The Eastern Front

[CanuckGamer]

I have had War on the Southern Front for years and found it very bland so only played it for a short time. WDS should release one on the eastern front in WW2 and make some changes to the game system and graphics so that the Strategic War series games are more interesting to play.

[Dion]

An update is in the near future. Among other topics, you can read all about it here: https://wargameds.com/blogs/news/news-shorts and here: https://wargameds.com/blogs/news/2024-q ... one-update

As far as I know, a release date hasn't been announced.

[Zemke]

I am with CanuckGamer on this 100%. If this series was brought up to at least War in the East 2 interface standards / ease of use, but at this scale it would crush the market, IMHO.

[Dion]

Regardless, love this scale. Can't wait.

[TrackTrailTom]

I have had War on the Southern Front for years and found it very bland so only played it for a short time. WDS should release one on the eastern front in WW2 and make some changes to the game system and graphics so that the Strategic War series games are more interesting to play.

Agreeing with what Zemke said, if the series could get up to par with the interface standards of something like War in the East 2, it could really make a mark. Looks like there might be some updates coming, but we’ll have to wait and see how far they go with them.

[CanuckGamer]

Looking at the second link that Dion posted, specifically the screenshot of what looks like the start of the 1940 invasion of France, I it doe have a more "boardgame" look and feel. However in my opinion there are too many units so either or both the scale of the map and unit sizes should be revised to make it more "playable". When I say playable, I don't want to be moving hundreds of units each move so that I can focus on strategy and tactics.
I have a number of Panzer Campaign games such as Stalingrad, Kursk, Normandy and Bulge. I like to play full campaign scenarios but it becomes quite daunting for example when you open up the Wacht scenario. It is 162 turns and if you play the Germans there are hundreds of units to move right at the start. I've been a board wargamer back to the days of Avalon Hill and there was a period when monster games such as the one produced by SPI were popular. My friends and I played some of them like Terrible Swift Sword, Wacht am Rhein, Atlantic Wall and The Longest Day. We had anywhere from 4 to 6 players so that each player could command a reasonable number of units.
A lot of the games from WDS are similar to those monster games. It is preferable to be able to complete campaign scenarios in a reasonable time so you can play them again with a different strategy. That is one of my hopes for the updated so called Strategic War series which to me is more like monster operational scale games.

[Dion]

Looking at the second link that Dion posted, specifically the screenshot of what looks like the start of the 1940 invasion of France, I it doe have a more "boardgame" look and feel. However in my opinion there are too many units so either or both the scale of the map and unit sizes should be revised to make it more "playable". When I say playable, I don't want to be moving hundreds of units each move so that I can focus on strategy and tactics.
I have a number of Panzer Campaign games such as Stalingrad, Kursk, Normandy and Bulge. I like to play full campaign scenarios but it becomes quite daunting for example when you open up the Wacht scenario. It is 162 turns and if you play the Germans there are hundreds of units to move right at the start. I've been a board wargamer back to the days of Avalon Hill and there was a period when monster games such as the one produced by SPI were popular. My friends and I played some of them like Terrible Swift Sword, Wacht am Rhein, Atlantic Wall and The Longest Day. We had anywhere from 4 to 6 players so that each player could command a reasonable number of units.
A lot of the games from WDS are similar to those monster games. It is preferable to be able to complete campaign scenarios in a reasonable time so you can play them again with a different strategy. That is one of my hopes for the updated so called Strategic War series which to me is more like monster operational scale games.

I agree, I will add, I feel some units should have an extended zone of control that extends out some distance and some units shouldn't have any zone of control. For instance a division sized unit should have a zone of control multiplier because of all the inherent units it has, extending out two or three hexes. This would make the game more strategically inclined.

As long as it's historically accurate, I, like you, think it's imperative that strategy should be a priority, not operations. Don't get me wrong, I think operations are more fun to game, but at this scale strategy is more important, in fact it's the name of the game.

[Dion]

Operations Barbarossa and Bagration in one title on one map. Unique. Can't wait.

On the other hand, the Soviet Union is a pretty big land mass, so we might have to play it on more than one map. Only time will tell for sure.