Originally Posted By JaguarUSF (17 JUL 2012 7:49pm)

Originally Posted By Hartford688 (17 JUL 2012 5:23pm)

My big concern on it is whether scenarios are too big, with too much moving hundreds of units

 

They are

There are two smaller scenarios but no medium-sized ones where you get a couple of armies in one corner of the map. Maybe people will solve that problem with the editor.

I took a video of the game which is encoding right now and I'll upload it tomorrow morning and link to it here. I'm deep in Uranus at the moment.

 

 

Big is a relative thing

But there is also the "1st Panzer Army" linked-scenario campaign which was especially designed for people who dislike pushing to many counters around. I am not sure if you overlooked it or that it wasn't included in any possible preview version you might have.

Best regards,

Vic

Originally Posted By JaguarUSF (17 JUL 2012 7:49pm)
 I'm deep in Uranus at the moment.

Originally Posted By Hartford688 (17 JUL 2012 11:48pm)

It is the "slowly" that bothers me.

On the big scenarios, it takes me about 20-30 minutes to submit a turn, so it's not terrible.

Originally Posted By Vic (18 JUL 2012 2:41am)

But there is also the "1st Panzer Army" linked-scenario campaign which was especially designed for people who dislike pushing to many counters around. I am not sure if you overlooked it or that it wasn't included in any possible preview version you might have.

That's next on my agenda after I am through with Uranus.

Originally Posted By JaguarUSF (18 JUL 2012 5:57am)

 

That's next on my agenda after I am through with Uranus.

 

 

You could have at least bought dinner first.

Video time!

What's the best small scenario to begin with?

Originally Posted By Killjoy12 (18 JUL 2012 8:35am)

What's the best small scenario to begin with?

The two small scenarios are basically the same (2nd Kharkov and Voronezh). After you do one of those, move on to either of the short variants of the bigger ones (Uranus or Case Blue).

Its interesting to see somebody else playing the game on video. I am thinking about making this mandatory for beta testers

I enjoyed watching you play the game. I am not going to discuss your judgement and review remarks since that would be inappropriate. I make games, you review them.  I like to keep it that way.  But i would like to give two pieces of advice for easier play, based upon watching you play in the video.

1.  Use the hotkeys. The keys 'M', 'A' and 'SPACE' and 'ESC' are your biggest friend ever in this game.

This way you can select a unit on the map and then instead of moving the mouse again, just press 'M', then click the target hex (quite near it). If you want to abort the move you can press 'ESC' or 'SPACE' and select a different unit instead and repeat the process.

With attack. You select a hex, and leave the mouse for what it is and then press 'A'. the attack is then initiated. Then start clicking on units in the surrounding hexes and if you want a selected unit to join press 'SPACE' and 'SPACE' again to unjoin it. 'ESC' to break off the attack, for launching the attack you still have to click the attack button with the mouse though.

Maybe u knew this already and didnt use them to make the viewer of the video better understand what is going on. In that case consider this remark meant for the other readers.

2. Use NATO graphics.

It might take some while to get used too but i think its easier to play the game with the 'nato' graphics on since it will allow you to see which regiments belong to which division and this will make it much easier to keep them together (and get battle bonusses) and move them more easily using group move order.

Thats all! Feel free to ignore my advice though and play whatever way makes it work for you

Best,

Vic

@James, nice video overview!

One thing to note, to get the max out of your troops attacking, you need to pay attention to the stack limits when weighing up the participants. If you match or go over the stack limits a bit, you'll be pretty much hitting them efficiently without much in the way of detrimental effects. If you can hit from more sides you'll get concentric bonuses, and if you can hit with the same division, you'll get divisional bonuses applied. All good sauce.

If you overstack, however, you'll take a lot more losses, simply because you're piling masses of your own troops into the fight, and they'll hinder each other, and will be mowed down in droves. So with some planning, you can spread the load along a front, and still do effective damage, with minimal casualties.. whereas if you pile a bucketload in all at once, you'll often be wasting troops and further opportunities.. I realise this sort of thing requires a bit more micro-management, which is probably not what you want on the Eastern Front... but it could pay out if the game is touch and go.

@Vic, is the original Decisive Campaigns game going to get an update to bring it up to the standard of Case Blue, including the PBEM++, if so is it a long way away, if not, is it even possible to do? 

