems to me that there was a real balance problem in that if the early days were duplicated/allowed the Axis would just steamroll the mid-late game. Thus the introduction of "major garrisons" (in places that historically fell almost without a shot), etc. It looks like only a handful of elite players can duplicate the early success. I'm not sure why it couldn't have been handled by adding more reinforcements mid-game instead, but I get it, it's a design decision. It may well have been the only option given the game engine. Still like the game.

[Yogi the Great]

it's a design decision

Probably, in my opinion a very poor design decision though. Too bad as it is a good game but this distracts from it a lot.

[wodin]

Persoanlly I think as Germans to win you had to do aswell or better than they did historically and be facing the very same situation..rather than alter things to try and balance the game..or at least have the choice of that set up. It's the only issue I have with the game, everything else esp the gameplay features I can't praise enough.

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

That's a nice generic/general statement, but ignores the context of this game. In a game with this title, you would expect to be able to at least somewhat duplicate what happened historically. It seems to me that there was a real balance problem in that if the early days were duplicated/allowed the Axis would just steamroll the mid-late game. Thus the introduction of "major garrisons" (in places that historically fell almost without a shot), etc. It looks like only a handful of elite players can duplicate the early success. I'm not sure why it couldn't have been handled by adding more reinforcements mid-game instead, but I get it, it's a design decision. It may well have been the only option given the game engine. Still like the game.

[lancer]

Hi,

Replicating historical results is challenging. There were more factors at play than straight military match-ups.

The problem with Barbarossa is the period immediately after the Battle of Smolensk. The Germans had exceeded all expectations and fully expected, in line with their pre-invasion plan, to have defeated the Red Army as an ongoing concern at this point. Game over. They had, in short, come to the end of their plan and were confused as to what to do next.

Hitler spent the next five or six weeks flip flopping around until he evenutally figured out what to do - drive directly towards Moscow. To be fair to Adolf, the High Command was also split on a course of action and there were some serious logistical constraints hampering an immediate push onto Moscow.

If the game was to reflect historical results it would have to enforce a similar period where the player's ability to take effective military action, eg. keep going straight for whatever objective they were aiming for, would be seriously constrained.

Nobody would want that.

Instead the early game is made a bit tougher than it may have been historically but offsetting this the Player isn't forced to spend 5/6 weeks with their finger up their bum wondering what to do next. Overall I'd score the game signficantly easier for Germans than it was at the time.

That's a subjective opinion but it's based on the fact that the Germans can, and often do, succeed in the game. A top line German player will win more often than a Soviet one. It's not easy to do so but keep in mind that Germany was at the peak of it's powers when it invaded Russia and for all it's might and ability the best it could do was take ground. It didn't come close to destroying the Red Army, it's industrial capability or the rear area resistance or the will of it's people.

Cheers,
Cameron

[wodin]

I understand, though I think I'd have preferred it if that part of the game was rejigged than the start..or found some sort of gameplay feature to restrict the Germans around them but still make sure they had something to do..maybe more staff liaison decisions etc etc

[lancer]

Hi Wodin,

Fair enough. It's not ideal but artifically holding the player back when they are building up a head of steam and are in sight of their objectives would generate a lot more unhappy people than currently.

It's an issue with any wargame that recreates an historical battle. Whenever there are significant factors involved that go beyond the straight military match-ups on the ground, eg. pretty much every conflict that ever there was, you run into the same problem.

You could easily recreate the circumstances on the day but you'd end up with a straightjacket game that has very little scope for any outcome other than the strictly historical one. If you loosen the paramters somewhat to gain a measure of replayability from a game you're going to have non-historical outcomes as part of the mix. As mentioned above, the parameters that you probably want to fiddle with are the ones that are the intangible ones, like Hitler's indecision at a critical moment in Barbarossa.

It's a balancing act with no perfect answer.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Yogi the Great]

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi Wodin,

Fair enough. It's not ideal but artifically holding the player back when they are building up a head of steam and are in sight of their objectives would generate a lot more unhappy people than currently.

Cheers,
Cameron

You certainly may know better than I, but I disagree. This actually detracts from the game. What Hitler did or didn't think isn't really relevant. The wargamer often likes to see approximately the same situation (numbers, units, type etc.) and see if they can do better. This artificially takes those tactic opportunities away.

This is certainly not the only game that has done this on the eastern front but I find it makes a player (myself at least) tire of the game quicker.

[RandomAttack]

ORIGINAL: lancer

It's a balancing act with no perfect answer.

