A modest proposal - Steel Division 2: Operation Bagration

[hellfish6]

Hi...

I was going to wait till the strike was over to send this, totally out of the blue, to Eugen Systems. Instead of sitting on it any longer, I made the decision to share it with y'all. I really enjoy Steel Division, though I recognize it can be improved upon. I think a new setting, where both sides are reasonably evenly matched, with new terrain, new gameplay features and new toys would be a great way to reintroduce the Steel Division series.

Please provide any constructive feedback.

The slides are posted on Google Docs here, with lots of pictures to keep you entertained (see below for some of them). I jimmied together a concept for a SP/MP/Coop dynamic campaign system (based on the ideas of Nigo here), as well as some example divisions and units to illustrate some possibilities. Horse cavalry included. It's not comprehensive, so if I'm missing something egregious, I apologize. Also advance apologies for any spelling, grammatical or translation errors.

If you're just gonna shit on SD, Eugen, or whatever, please don't bother. It's not constructive and nothing we haven't all heard before. Starcraft is perfectly balanced. Have at it.

 

[Yung Rommel]

I think eastern front is a really good idea, and it would probably do very well financially because Russian people seem to eat stuff like that up on Steam. (and the opposite effect is true, look at coh2.)

Your division idea looks really good, but I think the income curve is a little heavily weighted to the start. I think that desant infantry would be really fun too, but you'd have to differentiate between the different vehicles. (t-34 desant?)

can you do an ostheer BG as an example? its cool seeing possible future of the best strategy/historical game out

 

[Destraex]

A good idea for an expansion NOT a #2... I want to be able to play all sides from the current game with any new sides. Just as has been done in company of heroes.

 

[hellfish6]

I think eastern front is a really good idea, and it would probably do very well financially because Russian people seem to eat stuff like that up on Steam. (and the opposite effect is true, look at coh2.)

Your division idea looks really good, but I think the income curve is a little heavily weighted to the start. I think that desant infantry would be really fun too, but you'd have to differentiate between the different vehicles. (t-34 desant?)

can you do an ostheer BG as an example? its cool seeing possible future of the best strategy/historical game out

The income curve is reversed for the Soviets - they hit hard in the beginning, then taper off toward the end. I did this deliberately because the Soviets used an interesting tactic of Forward Detachments in WWII. These were basically smallish mixed tank and motorized infantry units organized for a specific mission that would move ahead of the main body of the Soviet forces as a kind of reconnaissance in force. Their mission was to punch through the initial defenses and exploit the weak spots in the enemy line, with the idea that the enemy would be forced to be unbalanced. They had just enough strength to cause havoc and pose a serious threat, but were small enough to move fast. There's a good US military paper on forward detachments here, though I'm sure a Russian will be along eventually to tell everyone how wrong it all is.

I posted some other Soviet division template BGs in the full Google Doc proposal here, including a Soviet cavalry division, a panzer division, a German sturm division, a Fester Platz, Partisans and a non-Guards Soviet tank corps. I didn't make anything for Soviet or German rifle/infantry divisions, but I certainly could.

And yes, desant infantry on a T-34. Almost all Soviet tank battalions had an SMG company as part of their organization, and they would ride to the battle on the tanks. These desantniks were to provide close infantry support to the tank they were assigned to, though some sources say late in the war that some Soviet Guards tank units had extra light armored vehicles (M3 scout cars or M5 halftracks) for the desantniks. If you're worried about too many tanks available to a Soviet player, than there are solutions to that (limit availability, or restrict tank-riding infantry to Phase A, etc.). You're basically just substituting a tank for a truck to carry infantry to the battle - the cost of the T-34 with the infantry riders would likely be expensive (tank cost + infantry cost), so you're not necessarily getting an exploit. W:RD's Israel DLC has Merkavas with infantry, IIRC.

A good idea for an expansion NOT a #2... I want to be able to play all sides from the current game with any new sides. Just as has been done in company of heroes.

That would be ideal, yes, but probably not economically feasible. But W:RD brought a lot of the forces and maps from earlier games into W:RD eventually (and for free, I think?)

