From: ROBERT GAMBLE Subject: Comparison of OCS and East Front (GMT) I soon will be doing my own comparisons of these two systems, owning both 'Tunisia' by The Gamers, and 'Barbarossa: Army Group South' by GMT. I've heard good things about both systems, read both sets of rules, moved counters around, etc. I'm curious as to what players of both systems think regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the respective game systems. Checking 'The Gamers' page, I found it interesting that they have 'Army Group South' and 'Army Group Center' in development, meaning there would soon be an overlap of very similar scales regarding the same areas and time of WWII in the two most active game companies (at least as far as I can tell currently). Just based on a comparison 'from memory' as it were, these seem to be some of the differences between the two systems, and not necessarily hugely important ones: 1) Supply: I have a feeling this is a big one. From what I can tell, supply is represented much more abstractly in the GMT series, but still plays a huge role, whereas in the OCS series the supply 'game' is almost equal to the combat elements. Whereas in the GMT series, you have more of a 'traditional' approach to supply lines, in OCS you have the actual units of the Supply Line to maneuver into position to support attacks and defend with. For those who have played both, is the additional complexity of the supply game in OCS worth it? Has anyone ever tried 'team' play, not of two different parts of the army geographically, but one person controlling the supply elements and one person running the combat? To me this seems like it could be quite fun... and frustrating. This is just a random idea that hit as I was writing this, and maybe I need more caffeine, but if the Supply Officer and the Field General were permitted to discuss the situation and plans at the start of each turn for a specified length of time, and after that point no communication permitted, it seems like it could be an interesting variant. 2) Air war: Again, it seems that OCS ups the complexity of the airpower element over the East Front series. More options and interactions possible. 3) ZOC: OCS has no ZOC (although there may be the equivalent of very weak ones if I recall). East Front seems more traditional. Seems like this might make minor errors in placing troops much more deadly in OCS. I'd imagine most wargamers can set a 'screen' as a defense of sorts in their sleep, and even if they don't have the exact units where they should be, at least one misplaced unit won't lead to a potential supply cutting disaster in one turn (though with the motorized movement phase in East Front, it could still happen I suppose). 4) Fog of War/Intelligence: OCS simulates fog of war by allowing only the top unit of each stack to be seen. A very nice idea in my mind, and certainly adding to the tenseness of any face to face game I'd imagine. By the same token, it takes away some from solitaire play since you know what's under the stacks. Admittedly, this means you're simply playing the game as you would a 'standard' wargame, but for some reason it now feels like 'cheating' at least to me. :) East Front simulates the fog of war and intelligence factors much less, though there are 'untried' Soviet Units that _neither_ side knows how effective they'll be until they're revealed. An interesting twist. To recap the differences as I see them without playing the games, it seems that East Front is more 'traditional' and therefore intuitive to a wargamer who's played other games before. It also seems to me that the aspects _outside_ the ground war proper, have been abstracted much more than in the OCS series (supply, the air war), thus making them supporting elements to the game. In OCS, it seems that Supply, and to a lesser extent the air war, can almost be viewed as games within the game. Is this a bad thing? I don't necessarily think so, but I do think it increases the complexity, if not in the rules then in the 'playing well curve' (as opposed to the learning curve). Any other opinions would be greatly appreciated before I dive into these two systems a bit more fully... And if anyone tries that supply/army division I suggested, please let me know the results, and if the friendship (assuming there was one between the two on the same side to begin with) remains intact. ;) Robert From: "Fitch, James D" Subject: RE: Comparison of OCS and East Front (GMT) I'll throw my two cents in here. > I soon will be doing my own comparisons of these two systems, owning both > 'Tunisia' by The Gamers, and 'Barbarossa: Army Group South' by GMT. > I own all of The Gamers' OCS series games and have just recently acquired Typhoon! in the EFS. I have read the rules, but my playing experience is small with the GMT series, so most of my comments will be coming fromthe OCS viewpoint. > Checking > 'The Gamers' page, I found it interesting that they have 'Army Group > South' > and 'Army Group Center' in development, meaning there would soon be an > overlap of very similar scales regarding the same areas and time of WWII > in > the two most active game companies (at least as far as I can tell > currently). > Actually, the first OCS game "Guderian's Blitzkrieg" overlaps with Typhoon! exactly. I have yet to do a close comparison of the two, but from first glance, the Typhoon! maps cover more area to the north and east of Moscow. When I get a chance to look at both games side by side in more detail, I'll post my thoughts on those two specifically. The physical components of both series are of high quality. The counters and maps are well done and very attractive when the game is setup. I find the info on them well organized and not difficult to read. The charts for both games are also well done. However, I personally do not care