Originally Posted By Vic (18 JUL 2012 9:48am)

I am not going to discuss your judgement and review remarks since that would be inappropriate.

 

1.  Use the hotkeys. The keys 'M', 'A' and 'SPACE' and 'ESC' are your biggest friend ever in this game.

 

2. Use NATO graphics.

 

0. Feel free to critique my critiques and defend your game

1. I do use hotkeys, but as you surmised, I used the mouse for the video.

2. Yeah, but I really like the overall strength numbers.

EDIT: Dang it, you're right: NATO is way better.

Originally Posted By spelk (18 JUL 2012 11:41am)

@James, nice video overview!

 

One thing to note, to get the max out of your troops attacking, you need to pay attention to the stack limits

Thanks, and that must have been something I missed in the manual. So you want it as close to the /100 as possible, then?

Originally Posted By JaguarUSF (18 JUL 2012 1:54pm)

Thanks, and that must have been something I missed in the manual. So you want it as close to the /100 as possible, then?

Yeah, or a bit over, just to make sure.. 

Theres a very good detailed combat example here, done by our very own Barthheart, on the first DC game.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2561038

He specifically mentions and explains the stacking limits

With reference to Artillery strikes..

Originally Posted By Barthheart

To make the bombardment, select the target unit, click the bombard icon, small canon icon, then assign artillery units to the attack. 

Notice in the yellow circle is “Stack Points”. This is a measure of the amount of ordinance targeting the hex. If you assign more than 100 points worth of artillery to any one attack you will get diminishing returns and means that you’ve wasted some artillery better used elsewhere. This helps avoid huge stacks of artillery destroying whole divisions by themselves. 

And with reference to Ground Attacks

Originally Posted By Barthheart

To make the attack select the target unit again, click the land attack button and then select all the adjacent units you want to attack with. 

Again stack points limit the amount of effective fighting forces in this attack. If you have more than the number on the right you will still do more damage but you will take many more casualties yourself. 

The maximum stack value increases for each hex side above 2 that you attack across. So 1 or 2 hex sides it’s 100, 3 hex sides it’s 150, 4 is 200, 5 is 250 and 6 is 300. This simulates the congestion on the battle field. 

Also notice the Concentric Bonus for attacking from more than 1 hex side and the Division Bonus for having more than 1 part of a division adjacent to the target hex - doesn’t have to be involved in the combat just next to the target. 

Then goes on to explain it a little further...

Originally Posted By Barthheart

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz 
.... 
- but if i read you correct attackers should be aiming for a attack stack value of equal or just below the the def stack value 

No that's not quite it. The attack stack value is show as "xx/yy" where "xx" is the stacking points of all the attacking units and "yy" is the maximum stacking points before penalty. "xx" increases with each units added to teh attack while the only way to increase "yy" is to attack for more than 2 sides. 

The defending stack points doesn't figure into that. BUT if you have more than 100 stack points in a defneding hex it is consideered overstacked and they will suffer more casualties because of it. 

You can see if you are over stacking by selecting a hex and looking at the very top line of the main screen, top yellow circle in attached pic. This is the total stack points present in that hex. The lower yellow circle shows the stack points for the top unit in this stack. This is under the "Unit details" tab. 

 It's a very good post for newcomers to read, it certainly helped me a lot in coming to terms with the mechanics of combat.. it would at least explain the foundations for people just buying Case Blue.. 

Great video review, thanks

Downloading the game now, Vic gets my support every time! 

Btw, I can't wait to be balls up in Uranus. 

Originally Posted By JaguarUSF (18 JUL 2012 1:54pm)

Originally Posted By Vic (18 JUL 2012 9:48am)

I am not going to discuss your judgement and review remarks since that would be inappropriate.

 

1.  Use the hotkeys. The keys 'M', 'A' and 'SPACE' and 'ESC' are your biggest friend ever in this game.

 

2. Use NATO graphics.

 

 

0. Feel free to critique my critiques and defend your game

1. I do use hotkeys, but as you surmised, I used the mouse for the video.

2. Yeah, but I really like the overall strength numbers.

EDIT: Dang it, you're right: NATO is way better.

 

I wish you could re-program the hotkeys.. that way the right hand could stay on the mouse... I get lost hunting for the . and , with the left hand!!!..

Nato is always better! ;-)

Great game though!