 

[Yung Rommel]

The income curve is reversed for the Soviets - they hit hard in the beginning, then taper off toward the end. I did this deliberately because the Soviets used an interesting tactic of Forward Detachments in WWII. These were basically smallish mixed tank and motorized infantry units organized for a specific mission that would move ahead of the main body of the Soviet forces as a kind of reconnaissance in force. Their mission was to punch through the initial defenses and exploit the weak spots in the enemy line, with the idea that the enemy would be forced to be unbalanced. They had just enough strength to cause havoc and pose a serious threat, but were small enough to move fast. There's a good US military paper on forward detachments here, though I'm sure a Russian will be along eventually to tell everyone how wrong it all is.

I posted some other Soviet division template BGs in the full Google Doc proposal here, including a Soviet cavalry division, a panzer division, a German sturm division, a Fester Platz, Partisans and a non-Guards Soviet tank corps. I didn't make anything for Soviet or German rifle/infantry divisions, but I certainly could.

And yes, desant infantry on a T-34. Almost all Soviet tank battalions had an SMG company as part of their organization, and they would ride to the battle on the tanks. These desantniks were to provide close infantry support to the tank they were assigned to, though some sources say late in the war that some Soviet Guards tank units had extra light armored vehicles (M3 scout cars or M5 halftracks) for the desantniks. If you're worried about too many tanks available to a Soviet player, than there are solutions to that (limit availability, or restrict tank-riding infantry to Phase A, etc.). You're basically just substituting a tank for a truck to carry infantry to the battle - the cost of the T-34 with the infantry riders would likely be expensive (tank cost + infantry cost), so you're not necessarily getting an exploit. W:RD's Israel DLC has Merkavas with infantry, IIRC.



That would be ideal, yes, but probably not economically feasible. But W:RD brought a lot of the forces and maps from earlier games into W:RD eventually (and for free, I think?)

I support everything you're saying, but you misunderstand my original desant comment. (did not know that about forward detachments, lol)

How would you differentiate a T34 infantry rides on from one that comes in the tank tab?

 

[Alex646]

This is amazingly good presentation. I hope devs will notice this.

 

[hellfish6]

I support everything you're saying, but you misunderstand my original desant comment. (did not know that about forward detachments, lol)

How would you differentiate a T34 infantry rides on from one that comes in the tank tab?

Ah, sorry. I'd keep them in the infantry tab for simplicity sake, with regular T-34s in the tank tab. SD seems to separate everything by role - hence you might get recon versions of one vehicle in the recon tab, but the otherwise same vehicle in the support tab (like the recon M8 Greyhound vs M8 Cavalry vs M8 Command). In this case, the role of the T-34 is to carry the infantry to the battle, then to be a tank. If you want a T-34 without the infantry, you go to the tank tab.

I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, of course, but this makes the most sense to me without having sat in on Eugen's internal discussions.

 

[DuroSVK]

Yes, absolutely agree!
Operation Bagration is the only logical expansion that makes sense, if we want to bring new players but also keep old in game as well.
It wont be needed to extend the timeline and current divisions will be playable as well

 

[Red Army]

I think eastern front is a really good idea, and it would probably do very well financially because Russian people seem to eat stuff like that up on Steam. (and the opposite effect is true, look at coh2.)

The problem with catering to the Russian market for games is that you need 4 people from the CIS region to buy a game to match the revenue from a single purchase in America or Europe. It's not good business sense.

 

[DuroSVK]

The problem with catering to the Russian market for games is that you need 4 people from the CIS region to buy a game to match the revenue from a single purchase in America or Europe. It's not good business sense.

what is CIS region?

 

[Red Army]

what is CIS region?

Commonwealth of Independent States region. Effectively Russia and some of the bits of the former soviet union.

 

[vonLuck]

Good presentation however I'm leery of an armored battle group with a high phase A/B income and the toys to spend it on. 2 Shermans/M10's/Panzer IV's are already a disruptive force in games. Allowing for an even more explosive phase A just seems like power creep taken to it's next logical step. As for the Eastern front it would make the game more inclusive following in the footsteps of Wargame. Hard to say how it would affect the bottom line but including more Euro states is one of my theories to Wargame's comparative success.

von Luck

 

[DuroSVK]

Commonwealth of Independent States region. Effectively Russia and some of the bits of the former soviet union.

