Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa

[spelk]

I babble on about how good I think it is..

http://sugarfreegamer.com/decisive-campaigns-barbarossa/

Reading the communications, and weighing up the initial decisions had me positively glowing.. so I gush a little here.

I'm a bit worried DC:B has added Grand Strategy elements I might not be able to handle... but at the moment, I'm still at the dazzled and impressed stage.

[Sir Slash]

Great to hear man. I was afraid at first that there would be a lot less wargaming here but it looks like there's plenty to do. Any thought about porting this system to another theater? How would it work for the West or Med?

[JasonPratt]

Of course it's porting DC2 with some simplifications for the Barbarossa situation, plus the expanded political-strategy game.

So the question is really whether DC2 would work well in other theaters, and the answer is DC1. ;)

The expanded political-strategy portion is an optional gloss on the game engine to make curb-stomping-or-being-curb-stomped more interesting -- strictly speaking, DC3 can be played with part or all of it turned off (or even with it all turned on but ignored, although that isn't recommended since the AI will choose things for you that are conservatively reasonable and semi-random but which you won't necessarily know to adjust for.)

As far as other theaters, I suppose a modified version of the Nazi political-strategic game would work fine for either side; presumably with less modification on the Nazi side of the campaign. Some of the naval and air switches would have to be turned back on: that code is still in the game, with the impression that modders will be allowed to purchase a version of the code that allows them to mod the whole East Front (aside from East Germany -- the current map doesn't go quite that far west, but does go east to the Urals). The northwest corner of the map is completely unplayable for the Barbarossa campaign, but code used for DC2: Case Blue could be reactivated; and besides I don't know why Scandanavia (minus some Finnish areas) would want to be playable for East Front games anyway. But I assume the map will be moddable in the coming DC-X.

[JasonPratt]

My hard copy arrived today -- as a coffee-table sized hardback instruction book (plus a CD, slid into a glued sleeve).

[Asid]

Public Beta 1.01

Hi all,

To err on the side of caution we are releasing the 1.01 patch first as a public beta. It already has been tested a bit and should be stable. If all goes well we'll make it official start of next week.

You can install it right now by downloading the 1.01 public beta patch installer from here:
http://slitherine.com/files/barbarossa/DCBarbarossa-UpdateComp-v101.exe

Its an installer. So just download it anywhere and execute!

Save files are fully compatible and you can continue your old games without worry, but in order for big part of the fixes/additions to come in effect you'll have to start a new game with 1.01.

v1.01 / Scenario version 1/12/2015-Vic / Internal scenario version 16

Added
-Friends and Foes report (Past history) now shows in relationship section of report tab for reference rather than just on the first turn.
-List of Cities lost or captured by date and theatre added to the end of game analysis and PDF's
-Video on how to mod the TO&E : http://www.vrdesigns.nl/?page_id=1198

Changed
-3 hexes added to East Prussia on map. Units and Soviet AI deployment routines adjusted accordingly.
-Soviet fortification card disabled if entire map is mud or snow
-SS Motorised Divs Heavy Inf increased from 7000 to 8000
-PG HQ staff increased slightly
-Improved dynamic text on Soviet 'Change Orders' card to make it's status clearer.
-AGN starting fuel bonus lowered from 6000 bbls to 4000.
-Soviet AI now has some limited flexibility of which front to deploy certain reinforcement armies.
-Finetuned the victory point influence that LOST cities have on the Soviet AI.
-Finetuned the HOLD/ATTACK Stance for fronts. In special cases the AI will be more aggressive and will chose an ATTACK stance where it used to chose a HOLD stance.
-Various other AI finetunes
-German staff will gain experience at a slightly slower pace in the later rounds.

