Finished up Barbarossa a couple of nights ago. I generally enjoyed the game a lot.
Highs:
New units. New Troops. New effects (damaged tanks etc)
The scenarios are all pretty fun. Playing to the Achievements helps make the game more difficult.
Enjoyed the "Stalin's Organs" even though I WAS on the recieving end.
I like the fact that there are campaigns for both sides so you get to play the Russians and Germans. This is sorely missed in BA1 when you don't have the opertunity to play the Italians or French...at least without making your own scenario.
Lows:
The scenario set is pretty easy. Perhaps my experience with BA1 has something to do with it. I wonder what a complete novice would think?
The enemy troops maneuvered ok but on hard they were a bit sluggish at times when it made more sense to rush.
I did not see AI tanks go completely unsupported when it didn't make sense. (an observation from someone in another post) Now I have not been in a city fight yet either.
Last edited by acarhj on Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I share your analysis. The game felt pretty easy compare to Sicily or Arnhem. The problem is how do you scale for a new player and for an experienced palyer AND stay true to the historical difficulty (I rather go to this one). I do think though thatthe AI is still to timid in attack.
My friend and I have completed this campaign as co-op (so maybe that changes the experience). He's more experienced/familiar with turn-based tactical war games (my turn-based game experience is more strategic like Koei's games back in the day (I still love Operation: Europe!) or games like Age of Wonders or Total War which have different scales and dynamics) from his love and experience with board games.
I found it a bit difficult depending on what troops I got (I seem to be far better in tank battles than infantry battles for some reason, and he's the reverse), and of course, how much bad luck we experienced. For example, in the scenario Near Disaster, the first time my friend and I played this, he lost BOTH 88's within about 3 turns. That put him in dire straits and I had to win the tank battle to keep us in the game. Luckily, I was able to do so (it was tense trying to deal with the tanks watching the Soviet flank and drive down to help save the south).
He played that same scenario with another one of his buddies and it was a cakewalk because his 88's ripped up the advance forces.
I think that's part of the difficulty troubles. If it's harder, not only will newbies and "sorta-kinda" newbies like me (not unfamiliar with tactical games, per se, but not the usual format/scale I play) find it too tough, if you get RNG-screwed, you're done. However, for vets and tactical studs, if they get RNG-blessed, it will seem boring and too easy.
That said, the AI could use some aggression training/VP awareness in some situations. In the Know When to Disobey scenario (first one in the Kharkov campaign), we should have lost, the AI REFUSED to take the bridge VP I was holding (I held but got wiped out eventually). Instead, the AI...I don't know what it was doing, but the VP was literally RIGHT THERE, and they didn't take it.
VR_Nocturne wrote:
I think that's part of the difficulty troubles. If it's harder, not only will newbies and "sorta-kinda" newbies like me (not unfamiliar with tactical games, per se, but not the usual format/scale I play) find it too tough, if you get RNG-screwed, you're done. However, for vets and tactical studs, if they get RNG-blessed, it will seem boring and too easy.
That said, the AI could use some aggression training/VP awareness in some situations. In the Know When to Disobey scenario (first one in the Kharkov campaign), we should have lost, the AI REFUSED to take the bridge VP I was holding (I held but got wiped out eventually). Instead, the AI...I don't know what it was doing, but the VP was literally RIGHT THERE, and they didn't take it.
I agree with both. The latter is really the more problematic. The VP system favor sneak taking of objective what player knows very well how to abuse and the IA has no clue to how even take a point. I think that an area system will help (to take an objectif you need to be alone in a 3x3 square center on the flag for example, for house could be different). The former is somewhat what war is about, if thing goes well it is nice but you should be prepare for things going awfull. May be the easy difficulty shouldn't be that the game is easier but that you get reinforcement if you lose key unit. This way veteran player will enjoy the game with the unit intended and beginners could have a one time save me card.
Yet to play it yet, Mac user, but I wonder how much the historical accuracy of that opening phase was taken into account. The German Army really only met resistance they didn't overcome relatively quickly around Minsk and Smolensk, until they got to Moscow. The counter attacks the Soviets did manage to piece together, including Smolensk, are almost dictionary definitions of how to waste men and materials in combat.
I will have to disagree. If on the operationnal level you might be right, on the tactical level the fight where tense and the german lost lots of soldiers (actually too many). The scenario require mostly you make perfect victory with your troops which is a bit harder. They mostly take minor engagement that were tough for the germans and some for Moscow , which were hard in the first place.