Thank you.
Thats right, but I know a lot of ppl living in central Europe that only thing preventing them from buying is absence of Soviet Union in game. And price of this game in Slovakia is same as in France.
Those might be a quite rusophilic reasons, but lets not talk about that...
Besides that, remember that smaller sales are better than no sales. And increase of popularity is honestly priceless

 

[hellfish6]

Good presentation however I'm leery of an armored battle group with a high phase A/B income and the toys to spend it on. 2 Shermans/M10's/Panzer IV's are already a disruptive force in games. Allowing for an even more explosive phase A just seems like power creep taken to it's next logical step. As for the Eastern front it would make the game more inclusive following in the footsteps of Wargame. Hard to say how it would affect the bottom line but including more Euro states is one of my theories to Wargame's comparative success.

von Luck

That's a totally fair consideration. My intent was to make the Soviets feel a little different, because they fought different and i'm not totally sure it will work in the SD ecosystem. Some adjustments will definitely have to be given to the Germans - maybe allowing more anti-tank cards in Phase A (panzers were generally held in reserve for counterattacks, so phase B and C as we have now). The Phase C fight for this Soviet force would be tough, I imagine, especially if they take serious losses in A and B or are unable to take enough of the map. And especially if much of their heaviest stuff (IS-2, ISU-122/152s) come in Phase C. This would take some testing to see if it's viable... if I can ever figure out how to mod the game, I might try to create a US armored division that acts like what this Soviet force would be capable of and see how it does. But overall I think the concept is promising.

 

[vonLuck]

It's an interesting prospect that would need to see some changes to the current game to be balanced. I'm not against creative use of the phase system but in the context of SD44 as it is today that's highly controversial. We'll have to see what if anything follows SD44. Eugen traditionally had a fast release cycle on its games and expansions so I imagine we should be hearing rumblings of what's next soon - hopefully.

von Luck

 

[hellfish6]

It's an interesting prospect that would need to see some changes to the current game to be balanced. I'm not against creative use of the phase system but in the context of SD44 as it is today that's highly controversial. We'll have to see what if anything follows SD44. Eugen traditionally had a fast release cycle on its games and expansions so I imagine we should be hearing rumblings of what's next soon - hopefully.

von Luck

Yeah, to be honest half the battles I fight lately are with the "Straight to the fight" mod. Just something a little different. That said, I do like the phase system for simple skirmishes. I'm never opposed to more variety.

 

[EUG_MadMat]

Not that much a "modest" proposal ... seems more like a full revamp.

I see someone has been playing FoW's Firestorm campaign a bit too much.

 

[Nerdfish]

Awesome proposal !
One minor issue ... A 122mm gun on a 250 pt tank ? Heresy !

 

[hellfish6]

Awesome proposal !
One minor issue ... A 122mm gun on a 250 pt tank ? Heresy !

Too cheap? I don't think it's as well armed and armored as a King Tiger and I think the Tiger E is 240 points...

Not that much a "modest" proposal ... seems more like a full revamp.

I see someone has been playing FoW's Firestorm campaign a bit too much.

Heh, I didn't actually know what that was when I started throwing this all together. I'd always thought an East Front game would be cool for SD, and about a month ago I read Harrison's translation of the Soviet General Staff's Bagration AAR and thought to visualize what I had in my head for SD. Only when I started looking for pictures of stuff did I realize that all these pictures I was finding on obscure stuff was from Flames of War. They also had an nifty regional map of the campaign area, while trying to find any historical maps was like pulling teeth.

Unfortunately, I don't live a life nearly stable enough to have miniatures, and besides that, SD:Normandy plays well on my laptop.

I realize y'all are probably in the advanced stages of whatever title you're putting out next, so I thank you for taking a gander at this and look forward to whatever comes down the road.

 

[Tank Hunter]

There are a number of directions that the game can go, based on the various theatres. I would be just as happy if they moved on to Market Garden and Bulge, before moving across to the Eastern front. Of course, they could also do earlier periods (France 40, North Africa, Italy, etc).

CC: ABTF was a classic, and that campaign could be done using SD and some really large, long maps.