for setup cards such as GMT has. Overall you can't go wrong with either system in regards to their physical components. > Just based on a comparison 'from memory' as it were, these seem to be some > of the differences between the two systems, and not necessarily hugely > important ones: > > 1) Supply: > I think many players make too much of this in the OCS. It isn't as bad as they make it out to be. Both systems actually have similar supply systems. They both use a standard trace supply for the general supply state of the armies and have on map suplly points used for attack supply. The differenece is the degree of detail they put into the on map attack supply. The OCS requires more planning from a player but it is well worth it IMHO. The East Front games are a well done abstraction of many of things you find in OCS. In reagards to supply, the EFS is less complex, but still a good system, than OCS. However, the supply is hardly a game within a game for the OCS. With good planning, one does not spend the entire game pushing his supplies back and forth all over the map. > 2) Air war: Again, it seems that OCS ups the complexity of the airpower > element over the East Front series. More options and interactions > possible. > If there is a game within a game in the OCS it is here. Again, once the mechanics of the air war are learned, they become fairly intuitive. What the OCS air rules do is allow the player the opportunity to conduct an operational level air campaign. It's the only game I know of like this. Most games at this level choose the EFS path and treat the airpower abstractly. I very much prefer design for cause to design foe effect and this aspect of the OCS is one of its most distinguishing characteristics. I understand that GMT is considering adding some more optional complexity to their air system in future games. > 3) ZOC: OCS has no ZOC (although there may be the equivalent of very weak > ones > if I recall). > This takes some getting used to. Dean Essig has some very valid reasons for why he handled ZOCs as he did, and I believe he is correct. There are ZOCs in OCS, but they only effect wheeled vehicle movement (which includes supply trace). Foot and track mobile units ignore ZOCs for most cases. This does entail more planning and attention to detail, but after you become accustomed to the way things operate, it isn't such a big deal. Getting used to it, though, may take a while. > > > 4) Fog of War/Intelligence: OCS simulates fog of war by allowing only the > top unit of each stack to be seen. > There is far more FoW in OCS. This adds tremendously to the game and really makes for some anxious moments for both sides. The drawback is that after you have experienced this FoW in ftf play, trying to solitaire OCS games is nowhere near as enjoyable. It really takes a lot away from the gaming experience if you don't have the FoW present. This BTW is one of the main reasons I decided to give the EFS a try. Iwas looking for a well done game which was not simple, but better suited to solitaire play or when time constraints called for a less involved game than the OCS. > To recap the differences as I see them without playing the games, it seems > that East Front is more 'traditional' and therefore intuitive to a > wargamer > who's played other games before. > I would agree with you here. Had I not discovered the OCS, I would rate GMT's EFS at the top. In some areas (solitaire play, faster gameplay) it does surpass OCS. However, overall I think that OCS gets the slight edge. I think EFS is in between the OCS and the Gamers' Standard Combat Series in complexity, and as such it is one heck of a great system. There are many innovative concepts in the OCS which really make them stand out games. They are not your "traditional" hack and slash games. They require a high amount of planning, discipline and intellectual effort on the part of the players, but that effort is more than fairly rewarded. The bottom line is both series are great fun to play and offer many challenges to players. By focusing on the East Front, GMT's series will cover the entire Russian war much sooner than the OCS will. GMT has also stated that they fully intend to develop rules allowing the link up of several of the series games into larger campaigns. This is a huge draw in my book and I believe they will be able to pull it off successfully. > And if anyone tries that supply/army > division I suggested, > A better division would be army/ air commanders. There simply isn't enough in the supply area for a person to do. In the OCS games with a larger air force component, having a separate air commander to run an operational air campaign would probably be a viable option for team play. Doug Fitch From: "Francisco Ronco" Subject: RE: Comparison of OCS and East Front (GMT) Hi, Robert Gamble ask about gaming experience in these two games systems. OK, Iīve played both of them and I have a solid opinion about them. Robert was right about the classical aproach and resolution of GMTīs. I sincerely prefer OCS as it has very few rules -really, they are very simple and straightforward-, more posibilities (series rules allow mores games to be played without learning something more) and "realism" (ok, I know dice and cardboards are not equal to fire and steel; :). OCS is everything you have read about blitzkrieg. It puts everything on your hands! >1) Supply: I have a feeling this is a big one. From what I can tell, supply >is represented much more abstractly in the GMT series, but still plays a huge >role, whereas in the OCS series the supply 'game' is almost equal to the >combat elements. Whereas in the GMT series, you have more of a 'traditional' >approach to supply lines, in OCS you have the actual units of the Supply Line >to maneuver into position to support attacks and defend