I like the idea of VP's being controlled or disputed. Control if you are within X tiles of them and no enemy presence and disputed if both with X tiles.
I'll add this to the wish list as it will probably help the AI.
Just to chip in, I think Coop mode is harder, but that might just be the way I stepped into the game. Initially I was involve in the versus testing, so I knew the basics, then I played through the Coop mode which we found quite hard, as you have to support each other well, and now I am playing through the single player, which is easier as I now know the game well, know the maps and control all the units. Strangely Near Disaster is a prime example I would use, as we played this Coop map 3 times for testing purposes: the first I had the 88s, and I place them into two houses and they killed almost everything sent against them. The second time, I had the tanks to the north, and the 88s died early (killed with the first shot they each took) and it was much harder. So the initial part of that map does seem to be very dependent on the 88s.
Again with Know When to Disobey on Coop I had the bridges and I lost the AT guns early (again think I lost 3 guns each with one hit), and my bridges were quickly overrun. The AI paused on one where my Panzershrecks fought back slightly, but I didn't find they held back on taking the VPs (although I wish they had).
Skanvak wrote:The former is somewhat what war is about, if thing goes well it is nice but you should be prepare for things going awfull. May be the easy difficulty shouldn't be that the game is easier but that you get reinforcement if you lose key unit. This way veteran player will enjoy the game with the unit intended and beginners could have a one time save me card.
The problem is you really can't prepare for getting RNG screwed. I mean on the co-op mission my friend and I are playing now (Crossing the River) the AI got 4 kills, all at the attacking unit's max range and in the open. What can do you about that? You can't prepare for something like that, especially when it's a very low probability event.
Or with Near Disaster and the 88's dying fast. What are you supposed to do when that player's position is dependent on them by mission design and they get wiped quickly even if in houses (best cover you can hope for and get ambush rolls)?
Plus, if it's not your turn, there's nothing you CAN do to deal with it.
Yep somewhat war is hell ; this is murphy's law and complaining about it will solve nothing. What I would do is reorganized, eventually fall back to prepare another position, send reinforcement to the other player next turn. If I don't have the 88's I switch to an ambush tactics with the infantry. And yes, sometime, you will lose even with the best plan, again that's war. For veteran wargamer this is a perfectly acceptable outcome (and even I rolled over Barbarrossa with 80% of the star on first run).
My solution was conditional reinforcement on easy level. If you lose the 88's you will get another one with a truck for example (but only if you lose both quickly). This will solved people having really bad luck (but this mean no challenge for a veteran wargamer that why this should be limited to lower difficulty level).
The co-op aspect is harder because you need to coordinate with the other especially when one is doing better than the other. The require training. You seem to thing that co-op mean that each people fight their half of the scenario, I have yet to try, but that cannot really be the case, you are playing as a team so helping each other or coordinating pppincer attack is all part of it.
Skanvak wrote:Yep somewhat war is hell ; this is murphy's law and complaining about it will solve nothing. What I would do is reorganized, eventually fall back to prepare another position, send reinforcement to the other player next turn. If I don't have the 88's I switch to an ambush tactics with the infantry. And yes, sometime, you will lose even with the best plan, again that's war. For veteran wargamer this is a perfectly acceptable outcome (and even I rolled over Barbarrossa with 80% of the star on first run).
Right. That's all good and all but if were are going by that line of logic then 88 should be firing from 20 squares away because the recon unit is spotting the incoming tanks and radioing it in. Also I never seen BT-7s survive that many hits from such a high caliber before in my life. This is a gamey game and as such murphy's law need to be in check a bit more. As it is the dice are simply too wild in the game at present.
What I find is that when you are prepared for casualties you don't take them. When you are not you do. Obviously its not true but its how you feel as when you are prepared your attack continues uninterrupted.
Don't push forwards in small packets. Don;t take unnecessary risks. Make sure if the unit you move forward gets hit you have the firepower to take out whatever hit it or at least suppress it.
These type of games are all about contingency planning. What happens if the enemy gets luck - make sure you have a plan to deal with it. However you have to balance that with being overcautious and not achieving your objectives and not being in a position to exploit it when you get lucky yourself. Each individual shot is a single roll of the die so anything can happen and sometimes it will. It might even happen twice in a row, but the luck will average out and you just have to be prepared to deal with the fallout.
