Praise for Small General: Eastern Front

2 Responses to Praise for Small General: Eastern Front

1. Nick2000 says:

   October 8, 2012 at 11:01 pm

   Yes, good game but needs the Luffwaffe, and maybe a few tweeks for the Soviets in the first few turns of the war. Stack attacks could be better instead of individual attacks that give really unrealistic results, combined arms results would be much better and more acuratly simulate armies attacking and defending. Even the so-called ‘shocked’ units stand up fairly well against massive assaults. Not very realistic IMHO. A better thing would be the ability to create your own scenarios. Asked for this I think in SG but really got no answer. Not trying to create an android version of ATG, but this certainly could be it.
   Still a good game to play, I can only imagine a Western Front version, Med/Africa version, and a Pacific War version coming around in the future.
2. jmkorhonen says:

   December 18, 2012 at 1:51 pm

   Thanks for an excellent game, although I almost feel I should be cursing you for stealing so much time from my PhD research :). I’ve been playing strategy games for 20 years now, but not since the original Civilization or Master of Orion I’ve been spending so much time with just one game (if we count the original Small General as well) – a job well done!

   In case you’re interested in updating the game, or plan on putting out versions to cover e.g. the Western Front or Africa (I sure hope you do!), here’s some suggestions that come to my mind – take it for what it’s worth! :)

   1. Could we please PLEASE get a play by e-mail version of Small General!!! This is exactly the type of game I’d love to play with my friends, and PBEM would make this the best multi-player strategy game for mobile devices I’ve tried so far.

   2. The combination of one HQ/Supply, the AI and Strategic movement is a bit broken. The Barbarossa campaign can be easily won by either side by May 1942 against AI++ opponent, by simply using strategic movement to reinforce the breakthrough’s spearhead and its recently captured supply lines, and I’ve never had a game that would last beyond 1943, even when I tried to take no risks when advancing. (My favourite axes of advance: from Kiev/Orsha line to Voronez if playing as Germans, and with the Soviets from Odessa/Kiev line towards Warsaw with a second AoA towards Bucharest to grab the oil and Belgrade, with 2-3 cavalry armies clearing a safe supply route over the mountains and enticing the enemy to fall back.) The AI fails to react adequately to major breakthroughs and also, especially when it’s controlling the Soviets, too often leaves cities 2 hexes away from the front completely unprotected (thus allowing me to make an armored dash for them once I break the line); this opens up largish gaps in AI lines, which it just doesn’t seem to want to plug, nor does it concentrate forces for a counterattack aimed at cutting my advance’s supply lines. Once I get my armor to open ground, it’s game over for the AI – just a question whether I win the game by May 1942, or does it take until June…

   There are several things that might be done to fix this: first, change the strategic movement so that you can use it only on hexes you’ve held for at least 1 turn. While my history is a bit shaky, I remember from somewhere that the rail lines were routinely devastated by retreating armies on both sides and had to be rebuilt, so this might even be historically accurate. Also, would prevent a tank army appearing from Siberia to the mountains next to Prague after a cavalry army happens to race by :).

   Second, have more HQ/Supply units. I think that major centers of industry like Stalingrad, Warsaw and perhaps Belgrade (to represent Italian supplies, for example) would very well have supply dumps as well. Also, in shorter scenarios which are artificially bounded, one could well have 2-3 HQ/Supply units on the edge of the map, representing e.g. the vital road & rail links.

   Third, if possible, tweak the AI to maybe even beat a strategic withdrawal on one sector if another has no defenses at all. Currently, the AI predictably keeps on beating its head against my screening forces in fortress Riga and Demyansk-Smolensk line and sending its panzers piecemeal, even while 4-6 tank corps or armies race northwest from Kiev to take Berlin and cut off the supply lines somewhere around Konigsberg. (It’s also battering its infantry bloody in the progress; it’s almost impossible to conquer a city that’s in supply once there are three infantry armies with at least one 2-star army in it, but it’s not stopping the AI from sending in wave after wave of infantry.)

   3. The AI is far too happy to send its armored (and other) units into rather obvious traps – doesn’t do a good job at protecting its supply lines OR advancing with sufficient frontage (2 or 3 hexes) to make encirclements difficult.

   4. Also, the AI should perhaps do a bit more to concentrate its forces and attacks, instead of attacking piecemeal and wasting its strength (particularly with infantry) in not so hopeful attacks.

   5. In general, the AI (perhaps historically, though) does not do strategic withdrawals, except from very obvious spots (i.e. supply line almost cut off).

   6. A small tweak – the Finnish corps have their name spelled wrong (“Finish”). Also, maybe confer them an immunity against the winter 1941/42? I seem to recall one “Winter War” for example :).

   I happen to think that the absence of air forces is not a biggie in this one, as their effects can be approximated otherwise (recon, initial Soviet shock, artillery, etc.), and having them would likely make this nice, simple classic a bit too complex, but having stack attacks with a small bonus might be nice. On the other hand, I very much like the simplicity as well!

   Thanks again, hope to have more Small General goodness in the future!