with. For those >who have played both, is the additional complexity of the supply game in >OCS worth it? Has anyone ever tried 'team' play, not of two different >parts of the army geographically, but one person controlling the supply >elements and one person running the combat? To me this seems like it could >be quite fun... and frustrating. This is just a random idea that hit as I >was writing this, and maybe I need more caffeine, but if the Supply Officer >and the Field General were permitted to discuss the situation and plans at >the start of each turn for a specified length of time, and after that point >no communication permitted, it seems like it could be an interesting variant. About the supply in OCS Iīd like to cite a book from Prf. Martin van Creveld: Supplying war (Cambrigde University Press). It studies campaings from S. XVII to WWII from the logistical point of view. Everything he says about WWII is put into effect with OCS. Your troops are capable of doing much more than you are capable of feeding or fueling them. So the war is fought against friends (supply assets and lines) and foes. Also the system rewards planning (stocking supplies and troops for your offensives) not simply moving units around the map. >2) Air war: Again, it seems that OCS ups the complexity of the airpower >element over the East Front series. More options and interactions possible. >3) ZOC: OCS has no ZOC (although there may be the equivalent of very weak ones >if I recall). East Front seems more traditional. Seems like this might make >minor errors in placing troops much more deadly in OCS. I'd imagine most >wargamers can set a 'screen' as a defense of sorts in their sleep, and even >if they don't have the exact units where they should be, at least one >misplaced unit won't lead to a potential supply cutting disaster in one >turn (though with the motorized movement phase in East Front, it could >still happen I suppose). Yes, this is one of OCS more shocking components. Iīve seen whole armies pocketed and destroyed because the troops werenīt well placed, bridges and mountain passes not covered. Also it reflects the flexibility of the front line. The system makes the front line to be just "in theory" as it can be moved back and for easily. A system (and Iīve played a lot of them) were ZOCīs block your mobility really is not very well suited for WWII mobile operations. >4) Fog of War/Intelligence: OCS simulates fog of war by allowing only the >top unit of each stack to be seen. A very nice idea in my mind, and certainly >adding to the tenseness of any face to face game I'd imagine. By the same >token, it takes away some from solitaire play since you know what's under >the stacks. Admittedly, this means you're simply playing the game as you >would a 'standard' wargame, but for some reason it now feels like 'cheating' >at least to me. :) East Front simulates the fog of war and intelligence >factors much less, though there are 'untried' Soviet Units that _neither_ >side knows how effective they'll be until they're revealed. An interesting >twist. Yes the FOW is very effective and make sense its weight during the course of the long campaings. >To recap the differences as I see them without playing the games, it seems >that East Front is more 'traditional' and therefore intuitive to a wargamer >who's played other games before. It also seems to me that the aspects >_outside_ the ground war proper, have been abstracted much more than in the >OCS series (supply, the air war), thus making them supporting elements to the >game. In OCS, it seems that Supply, and to a lesser extent the air war, can >almost be viewed as games within the game. Is this a bad thing? I don't >necessarily think so, but I do think it increases the complexity, if not in >the rules then in the 'playing well curve' (as opposed to the learning curve). Finally, some friends and I use to play OCS by teams (some games canīt be played in another way, I think, if you loves your sanity or have plenty of free time to play wargames). In EatG we usually play with teams of 3 or 4 guys per side. One of them manage the air force and supply lines and assets. He also is the "High Command" on his side and makes the plans and give instruccions to his "Front Comanders". In other situations (when not so many people rally to the colors) the so called "Hign Command" also has a section of the Front. Team play is fantastic for OCS, I think. We really enjoy it very much. Best Regards. Francisco Ronco Sevilla Spain. From: robert lindsay Subject: Re: Comparison of OCS and East Front (GMT) ROBERT GAMBLE wrote: > > I soon will be doing my own comparisons of these two systems, owning both > 'Tunisia' by The Gamers, and 'Barbarossa: Army Group South' by GMT. I've > heard good things about both systems, read both sets of rules, moved counters > around, etc. I'm curious as to what players of both systems think regarding > the strengths and weaknesses of the respective game systems. Checking > 'The Gamers' page, I found it interesting that they have 'Army Group South' > and 'Army Group Center' in development, meaning there would soon be an > overlap of very similar scales regarding the same areas and time of WWII in > the two most active game companies (at least as far as I can tell currently). > Another difference is the the the different command control ascpects. In The Barbie series, their is a different sequence of play for the sovs and the germs. The OCS series reflects this more through the morale ratings of each sides units, since the sequence of play is the same for both sides. -- Robert Lindsay, NASA - Goddard, Greenbelt MD rlindsay@seadas.gsfc.nasa.gov #include Should we talk about the weather? -REM "I mean, if you're scared of NASA, that's like being afraid of wax paper." - James "Kibo" Parry, USENET, Jan 30, 1999