Cheers,
Cameron

Ain't it the truth![:)] Personally, I appreciate your pretty extensive answers on WHY you chose the direction you did.
While this isn't the easiest game to mod, I was able to tweak a couple of things that bugged me most, and this is easily my go-to Eastern Front game.

[lancer]

Hi,

None of this is black and white. There is a judgement call that is made to tweak the game in one direction or another. It's going to be contentious no matter which way I go.

From a commerical point of view, it's a call that is going to go, all other things being equal, in the direction of offending the least number of people possible.

This is a very small niche market and designing the game to deliberately constrain a player's freedom of action for a dozen turns in order to correctly model Hitler's indecision would only ensure that even fewer people bought the game. Making historical wargames isn't, sadly, the path to fame and fortune.

If I take my designer's hat off for a moment, however, I can sympathise with your point of view. The reason you buy these type of games is for historical realism and anything that takes away from that is going to grate.

Cheers,
Cameron

[75Pak]

In the playthroughs where I win I usually wind up having to destroy about 450 Soviet Divisions by the end of November. If I lose more than six to ten entire divisions I usually cannot win. In the playthroughs where I win I seldom lose more than four entire divisions. I suffer well above 300,000 casualties but don't lose entire units.

[PhaetonScipio]

Not trying to be Mr.Hindsight but this game is trying simulate the relationship/political aspect of military hierarchy. Instead of punishing the player in the strategical/tactical aspect why can't the Devs utilize the game for what it was known for and lower the command hierarchy effectiveness in the political sphere...You know... simulating how Hitler was on illogical drug induced episodes. Franz Halder can mitigate some of the indecisiveness by having an excellent relationship with Heinrich von Brauchitsch. Make it impossible to achieve such relationship without compromising on the whole love triangle within the German officer korps. Similar to the bipolar relationship with Wagner and Gercke. If it's too onerous to bounce around such numbers you can let us adjust numbers/percentages (I don't know the engine) we will decide for ourselfs.

[lancer]

Hi,

Not trying to be Mr.Hindsight but this game is trying simulate the relationship/political aspect of military hierarchy. Instead of punishing the player in the strategical/tactical aspect why can't the Devs utilize the game for what it was known for and lower the command hierarchy effectiveness in the political sphere...You know... simulating how Hitler was on illogical drug induced episodes. Franz Halder can mitigate some of the indecisiveness by having an excellent relationship with Heinrich von Brauchitsch. Make it impossible to achieve such relationship without compromising on the whole love triangle within the German officer korps. Similar to the bipolar relationship with Wagner and Gercke. If it's too onerous to bounce around such numbers you can let us adjust numbers/percentages (I don't know the engine) we will decide for ourselfs.

That would indeed be a good solution although one with a hefty development overhead. One other practical consideration not previously mentioned is the AI.

Vic handled this aspect of the game and it's one of the better AI's out there. He'd give you a more informed answer but my take on it is that if the Germans were allowed to chomp through the Soviets as they did in their inital, historical, blitzkrieg, the AI would have a heck of job picking up the pieces where the Soviet remnants are scattered all over a non-existent front.

The AI needs a minimum unit density and some measure of coherency, front wise, in order to do it's job. Without the stiffening of the Soviets in the early game, the mid and late game would likely be a walk over for a German player as the AI would be unable to recover.

Designing a decent AI is difficult but coming up with one that can put Humpty Dumpty together again in the face of an ongoing German onslaught is probably beyond the realms of what's feasible.

So a more complete answer to the original quesion is that it's as it is because of the design imperative to not place artifical restrictions on the player and to provide the AI with the time and space necessary to be a worthy opponent.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Simulacra53]

It is a meat grinder.
It starts as a cakewalk and suddenly the AI goes solid wall.
Even if you try to break through, it just throws up more units until you have a North-South front with no room to punch through as the AI keeps stacking.
Shortly after that it starts probing the weak spots and grinding the schwerpunkts. I think the AI also cheats, as it is too effecient in finding the weakpoints.

Going to try Fall Blau or Blitzkrieg again, probably the latter - had my measure of grinding (Riga-Minsk-Zhitomir-Odessa).

[spellir74]

If I may...

The game needs approx two "practice" scenarios. Instruct the player to play them first.

Nothing hard to develop. Just some saves from the middle of campaigns.

The way DCBarb is now, the new player has to learn the game "mechanics" (and possibly strategies and tactics) playing the same opening stages over and over. THAT ruins it for him.

When instructing a newbie to play the two practice scens first, also instruct how to achieve results.

Also the campaign gets harder as one goes already. By having a new player learn from those harder situations, the opening stages, when he starts a campaign proper, will seem much easier to him.