Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I'm not sure there's much difference between the AI in the last two games. The reason you would want Barbarossa lies elsewhere. The scale is different (one unit to a division with many functions handled abstractly) because you're cast in the role of the Theater commander. But Barbarossa is a one-of-a-kind experience that redefines what a wargame is supposed to be. Counter-shuffling is only half the exercise: the other half is managing unruly and cantankerous subordinates, superiors, and equals of ambiguous authority, and trying to orchestrate the invasion of Russia (or the defense and eventual counter-offensive) in some kind of semi-coherent whole.
DC3 leans heavily on decisions and cards, but is actually a more simplified game, whereas DC1 and DC2 offer more control and strategy - including air and sea components.
After a third bug stopped DC3 game - I'm going to do another DC2 game.
The devs deserve some credit for the 2nd hotfix, but it is pretty bad that the 1st hotfix did not fix the issue. OTOH VR Designs as enough credits to make such a boo boo.
To each his own, but up to now I have been more frustrated than anything else with the decision component of the game.