Fixed
-Brest removed from 'Garrison' card text (automatic major garrison at Brest, no need to play the card)
-Stalin's missing bio added (deleted when reloaded Soviet Officer Lib)
-Soviet units not reporting AP effect of severe weather when asked to Report Status! (no change to game play effect) is fixed.
-T-26 description typo is fixed.
-Relationship #'s in German Command tab tool tips now correctly updated after each decision
-Bug with PG reassignment from AGC (only) where full amount of fuel was being transferred to the adjacent theatre instead of half (AGC has two Panzergruppen) is fixed.
-German 'Transport!' card incorrectly being able to be played on the Siege Artillery protection unit and the garrison units is fixed.
-Soviet HQ's are now correctly auto disbanding when they have no subordinate units (Germans gain PP's). Only affected Sov Player, not Sov AI.
-Reinforcements message for Soviets in Aide De Camp indicating 'x' Div's failed to deploy when it was referring to HQ cards not yet played is fixed.
-One AI crash bug found and fixed

Manual Errata
A dedicated page has been created over here:
http://www.vrdesigns.nl/?page_id=1191

Best wishes,
Vic and Cameron

[JasonPratt]

Yeah, I'm going to hold off on the beta patch.

Bart however may be holding off on playing his turn until the full release of the patch (which seems to affect the Germans more than me).

[Barthheart]

Yeah, I'm going to hold off on the beta patch.

Bart however may be holding off on playing his turn until the full release of the patch (which seems to affect the Germans more than me).

Not holding off on playing my turn... just need time... may not be until Saturday morning... sorry for the delay.

The update won't affect current games but you also won't get the benefit of the changes.

[JasonPratt]

No problem, just curious -- I thought maybe you might be waiting until the open beta testers confirmed it wouldn't break game saves.

But speaking of game saves and delays for time: did we make a mistake using the PBEM security feature? I thought it would only track if someone had to reload a save mid-turn, but further experience shows that it prevents any game save during a turn. Consequently, you either have to play out the whole turn in one sitting, or reload the turn from the beginning after having to quit before turn-end. (Which the security then tracks.)

That isn't a big deal for me right now; the Soviets may have {coughycought}ty divisions, but we have a lot less finagling on other matters (and some of our divisions can't move anyway after having already fought defensively against you). But the Nazis start early with a lot of extra finagling, which is of course a fun difference but I could see it causing problems for a play schedule when the system won't allow games to be saved within a turn.

My offer, is that if this is giving you scheduling problems, now would be the time to restart the game (recreating our strategic moves so far as possible) since you've only had one attack yet (the results of which I imagine can be mostly or entirely recreated without any problems) and I've only had one defensive attempt at running away or whatever (ditto ;) ).

[Grim.Reaper]

What I am about to ask is not meant as anything questioning this specific game, but quite the opposite since I am trying to understand the attraction.  For me eastern front strategic/operational games have never really interested me since when I look at pictures it seems all games that represent this theatre end up with a million counters lined up from top to bottom with what appears to be little room for maneuvers and different outcomes.  I am sure this does represent real life historical, but I have often struggled to see how it would be fun to manage all those units in tight spaces.  Also, I always got the impression that in most of these games it was almost a forgone conclusion Russia would ultimately prevail with little chance of different outcomes.

Am I just thinking about this the wrong way or missing where the attraction is?  Again, this game looks nice and not really singling it out, but just thought I would ask because it is the latest with this content.

[JudgeDredd]

I'm not a huge fan of the battlefield myself. But my limited experience of the battle (Barbarossa at least) was that whilst it is a wall of units and several deep, the Russians are ill prepared and weak resulting in huge thrusts through their defensive lines.

This then results in the German player having to manage his flanks and keep an effective spearhead. The terrain opens up (and at places boxes you in or provide security - depending on your position) and so managing your forces and supplies becomes crucial.

So what seems like an impregnable wall is anything but. Then what seems like a cake walk quickly becomes a trawl and then a crawl. If the AI is effective (or a human opponent) your supplies will get cut and you'll be withdrawing fast

That's my very limited experience of the arena. I was like you - "Walls of units? What's the point?"

Oh - and undoubtedly as the German player the speed of your panzers will entice you every time to go those extra few miles - make a dash for that town or city - but don't.

[Zulu1966]

What I am about to ask is not meant as anything questioning this specific game, but quite the opposite since I am trying to understand the attraction.  For me eastern front strategic/operational games have never really interested me since when I look at pictures it seems all games that represent this theatre end up with a million counters lined up from top to bottom with what appears to be little room for maneuvers and different outcomes.  I am sure this does represent real life historical, but I have often struggled to see how it would be fun to manage all those units in tight spaces.  Also, I always got the impression that in most of these games it was almost a forgone conclusion Russia would ultimately prevail with little chance of different outcomes.

