How is it compared to War in the east?

[towerbooks3192]

Ok, I am familiar with Vic's games and sort of the basics of his games. I would assume this will be like DC. I am new to War in the east and I must say I loved the auto assignment of arties/ support units and the easy to perform air missions. How is the game compared to War in the east in terms of how it covers barbarossa?

No question about whether or not I will get the game (I already purchased physical copy, disappointed that there was no fedex option) I just want to know how the game differs from War in the east in covering Barbarossa.

[proflui]

I would like to know also.

I play WITE for hundreds of hours and overall I like it a lot. It is true that it may not be a perfect simulation but the game is fun. It is easy to learn the basic mechanic of the game but at the same time shows a lot of details (I like looking at the TOE screen a lot!). For the campaign and some large senarios sometimes a turn may take me 3 to 4 hours to complete since it is a large front and it feels really epic.

The same thing can apply to DC: Case blue. The front is big and there a tons of units to handle (maybe too many units since many infantry units just fall behind when my attack is too successful?) The mechanic is easy to learn also. While the Soviet AI is a little weak, playing against a German AI is great. However, I do not like to look of the map. With Mod the WITE map really looks gorgeous.

That's why I am still deciding whether to purchase DC: barbarossa. It looks less epic since there are fewer units and the front looks smaller. More aspects of the game is handled through cards like the air war. Although the manual is 300 more pages and there is extra RPG elements, it does not look as deep in terms of land combat strategies and I do not buy RPG elements in a war game. And there is only one campaign, although you can pick a different stragety everytime. Plus, the map still look like Case blue which I do not think is pretty enough. Lastly it comes with a deep price in CAD. I can see why WITE or WITW come with a high price since I can see the deep research in the game like all the units descriptions and the deep complexity of gameplay and I bought them on the their first day out without much hesitation. But I am still deciding for DC: Barbarossa.

Maybe I am wrong. And I hope I am wrong too since I really do not mind to try another East Front game if it is good. I hope someone can convince me.

[wodin]

Obviously this game only covers Barbarossa. Also GGWITE goes into much more detail I feel and prob has less abstracted.

However this game abstracts what can be abstracted without damaging gameplay. Doesn't take hours to play one turn. Finally the HUGE difference is the roleplay\decisions feature which isn't just an add on gimmick but plays a major part of the game and contributes hugely to immersion and this is what for me puts DC:B above GGWITE. Now if I was a grog who can still be fully immersed in games like GGWITE then maybe what DC:B has to offer isn't as impressive as it is to me.

DC:B is for me far and away the most immersive strategic wargame I've ever played on the PC. GGWITE is prob the most detailed strategic wargame out there bar GGWITW.

Oh and I'd also say comparing this game to Case Blue is like comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruits and both use the same wargame engine..however the two fruits taste totally different and the two games play differently. The new mechanics\features just blast the engine into the stratosphere and create an immersive wargaming masterpiece from what was a very good digital wargame.

SO thinking this is going to be like Case Blue and just more of the same with some minor improvements are going to be hugely surprised, in a very very good way.

Oh and the counter count just hits the sweet spot and doesn't become a counter pushing chore.

I rarely recommend games..but I will with this one. You really will be missing out if you let it pass by.

[proflui]

Good to know. I am going to get it now!

[smartspick]

Thanks, also convinced me to buy it

[pierreoza]

woodin is right !

And u can play quickly a campaign.

Very immersive game for each side.





Cheers.

[Simulacra53]

Got the game, also to support the developer, but although the logistics and decisions deepen the strategic gameplay, I am disappointed by the decision to reduce the air component to play cards.

[Queeg]

The main difference is that you're far less likely to actually die playing this game than WitE.

[dox44]

i was on the fence too but you talked me into it...wodin's fault.

[lancer]

Hi Simulacra,

The air war has been abstracted (there's a long discussion of why in the designer notes in the back of the manual) but it's been done to reduce micromanagement, not decisions.

Managing the Luftwaffe is no easy task within the game as you'll find. There are a number of decisions to be made and an ongoing tension between rolling your main air bases forward to stay in touch with your Panzergruppes versus operating out of increasingly poor quality fields and associated infrastructure.

As the potential impact of Luftwaffe ground support on your Panzergruppes is large enough to outweigh all other factors how you handle this can play a significant part in whether you spend Christmas in Moscow or find yourself huddled in a frozen Panzer that won't start.

Cheers,
Cameron

[wodin]

WOW...now starting to feel a weight of responsibility with a fair few now buying because of me..but I'm confident I've said the right things.

[mekjak]

Unlike WitE the Soviets have the potential to make damaging counterattacks as they historically did during the summer, even in the first few turns. The other thing I appreciate here over WitE is the fact that surrounded units don't just evaporate after a turn and require a commitment of forces to reduce or otherwise risk a breakout.

[Panzeh]

ORIGINAL: mekjak

Unlike WitE the Soviets have the potential to make damaging counterattacks as they historically did during the summer, even in the first few turns. The other thing I appreciate here over WitE is the fact that surrounded units don't just evaporate after a turn and require a commitment of forces to reduce or otherwise risk a breakout.

In fact, it's a very valid strategy to use the offensive stance of the initial armies to launch attacks, especially if you get commanders that can activate.

[Michael T]

@ - surrounded units.

No teleportation in DC3 either.

[proflui]

Kind of look like everyone is suggesting it is a far superior game than WITE. So no one actually prefer WITE to this game?

[Panzeh]

To be fair, the people who post in this forum are going to be preferring this game to WitE. I imagine WitE players are satisfied with their game. It's more detailed in a lot of ways, less in others.

[Tzar007]

Even though both games are about the same setting and theater, it's hard to compare. WITE is to Eastern Front wargames what David Glantz's books are to Eastern Front litterature: deep, complex, vast, made for the exacting grognard or warfare history buff. It's the deepest military simulation of the Eastern Front that exists. I highly recommend. The downside of WITE, like Mr. Glantz's books, is that playing WITE sometimes feel like work rather than fun as some have said.

DC Barbarossa to me is shaping up certainly as challenging as WITE, but not as tedious to play as the complexity feels more manageable in Barbarossa. So far I love the whole decision-making piece of Barbarossa. It actually gives the game an historical patina and immersion that is absent from WITE.

I own and play both games, and I would be hard pressed choosing one over the other.

[stormbringer3]

I bought WiTE the first day it was for sale. I played it for many months. The air war was broken and moving the support units to make them the most effective was a real pain. Eventually I gave the up on the game. When I learned that WitW had the same support unit system I passed. DC3 is a good game. It falls between WiTE and Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 which is another excellent game.

[Michael T]

I played nothing but WITE for 2.5 years solid. They were good times. But in the end the constant tinkering with various parameters (it still goes on) and the unfathomable black box dis-functional combat model ended the love affair for me.

[mantrain]

Well coming from ATG I am a bit lost here and trying to figure out what's what with unit movement and combat. It's like I better read the manual....