Originally Posted By cmurphy (19 JUL 2012 4:16pm)

Nato is always better! ;-)

Nato symbols in DC depict the unit's historical designation instead of the actual unit composition.

This means you can get regiments that have the Armor NATO symbol but the elements inside are ART or INF just because they are part of an Armor Division. :/  This means you cannot determine the unit type accurately at a quick glance.  You need to check the other symbols on the right of the icon (or switch to silhouette icon) to know for sure.

Originally Posted By jomni (19 JUL 2012 7:08pm)

Originally Posted By cmurphy (19 JUL 2012 4:16pm)

Nato is always better! ;-)

 

Nato symbols in DC depict the unit's historical designation instead of the actual unit composition.

This means you can get regiments that have the Armor NATO symbol but the elements inside are ART or INF just because they are part of an Armor Division. :/  This means you cannot determine the unit type accurately at a quick glance.  You need to check the other symbols on the right of the icon (or switch to silhouette icon) to know for sure.

 

 

Can't say that I like this decision and it will surely be modded shortly. A fairly small issue in an outstanding game.

Agree with you Sol Invictus - the unit symbol should reflect the unit type not the division type.

Anyway, on another topic, I read this great AAR last night. It seems like since they played the short campaign that ends in August, they stopped right when it got really interesting - but still seems like a lot of fun. Great read.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/decisive-campaigns-case-blue-after-action-report.htm

Originally Posted By jjdenver (24 JUL 2012 7:20am)

Agree with you Sol Invictus - the unit symbol should reflect the unit type not the division type.

I think part of Vic's logic in having the regiments of divisions reflect the division symbol rather than regimental symbol is that it frankly makes it easier to keep track of exactly what assets belong to each division.  Because you also get army-level assets like independent artillery regiments, which do use the NATO artillery icon, it might make it hard to tell at a glance if one regiment is arty attached to a division or if it's independent if Vic's system is not used.  Also, the divisional arty regiments are clearly marked with the NATO dot for arty (as well as an "A" for arty), just as the panzer regiments of pz divisions are marked "PZ".  Anyway, I think Vic's system makes sense. But just my $0.02.

The unit info is definitely there on the counter but the NATO symbol is just so much more prominent. At higher resolutions the tiny "A" and "Pz" can easily get lost; especially on the SS units. Also the Corps Artillery assets don't have the large Divisional number at the top so the Artillery units are easy to keep straight. It is not a huge issue but it does require some eye-strain at times and more time glancing at a unit than I would like simply to identify what type it is. It should be instantly recognizeable.

Personally I like it the way it is. An infantry division is just that, we all know it will have an artillery component, thus its easy to locate. It will fight & be commanded as a division. Same with an armoured division & its armour, infantry & artillery components.

Its just a personal preference & I can also see the logic of the other view.

I guess the ideal solution would be an option allowing either/or, but of course I ain't programming it!

Originally Posted By phantom (24 JUL 2012 12:25pm)

Personally I like it the way it is. An infantry division is just that, we all know it will have an artillery component, thus its easy to locate. It will fight & be commanded as a division. Same with an armoured division & its armour, infantry & artillery components.

Its just a personal preference & I can also see the logic of the other view.

I guess the ideal solution would be an option allowing either/or, but of course I ain't programming it!

Either is ok really, not a big deal to me. I'm more concerned with fixing the mechanics that seem a little funny - that's a more important issue. There is a good thread about it on the Matrix AAR forum.

Review time!

I haven't played this one, but I played the first. The game system itself was good, but the number of units to manage was too much for me. I'm sure lots of people love the volume of units but for me it was too much. The color coded units by HQ seems like it should help somewhat.

Originally Posted By JaguarUSF (28 JUL 2012 5:49am)

Review time!

To each his own, of course, but the final 'grade' doesn't seem to square with the contents of the review, which overall seem quite positive and suggest a game that is better than a "C+" if indeed that's what 6/8 is meant to reflect.

Probably disagree with the map comments. I think a game map should be like incidental music in a film - if you notice it, they've got it wrong. The truly awful "Across the Dneipr" springs to mind.

I also think the universal comment is "more small scenarios", though hopefully the editor will address this. I just pray the game system doesn't go down the "bigger must be better" route, to appease the monster gamers who actually either never play the game, just marvel at the OOB, or have time to spend 13 hours in a darkened room pondering the next turn.