Am I just thinking about this the wrong way or missing where the attraction is?  Again, this game looks nice and not really singling it out, but just thought I would ask because it is the latest with this content.

Well - not sure about the games - but it is far from historical. The eastern front was THE front for dramatic operational manoeuvres.

[Barthheart]

No problem, just curious -- I thought maybe you might be waiting until the open beta testers confirmed it wouldn't break game saves.

But speaking of game saves and delays for time: did we make a mistake using the PBEM security feature? I thought it would only track if someone had to reload a save mid-turn, but further experience shows that it prevents any game save during a turn. Consequently, you either have to play out the whole turn in one sitting, or reload the turn from the beginning after having to quit before turn-end. (Which the security then tracks.)

That isn't a big deal for me right now; the Soviets may have {coughycought}ty divisions, but we have a lot less finagling on other matters (and some of our divisions can't move anyway after having already fought defensively against you). But the Nazis start early with a lot of extra finagling, which is of course a fun difference but I could see it causing problems for a play schedule when the system won't allow games to be saved within a turn.

My offer, is that if this is giving you scheduling problems, now would be the time to restart the game (recreating our strategic moves so far as possible) since you've only had one attack yet (the results of which I imagine can be mostly or entirely recreated without any problems) and I've only had one defensive attempt at running away or whatever (ditto ;) ).

It's not this feature which is giving me scheduling problems. I just need time to sit and concentrate on the game and the AAR. It takes a bit to play the game and remember to take all the screen shots you want to describe the turn you are doing AND make the notes for the AAR.

That and I have a lot of other projects on the go right now. I hope to soon finish a bunch of those other things and then the runs will speed. up.

So I'm OK to continue as it is but will restart if you'd like.

[Philippe]

There were certainly a lot of units on the Eastern Front in WW II, but there was also a lot of space.  As a result the Eastern Front could never suffer from the kind of congestion that lead to the stalemate on the Western Front in WW I.  Wargames often mask this because they tend to pick a deceptively large hex scale for design convenience.  In WW II there are a fair number of cavalry units on the Eastern Front, and they were needed:  infiltration of the most densely defended parts of the line was always possible to some extent.

What makes the Operation Barbarossa phase of the war stand out is the possibilty of sweeping Panzer penetrations and huge encirclements.  There is certainly a front line, but it is periodically shattered and whenever that happens the fun begins, assuming the end game in chess doesn't make you fall asleep.  There is an ongoing tension between maintaining order and learning how to manage chaos.  And both sides get to attack, just at different points in the campaign.

[Barthheart]

What I am about to ask is not meant as anything questioning this specific game, but quite the opposite since I am trying to understand the attraction.  For me eastern front strategic/operational games have never really interested me since when I look at pictures it seems all games that represent this theatre end up with a million counters lined up from top to bottom with what appears to be little room for maneuvers and different outcomes.  I am sure this does represent real life historical, but I have often struggled to see how it would be fun to manage all those units in tight spaces.  Also, I always got the impression that in most of these games it was almost a forgone conclusion Russia would ultimately prevail with little chance of different outcomes.

Am I just thinking about this the wrong way or missing where the attraction is?  Again, this game looks nice and not really singling it out, but just thought I would ask because it is the latest with this content.

I like the East Front because of all the cool toys on each side, the back and forth of the war as it went on, to evils battling it out etc.

And like JD said, there are lots of opportunities fro huge sweeping encirclements or heroic river crossing stands etc. there really is all kinds of fighting on this front even though it looks like a WWI re-enactment.

I'm also in the camp of rarely playing the full campaign because of the huge numbers of counters. That's why I didn't play DC2 very much...

But DC3 has Division sized units so it at a much more manageable scale. Actually moving and fighting with all the Germans only takes me about 10 to 15 minutes. In this game it's all the "paper" work that takes up the time... and it's fun "paper" work.... the decisions are truly interesting and meaningful. eg. if you time your forward supply base move wrongly then your Panzers will run out of fuel and will be sitting still for 4 or 5 days while your staff straightens things out and your Generals are yelling at you.  Great stuff!  :D

[spelk]

The Flare Path has a nice interview with Victor and Cameron on DC:B design..

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/12/04/the-flare-path-decisive-campaigns-barbarossa-interview/